59200 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Eric Thanks for your post below in which I think you half concede that the general formulation given by the Buddha is not to be read as meaning that B necessarily occurs every time A does, but rather that A is a factor (one of many, perhaps) in the occurrence of B. J: When suffering is, faith is. >From the arising of suffering, faith arises. When suffering is not, faith is not. >From the ceasing of suffering, faith ceases. E: Seems pretty straight forward. You want to condense this to 'Suffering is a condition for faith.' OK, what is the big whoop? What is the big whoop? Well it means that the conditional relationship between any 2 factors could be anything from being an indirect support to being a direct cause. Now if we take an indirect support to be a direct cause, it could have implications for what we understand needs to be 'practice' ;-)) In our original sutta (the Upanisa Sutta) the conditional relationship is one of 'upanisa' = supporting condition/proximate cause (depending on which of the 2 Bhikkhu Bodhi versions you read). Now whatever this might mean, it is clearly something far short of a saying that whenever there is A there is B. E: Here is a pretty simple translation. Again, it is not 'MY' translation. http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut057.htm When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, that is not. From the ceasing of this, that ceases. In the article which you link here, the author distinguishes this formulation, which he calls 'Idappaccayata, Causality', from DO ('pa.ticca-samuppaada'). Now whether he is correct in doing so, I can't say, but he gives a couple of interesting examples of different conditional relationships: - Fuel is a condition for fire (but is not so in every case - i.e., only when ignited) - Fire is a condition for heat (and is so in every case) A variation on the first of these would be: - Firewood is a condition for fire (but then so is grass, kerosene or charcoal or any other kind of fuel) Again, the point is that without knowing in exactly what sense 2 given factors are linked we cannot appreciate the significance of the relationship. You may call it splitting hairs and avoiding the issue; I call it necessary analysis ;-)) Jon ericlonline wrote: >Hi Jon, > >... >Oh my god jon, you really are >splitting hairs with this post. > >... > > >Lets plug it into the whole law. > >When suffering is, faith is. >>From the arising of suffering, faith arises. >When suffering is not, faith is not. >>From the ceasing of suffering, faith ceases. > >Seems pretty straight forward. >You want to condense this to >'Suffering is a condition for faith.' >OK, what is the big whoop? > > > >... >I say you are splitting hairs. >You know what I have been saying >and now you are merely avoiding >the issue we have been talking >about all along. A more prudent >use of our time would be investigating >sentence 2 & 3 below i.e. WHY? > >When concentration is, insight is. >>From the arising of concentration, insight arises. >When concentration is not, insight is not. >>From the ceasing of concentration, insight ceases. > >metta > >E > > 59201 From: "sukinder" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:29am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sukinderpal Hi Herman, Sarah, All, It looks like no one has responded to this so far; I'd like to do it then. ================================= .... > S: Doesn't this disagree with your comment above about what many people > understand who've never heard the Buddha's teachings? Ah, you say, these > ten things refer to 'developed ......nibbana' and at the point of > enligtenment they need to hear the Buddha's teachings. The way I > understand this and other texts is that there can be no path whatsoever > outside the Buddha's teachings. There cannot even be the beginning of the > development of satipatthana. There cannot be any insight at all. That's > why all the great arahants, all the teachers who had attained the highest > jhanas and so on, all had to hear the Buddha in their final lives to > develop insights leading to enlightenment. > .... Herman: I think you sell the non-Indian world very short, Sarah. The following is from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 1:7-8); All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. Sukinder: I'm quite weak in this area of interpreting verse, so please would you give a commentary on this? ;-) Keep in mind though, the common practice of inadvertently projecting one's own understanding onto another's words. In this case, the interpretation of these words in terms of your own understanding got from reading Dhamma, propelled by the belief that the Buddha's insights are *not* so unique. I remember that you once mentioned Hume as being one who understood Anatta. Is it possible that this was because it coincided with your own yet vague understanding of the concept at the time? Also I would like to mention at this point that even Sariputta, before he heard the Dhamma from Ven. Assaji, no "right view" ever arose for him. In fact for the Buddha himself, Right View arose only moments before His enlightenment. Had He even had a brief 'idea' about conditionality, anatta, or the path of satipatthana, he would have become enlightened in less than a second. But His was the path of the Bodhisatta and not a Savaka. So do you suppose that Jesus, Shankara, Lao Tzu etc, that anyone of these were even close to being a Bodhisatta? ========================== Herman: There are a few people, from any culture, at any time, who do come to understand the reality of suffering, and the causes for it. And there are vast multitudes, from those same cultures, at any time, who remain totally oblivious to these realities. Sukinder: You mean that they understand the 1st and 2nd NTs? Is this possible without understanding kamma/vipaka? And can the understanding of this issue in the belief in a creator God, whether it be one which stands apart from or that which is part of his creation? I think it is precisely because of not understanding the 4NTs that from 'self view', other religions and philosophies are formed. ============================ Herman: You express enormous faith in the path of the Buddha, and claim some vicarious kudos because of the enlightenment of the Buddha and some of his contemporary followers. And rightly so, though there is no vicarious benefit in that fact. Sukinder: I think rather, that this confidence comes from correct understanding, even if weak. And this is certainly better than 'wrong understanding', one which then sees or tries to see similarities with other religions and philosophies. ============================ Herman: But what is the track record of recent millenia? Who, standing on the bedrock of the Abhidhamma, has come within a bull's roar of living up to the promise of the Buddha? Given that, what has gone wrong? Sukinder: Never mind about who and how many, track records are not going to change anyone's views. One reason that I grow in confidence about the Abhidhamma method is from hearing from those who don't value it, what I perceive to be wrong interpretation of the Dhamma. ;-) ============================= Herman: You say there can be no path outside the Buddha's teachings. I say that particular Abhidhamma based understandings of anatta render the notion of path meaningless, and all that is left is to wander ainlessly. Sukinder: :-) Metta, Sukinder 59202 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >Flip a coin and call it in the air. >Heads or tails? > > Now, Eric, there's no need to be flippant (flip-ant, get it?) >Heads, start your investigation with insight. >Tails, start your investigation with samatha. > >The coin nonetheless is one and you >cannot 'really' separate the two sides. > > And this interpretation of the teaching comes from which sutta? >But you can take impressions of each side >and separate them and make definitions and >posit this and that and whole systems of >thought and meditation. And factions grow >around the one sided image. On and on it goes. >That is what thought does, it divides and >multiplies! > >Unification of mind however is in the other >direction. It shuns one sided views with the >stilling of vicara and vitaka and unifies >samatha and vipassana. > > I think a rough paraphrase of the foregoing would be: "You haven't done what I've done, so how would you know". Am I getting warm? >(I see you cant help but sneak in commentary :-) ) > > On the contrary, I am one of those who sees the commentary material as being more worth discussing than individual views (I know we are in the minority, but that doesn't concern us), so I refer to commentary freely. It is only in rare cases, like my recent posts in our other thread, that I will refrain from doing so. Nice try, but I'm not going to back off in this thread ;-)). Jon 59203 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 7:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >>Herman in favour of warnings? I can hardly believe my eyes! >> >>Jon >> >> >======================= > LOLOL! It seems we all issue warnings from within our own bunkers! ;-) > > Yes, well said. And i would say that applies to your 'warning' to KenH about where his study of the teachings has taken him with regard to the Dhamma and being a Buddhist ;-)) > What is a happy aspect of this, though, is that, so far at least, it >seems to me that all the "warnings" we give are given out of metta and karuna. >That is, the warnings are all well meaning "cautionaries" aimed at helping our >friends avoid (what we see as) mistakes and, for the most part, not >assertions of "self". > > I'm sure that's true (and is particularly true of your good self, Howard). Thanks for pointing this out, very helpful when things get a little edgy. Jon 59204 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 8:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >As I have come to see things (I am not mocking you by using the selfsame >line as you, it's just another rhetorical device to bolster my case :-)), >akusala is natural and kusala is not. It ought not to surprise anyone that >the world abounds in akusala because akusala is whatever leads to becoming. >What leads to becoming leads to becoming, it does not lead to cessation. In >the same way, it ought to surprise noone that kusala is poorly represented >in the statistics, because kusala leads to cessation, and that's what it >does, and having ceased it's gone. > > Well indeed there is a lot more akusala than kusala, a point that is often made here. But why does that mean that aksuala is natural, kusala not? And where does it leave the sense-door experiences which are neither kusala nor aksuala (being vipaka, they are indeterminate)? >Everything in all our existences is geared for more becoming, Jon, and >waiting for spontaneous renunciation and seclusion whilst busily pursuing >sensuality is not exactly what the Buddha had in mind when he said that his >teachings go against the flow. Although I must admit that your plan is >pretty out there :-) > > Straw man, Herman! I have never talked about waiting for spontaneous renunciation and seclusion whilst busily pursuing sensuality. For one thing, I am not smart enough to be able to wait for one thing while busily doing another ;-)) But quite apart from that, if that was what I thought, why would I have an interest in Dhamma? Compare and contrast the following (30 marks): Jon: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own choosing. The time for its development is the time of its arising, but any such development needs a level of intellectual understanding. H on Jon: Kusala will arise anyway, so one might as well enjoy oneself and not do anything about it. Jon 59205 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 12, 2006 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >Hey Lads, > >Can I play? > >What's with all the rhetoric? What are you discussing? > >"real Dhamma", >"The real Dhamma was taught in the Tusita heaven to Mrs Buddha snr, if >I recall." >"Is that a reality as per the real Dhamma?" >"Real discussions about real Dhamma" >"conventional discussions about the real Dhamma" >"a good case for warnings to be issued in relation to Abhidhamma abuse." > >Tell me to go away if this is between the two of you but I'm just >curious as to what all this means. I'd like to join in if this is >about anything. > > You're more than welcome to join in, but I'm waiting for Herman to explain what the game is ;-)). I was rather hoping you'd be able to tell me. Jon 59206 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri May 12, 2006 10:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't ... onco111 Oh, Sarah! I say: "Certainly not! They don't accept Buddhist language." You say: "Certainly not! It doesn't have anything to do with language." ... Are there people who have not heard a snippet of Buddha's teaching nor read suttas but still have a degree of understanding about the world? You say, "No, of course not." I say, "Don't be silly. Of course there are." Ironically, I think we are virtually in full agreement... How so? > >>D: However, despite these cases, > > most Buddhists would just reject it altogether -- unless it were > > worded in a familiar sutta formulation. They would accept the > > familiar formulation or conceptual framework on faith but reject the doctrine itself because of lack of understanding of what the words > > are really pointing to. > .... > S: True. But then they wouldn't be said to really have heard the Buddha vacana. So, you seem to be saying that people who have heard the Buddha vacana but have understood it only at a conceptual level wouldn't be said to really have heard the Buddha vacana. I wouldn't equate hearing with understanding, but if we continue with your word game, wouldn't we then say that people who have understood some aspect of the world through teaching and observation in some non-Buddhist tradition that they are the ones who have heard the Buddha vacana and are inside the dispensation despite never having heard it? And the Buddhists who have heard it and accepted it but not understood it are the ones who haven't really heard it and are outside the dispensation? I really don't think it makes sense to think of "hearing Buddha vacana" in that way, but it makes perfect sense to think of "understanding Dhamma" in that way, i.e., someone who has a degree of understanding but has not heard Buddha vacana can be said to have a degree of "understanding Dhamma" but someone who has heard, read, and studied Buddha vacana but has no understanding cannot be said to have really understood Dhamma. > > > Would they agree that all dhammas are anatta, beyone anyone's > > control? > > > > Very interesting question, Sarah. > > > > It is a standard Christian doctrine that the Self is utterly > > incapable of kusala and beyond anyone's control. > .... > S: OK. I'll leave it there. Obviously my very Christian upbringing was lacking. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. The church (especially the Catholic and Anglican varieties) is allergic to wrestling with the issue because it grates the ears of most church people, so most Christians (especially Catholics and Anglicans) miss it almost entirely. But it is a major theme in the writings of St. Paul, Augustine, and Luther-- very important in the first few hundred years of the church (until the church became successful and popular and concerned about ruling the world), central during the Reformation, and not commonly discussed today (just as it is not so commonly discussed in the Buddhist world because it grates the ears of so many faithful Buddhists who hear it). Metta, Dan 59207 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri May 12, 2006 10:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii onco111 Hi Sukinder, You write: "Also I would like to mention at this point that even Sariputta, before he heard the Dhamma from Ven. Assaji, no "right view" ever arose for him. In fact for the Buddha himself, Right View arose only moments before His enlightenment. Had He even had a brief 'idea' about conditionality, anatta, or the path of satipatthana, he would have become enlightened in less than a second." D: Do you not make a distinction between mundane (satipatthana) and supramundane (magga) right view? Dan 59208 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri May 12, 2006 10:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Herman, You write: "At this point in time, I am also of the belief that beliefs and ideas do have consequences, but that these consequences are limited strictly to the realm of ideas and beliefs. Beliefs condition further beliefs, they have no impact on what is real, though. As with dreaming, whatever curious plot develops based on the logic of imagination, the waking state, if it ever arrives, knows the unreality of all that was imagined. What do you think, Dan?" Of course beliefs and ideas have big consequences in the realm of ideas and beliefs, but I think they also influence our vision of what is real. Yes, we walk about in our dream world, oblivious to what is real. But there are brief moments of wakefullness, even if we are only awake enough to roll over in our comfortable beds before falling back into deep sleep. What we can comprehend in those brief moments depends in part on what our dream patterns have been. I think that we all have a few moments when we are awake and then in our dream state we scramble for explanations and descriptions of what we saw in those moments. If the description is a reasonable fit to what we understood, then the next time there is an awake moment we see a little more clearly. On the other hand, I would think that speculative dreaming about the way things are or ought to be would not be helpful--except in the dream world. Dan 59209 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri May 12, 2006 11:47am Subject: Audio (was: Re: Commentaries online?) onco111 Hi Sarah, Regarding the recordings... S: Dan, if you come across anything of special interest, I'd be glad to hear. Thx also for your detailed reply to me. I'll look f/w to getting back to it in the next few days. --> Nothing in particular yet, Sarah. I just like listening because it seems like KS always turns the attention to paramattha rather than conceptual frameworks. Dan 59210 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 2:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Dear Ken, On 12/05/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > I wrote a reply to this message, but it didn't do you justice. It > mainly asked for an explanation of what you were asking me. But your > question was probably rhetorical, was it? Also, the last statement > about warnings went over my head. Quite seriously, I am one of those > slow-witted people who need things spelt out for them. :-) I am such a dick at times. Please accept my sincere apologies for the unwise (f'n stupid more like it) manner in which I conduct myself from time to time. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59211 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 2:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Hey Jon, > I admire your skill in innuendo, but I'm afraid you leave too much to be > inferred for the less intelligent like myself ;-)) > > I was rather hoping you would spell things out for Scott so I could > pretend I had caught your drift!! > > The tone of your post seems to be slightly anti-Abhidhamma. Perhaps you > think that was what KenH meant by 'real Dhamma', but I believe he was > referring to the whole of the Tipitaka and its commentaries (is there > any other meaning of 'real Dhamma'?). Ken kindly followed up on suggestions to share something about the Cooran weekend. How stupid of me to find fault with an honest and sincere account of what went through his head !!!!! Look, Jon, you know Howard (Ken) better than I do, and what he or you or anyone else understands by certain things is something that may osmose my way given a few aeons. I have never equated the Tipitaka with the Dhamma. You want to discuss what sort of discussions we are to have here? Give > me a break ;-)) I prefer to talk about real Dhamma (whoops, sorry!). In my language that would mean you want to discuss Tipitaka. In Ken's case that would mean he would like to discuss Tipitaka minus the Suttas. We all have wants. I want to know what is real. I want to know what all this wanting is about :-) PS I know, I know, the real Dhamma is what it is, and is not what is in > the book or for that matter what fell from the Buddha's lips (strictly > speaking). But that goes without saying. Is there some further point > you have in mind? I think the main point is that there are discussions I should butt out of :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59212 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 9:05am Subject: RE: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal dacostacharles Hi Saarah and all, The following is a nice piece but it too idealistic. If bodhisattas are all that is mentioned then we would not need Buddhas, and they would be enough. I was always under the impression that bodhisattas were still under development and the range of levels could be quite vast. Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 13:37 Hi Joop (Chris & all), --- Joop wrote: ... S: It was in the quote I gave that skilful means are part of the conditions for the development of the paramis. This isn't an Abhidhamma text. A lot more detail is given. For example, the paragraph above continues: "And their nature (bodhisattas)is such that they are able to promote the welfare and happiness of beings even on occasions when they are merely seen, heard of, or recollected, (since even the sight, report, or thought of them) inspires confidence. Through his wisdom the bodhisattva perfects within himself the character of a Buddha, through his compassion he leads others across. "Through wisdom he understands the suffering of others, through compassion he strives to alleviate their suffering. Through wisdom he becomes disenchanted with suffering, through compassion he accepts suffering. Through wisdom he aspires for nibbana, through compassion he remains in the round of existence. Through compassion he enters samsara, through wisdom he does not delight in it. "Through wisdom he destroys all attachments, but because his wisdom is accompanied by compassion he never desists from activity that benefits others. Through compassion he shakes with sympathy for all, but because his compassion is accompanied by wisdom his mind is unattached. Through wisdom he is free from 'I-making' and 'my-making.' Through compassion he is free from lethargy and depression." (I gave part of that last time). Joop, I think you'd really enjoy this 'Treatise on the Paramis' as translated by B.Bodhi and contained in 'The All-embracing Net of Views- Brahmajala Sutta and its commentaries, BPS'. We can also refer to the development of the paramis which are not the Bodhisatta's and all the reminders of the Bodhisatta's great qualities are wonderful reminders, I find. Perhaps this is an area where you can find all the 'social cittas':-) ... Metta, Sarah 59213 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 9:46am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices dacostacharles Hi Tep, You stated: "... 'Mental noting' (or labeling) just falls away when clear comprehension (of the object of sati) begins to work well." --- Yes, this is very true when clear comprehension is the goal (and it should be a goal). --- I have to go... I deal with the rest later Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- Hi Charles D. (& Scott), I have a few comments for your post #58753 that was a reply to Scott's question. .............................. ... >Charles D. : >When I was on the same road, I uncovered that the practice can help you see(visualize) how the mind works; i.e., there is an object in the mind and/or a chain of events. One is usually triggered by the other, and it is the very process of labeling that is the driver. Understanding this is beginning of wisdom, and to get to this point you must already have a high level of concentration. Tep: Based on my meditation experience (mindfulness in the body postures, and mindfulness in breathing) I agree with Charles about the "high level of concentration" that supports understanding (but in the sense of sampajañña = 'clarity of consciousness' or clear comprehension). I found that "mental noting" (or labeling) just falls away when clear comprehension (of the object of sati) begins to work well. ... 59214 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 2:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, On 12/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear All, > > > I looked and could find no thicket to bring (on the prairies you can > see for miles and miles). > > Is this discussion about trying to understand the role of the various > controlling faculties? > > Is it about how to read and understand "conventional" Dhamma, i.e. > suttanta? > > Is it about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of study by the > abhidhamma method? Thank you for asking some good, clarifying questions. From my perspective, things are what you make of them. That would include this thread. At this point in time I am unwilling to make anything of anything :-) Sorry to fob you of :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59215 From: "Leo" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 11:04am Subject: happiness ouside leoaive Hi I have seen that Buddha said, that He does not see happiness outside of Sangha. At the same time Sangha of Ancient time was different, then today. It means that if someone is making Sangha as close as possible to original one, without any statues and other things of today's way, it will be for more happiness. It is because lord ment Sangha in the way it was originally created, not later trasformations. What do you think about it? Leo 59216 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 9:33am Subject: RE: [dsg] D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition... dacostacharles Hi Tep, You asked: "How is it possible that those 'DO substitutes' are better than the real, original explanation given by the Buddha?" To answer your question, I have one of my usual one-liners: --- Beings are different and have different needs that change at different times. --- You also asked: "Doesn't the 'standard model', which is based on 'the very same words of the Buddha', explain DO in a very natural, logical and realistic way?" To answer this question, I also have one of my usual one-liners: --- Only if you believe in reincarnation/rebirth, e.g., of a soul. e.g., Some times I view DO as a 3-life-times cycle (giving rise to the concept of reincarnation); Some times I view DO as a 1-life (giving rise to a concept that summarises existence); Some times I view DO as a 1-mind-moment event (giving rise to a concept that summarises the behavor of emotions, etc.); and then there are others, some I have even made up my self. It could be argued that the Buddha used them all too, depending on who he was talking too, when, and why (it's all realitive). Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- Hi Joop (& Sarah, Connie, James), ... Tep: I have no idea why there are people who "do not agree with" the explanation of DO "in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future". Doesn't the "standard model", which is based on "the very same words of the Buddha", explain DO in a very natural, logical and realistic way? Why do they look elsewhere to "find alternatives" such as the Abhidhamma Pitaka's "one mind moment" or a "very different picture of the principle of Dependent Origination"? Where is their saddha in the Buddda? How is it possible that those 'DO substitutes' are better than the real, original explanation given by the Buddha? I can never ever understand it!! ??{:->|).... (|<-:}?? [Can you see that my 'avatar' is getting confused?] 59217 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 11:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices dacostacharles Hi Tep, You must also understand that clear comprehension is also realizing (e.g., seeing) the labeling process. And to block out this process, or let it fall away to nothing is not really clear comprehension of the non-dual nature of the ego and (i.e., examining) the object; because the ego examines with concocting. Labeling is Perception/recognition. And yes, anicca-sa��aa is a process/technique/practice for conditioning Perception/recognition. It trains the mind to see objects in a certain way, e.g., (1) to replace the habit of seeing things as permanent with (2) a new perception that they are not. AN X.60 is a very good example of the process of manually labeling. And yes again, the connection you made between my saying "no real inherent value" and AN X.60 using Not-self is very good. Self has always been the thing of most value; therefore, where there is No-self vested, there is really No-value. Now, when you invite troubles for your-self, it may be because of the need to practice Not-self. And, because of the true life-time of the joy we caused others, there is always the need to practice anicca-sa��aa's impermanence so we never delude our-selves into thinking it is enough. Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- .............................. >Charles D. : ... Understanding this is beginning of wisdom, and to get to this point you must already have a high level of concentration. Tep: Based on my meditation experience (mindfulness in the body postures, and mindfulness in breathing) I agree with Charles about the "high level of concentration" that supports understanding (but in the sense of sampaja��a = 'clarity of consciousness' or clear comprehension). I found that "mental noting" (or labeling) just falls away when clear comprehension (of the object of sati) begins to work well. ................................. >Charles D. : >I learned that labels are also part of the value system we use to justify every thing from "existence" to why "the worm should be allowed to die, since it is a bird that is trying to eat it." Tep: Labeling reminds me of "perception"; for example, anicca-sa��aa is also a meditation scheme that replaces the habit of seeing thing as permanent (an unconscious labelling due to ignorance) by the new perception that they are not. ... ............................... >Charles D. : >Next, you begin to understand "things" and how your mind deals with them. From this, I begin to realize that all are just labels (i.e., no real inherent value, not a real justification for immoral acts). From this space, we can control/dictate the nature of your attachments. This is a practice in itself. Tep: That reminds me of another meditation practice to change "perception", e.g. through anatta-sa��aa the meditator sees not-self. "There is the case where a monk ... This is called the perception of not-self." [AN X.60] Have I invited troubles for myself, or caused joys in you? Tep {:>) 59218 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 0:03pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? dacostacharles Hi all, "The 'idea of self' is quite dormant." The Self is sometimes dormant, like an egg a-waiting fertilization for its activation/becoming. Weather we say dormant, inherent, or etc. we mean: at least the potential for it exists. Oh ya, the mind is a container, form is a container, feelings can be consider a container, consciousness can be consider a container, memory can be consider a container, etc. Regards, Charles DaCosta PS: it's all relative. 59219 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 2:53pm Subject: Tep Whispers egberdina Hi Tep (and Connie) Connie broke a heel the other night, but don't tell her I told you. You know how she gets :-) Anyhow, wassup, dude? You on sabbatical? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59220 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Herman seeking to understand Jon (was Re: Samatha and vipassana 1) egberdina Hi Jon, On 13/05/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Eric > > > On the contrary, I am one of those who sees the commentary material as > being more worth discussing than individual views (I know we are in the > minority, but that doesn't concern us), so I refer to commentary > freely. It is only in rare cases, like my recent posts in our other > thread, that I will refrain from doing so. > > Nice try, but I'm not going to back off in this thread ;-)). That sounds more like a promise than a thread (threat, get it :-)). I would sincerely like to understand your position better. If I understand correctly, you are saying, and have consistently said, that you study only certain authorative texts, and that you do not wish to digress beyond them. Can I ask you why you study these texts? And if I can ask you that, let me ask you that; why do you study these texts, and only those texts? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59221 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Jon, (Bhikkhu Bodhi), > Straw man, Herman! I have never talked about waiting for spontaneous > renunciation and seclusion whilst busily pursuing sensuality. For one > thing, I am not smart enough to be able to wait for one thing while > busily doing another ;-)) But quite apart from that, if that was what I > thought, why would I have an interest in Dhamma? I just started a thread a minute ago, before this came in. It basically asks the same question. > Compare and contrast the following (30 marks): > Jon: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own > choosing. The time for its development is the time of its arising, but > any such development needs a level of intellectual understanding. > H on Jon: Kusala will arise anyway, so one might as well enjoy oneself > and not do anything about it. I respectfully decline your offer to write an essay. Mainly because you'll be the one marking it :-) But I have some questions and would like to make some comments. You say "Kusala arises due to conditions" H says: Is there anything that doesn't arise due to conditions? (lets leave Nibbana out of this) J says: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own choosing. H: Does akusala arise at a time of one's choosing? Please accept that I mean no disrespect in the following, and that I have very high regard for Bhikkhu Bodhi. As I mentioned in another thread, I watched a video of a Dhamma talk by BB the other night. Being fond of paying close attention to what happens as it happens, I was acutely aware of BB's bodily intimations. The thought came to mind repeatedly that the flow of words from BB's mouth, though calm, was unnatural to the max. It seemed like there was an internal dialogue happening, with many different ideas or words wanting to come to the fore, and something in BB's head moderating that internal discussion, with words and phrases coming out in a stunted fashion. It reminded me of the way the lecturers at uni would sometimes struggle to reconcile everything they had read and come up with some grand academic unifying scheme of things. Now I don't mean to say that there was anything wrong with BB's presentation, or that it should have been different. It's not really about BB at all, but more about intellectual understandings. It is clear when someone has an intellectual understanding of what they speak, and when someone has real understanding of what they speak. And I would certainly put real understanding in the kusala category. Because real understanding does lead to seclusion and renuncation. And I would contrast that with intellectual understanding. Now you boldly assert that intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for kusala. The following is for 5 marks only (It is only an intellectual exercise :-)). a) Discuss the requirement for intellectual understanding as a prerequisite for kusala (1 mark) b) Provide evidence that it is so (4 marks) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59222 From: connie Date: Fri May 12, 2006 3:56pm Subject: Happy Wesak nichiconn hi all, just thought i'd share this. peace, c. Illustrator ch v 5. It was in the early hours of the Visaakha Full-moon Day that the Blessed One, the Helper of the world, attained final extinction with the element of extinction without [residue of] clinging left. [That the event took place] between the twin saalaa trees in the Mallians' saalaa-tree grove at the turn into Kunisaaraa after he had been doing an Enlightened One's work from [the time] beginning with this turning the Wheel of the True Idea (S.v.420f.) down to his disciplining the Wanderer Subhadda (D. ii.148f.). 6. Now the venerable Mahaa Kassapa was the senior Elder of the community of 700,000 bhikkhus who had foregathered for the Blessed One's final extinction. [90] He remembered how, seven days after the Blessed One's extinction, the [other] Subhadda, who had gone forth into homelessness in old age, had said 'Enough, friends, do not sorrow, do not lament; we are well rid of that Great Monk. We have been obstructed by his saying "This is allowed to you; this is not allowed to you"; now, however, we shall do what we want, and shall not do what we do not want"' (D.ii.162). He [therefore] considered as follows: It is possible that bad bhikkhus, conceiving this to be a doctrine with a defunct teacher, may create factions and soon make the True Idea and Discipline last, this is no doctrine with a defunct teacher; for the Blessed One said 'Aananda, the True Idea and Discipline that I have shown and described to you will be your teacher after I am gone' (D.ii.154). Now suppose I had the True Idea and Discipline rehearsed so that this Dispensation might become visible and long-lasting; for I was helped by the Blessed One when he shared the use of robes with me and asked me 'Kassapa, will you wear my cast-off hempen refuse-rag clothing?" (S.ii.221) and when he placed me on the same level as himself in the matter of the more-than-human-ideas consisting in the nine successive abidings and the six direct-knowledges in the way beginning 'Bhikhus, whenever I wish, then, quite secluded from sensual desires, [secluded from unprofitable ideas,] I enter upon and abide in the first jhana, [which is accompanied by thinking and exploring, with happiness and pleasure born of seclusion;] and Kassapa, too, whenever he wishes, then quite secluded from sensual desires, ... enters upon and abides in the first jhana, ... [with happiness and pleasure born of seclusion]' (S.ii.210;216). How else indeed can that be recompensed? And did not the Blessed One also help me with the help unshared [by any other] in giving this warning 'This one will be my heritage-founder in the True Idea' ( ), just as a Wheel-turning Monarch (see D.Sutta 26, M.Sutta 129) does by the bestowal of his own armour and sovereignty? 7. [So] he got the bhikkhus to take interest in the rehearsal of the True Idea and Discipline, [91] according as it is said 'Then the venerable Mahaa Kassapa addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Friends, on one occasion, journeying on the road from Paavaa to Kusinaaraa with a large community of bhikkhus, with as many as five hundred bhikkhus, ...' (Vin.ii.284-5), the whole of which account in the Subhadda Chapter should be cited in full. 8. After that he said 'Friends, let us rehearse the True Idea and Discipline before wrong ideas and wrong discipline are courted and right ideas and right discipline are flouted, before upholders of wrong ideas and wrong discipline become strong and upholders of right ideas and right discipline become weak' (Vin.ii.285). The bhikkhus said 'Then, venerable sir, let the Elder convoke an assembly of bhikkhus'. Passing over many hundred, many thousand bhikkhus who were ordinary men, Stream Enterers, Once-returners, Non-returners, and Bare-insight-worker [Arahant] bhikkhus with taints exhausted, [all of whom were] bearers of the Scriptures consisting of the whole of the Teacher's nine-factored Dispensation, the Elder summoned one less than five hundred bhikkhus with taints exhausted who were bearers of all the classes of Scripture in the Tipitaka, who had reached the Discriminations, who were very mighty, being many of them included by the Blessed One in the Foremost-in-this-Discourse (A.i.23f.), and who were possessors of the three True Knowledges, and so on, with reference to which fact it is said 'Then the venerable Mahaa Kassapa convoked and assembly of one less than five hundred Arahants' (Vin.ii.285). 59223 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] happiness ouside egberdina Hi Leo, On 13/05/06, Leo wrote: > > Hi > > I have seen that Buddha said, that He does not see happiness outside > of Sangha. At the same time Sangha of Ancient time was different, then > today. It means that if someone is making Sangha as close as possible > to original one, without any statues and other things of today's way, > it will be for more happiness. It is because lord ment Sangha in the > way it was originally created, not later trasformations. What do you > think about it? I have not seen you around these parts, so welcome aboard. If you've been around for a while, please forgive my ignorance. I agree with what you are saying. There are many occasions where the Buddha outlined the topics fit for discussion and contemplation, and what was not fit for discussion and contemplation. And now we have sangha in politics!! "Buddhists" trying to unseat Prime Ministers in Thailand. I saw nothing more embarrassing then after the Tsunami of 26th December, 2004, with the manyfolfk afraid to return to their villages because of the spirits of the dead, "Buddhist" monks busily chanting and wafting things in the air to keep the spirits of the dead at bay. In another tradition it is said; "The people suffer through lack of knowledge" -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59224 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 5:39pm Subject: Re: More on Cooran gazita2002 Hello Phil and others, I can't resist either, but this is a very specific question regarding the "should" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, and all ........snip....... > > "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish > form, > > and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for > form. > > > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit > for > > play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. > > Ph: Ah, here come the prescriptive-sounding "shoulds." What I > wrote above would never fly with results-oriented folks. > > > Phil azita: How do u think 'should' would be translated in Abhidhammic language? Not a trick question, as I've thought about this one for a while. there must be a few cetasikas that make up 'should'; viriya [energy] could be one - what do u think? Patience, courage and good cheer, azita 59225 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 5:44pm Subject: Re: Happy Wesak gazita2002 Hello Connie, thank you and Happy Vesak to you too and others at dsg. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > hi all, > just thought i'd share this. > peace, > c. > > > Illustrator ch v > 5. It was in the early hours of the Visaakha Full-moon Day that the > Blessed One, the Helper of the world, attained final extinction with the > element of extinction without [residue of] clinging left. [That the event > took place] between the twin saalaa trees in the Mallians' saalaa- tree > grove at the turn into Kunisaaraa after he had been doing an Enlightened > One's work from [the time] beginning with this turning the Wheel of the > True Idea (S.v.420f.) down to his disciplining the Wanderer Subhadda (D. > ii.148f.). Patience, courage and good cheer, azita. 59226 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 7:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ken_aitch Hi Dan, Thanks for trying again: I am getting the picture. In fact, it has been hard to formulate a reply because, every time I get a clearer picture, most of my old answers are obsolete (as in your metaphor of the boats in the harbour). -------------- <. . .> D: > I am firmly of the mind that beliefs and ideas do have consequences. A consequence of interpreting, say, an understanding of anatta at a level that inspires a conceptual formulation of: "The Self is incapable of generating kusala" (reflecting understanding) with a rider that "God alone is the author of kusala" (reflecting a speculative hypothesis) is that the insight will never be of sufficient purity to constitute magga citta until the attachment to the speculative hypothesis as "reality" is relinquished. On the other hand, the pair of concepts "Impotent Self -- Potent God" can help bring about an understanding of anatta at a level of "Self is incapable of generating kusala", which is a deep insight. -------------- As you say, the notion, "Self is incapable of generating kusala," can coexist with the notion, "God alone is the author of kusala." However, (and I don't think I am being pedantic in this) the former notion is no more 'in the middle' than the latter. A truly middle notion would be along the lines of, "There are only dhammas, and all dhammas are not-self." That cannot coexist with the notion of a Potent God can it? ----------------------------- KH: > > What are the ramifications of your theory? I don't know whether to argue against it or to let it go. :-) > > D: > Hopefully, the ramifications would be to shake some conceptual timbers to make room for understanding, to build up an attitude of respect and compassion for people of other beliefs, and to open the mind to different descriptions of the same realities. ----------------------------- There is no need to rationalise the various doctrines to make them all appear the same. (Sorry if I am misrepresenting your position.) There is a better way of developing respect and compassion. When we understand there are only dhammas and all dhammas are not self, the idea, 'My understanding is superior to yours,' cannot arise, but respect and compassion can. Right understanding is the way in which all kusala qualities are developed. Other doctrines, which do not teach this understanding, can attract people with varying degrees of accumulated kusala - many much greater than mine, I am sure. However, their kusala is not the product of their doctrines: rather, their doctrines are the product of their kusala. -------------------------------------------- <. . .> D: > I'd argue that building up elaborate conceptual, speculative models is more of a hindrance than a help. The Dhamma should be conceptually easy at each and every step. -------------------------------------------- That is the way I am going - no big steps, no trying to grasp it all in one go. Off hand, I can't think of any of us who are trying the other way (except maybe some formal-meditators, but that is another matter.) ------------------------------------------------------------- D: > If it's not, then there is too much dependence on theory and speculation. Understanding advances with little steps--little steps that may seem like big steps -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, and even after many, many little steps we can still be limited to theoretical understanding. But it is not ordinary theoretical understanding (as in the understanding of a science) because it is panna (panna at a level that takes concepts-of-dhammas as objects). ----------------------------------------- (Sorry to snip the nice boat metaphor.) <....> KH: > > I would have no argument with either opinion, except that I find it > hard to imagine how a person could have blatantly wrong view > alternating with any degree of right view. D: > In any non-ariyan wrong view arises frequently. Right view arises too, but much, much less frequently. The views of the non-ariyan arise as wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-right-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wr\ ong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-right-wrong-wrong-wrong-wron\ g-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong... Do you imagine otherwise? ------------------------------------------------------ No, I imagine it the way you have described. Sorry if I confused the issue by talking about "alternating" views. I did not mean right-wrong-right-wrong. (We should mention, for the record, that there are millions of intervening cittas that contain no views at all.) Have you missed the question I was trying to ask? (Maybe you have been answering it all along.) Do you think a person could have blatantly wrong view (for example, of an almighty god in control of kamma and vipaka) at some moments and any level of right view (of the conditioned nature of kamma and vipaka) at other moments? I think it is theoretically possible, but very unlikely. --------------------------------- <. . .> D: > an attitude that looks to God rather than Self as the author of kusala and wisdom is a step or two closer to an understanding "sabbe dhamma anatta" than a proper mouthing of the Buddhist formulations but with attachment to Self or contempt for Others. --------------------------------- Agreed: remembering, of course, that detachment cannot arise in the same moment as wrong view. Any attitude that looked to God would have to be a narrowly confined attitude if it was to exist in a moment of kusala consciousness. It could not envisage anything in control of nama or rupa. Ken H 59227 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 7:21pm Subject: Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Phil and Scot, ------------ <. . .> Ph: > Interesting that this is what happens *when* they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst etc. It is not a matter of taking forceful action in order to get desired (or chanda-ed) results - the forceful actions become possible as a result of developed understanding. So a sense of description rather than prescription - haven't heard that in a while! :) Just a quick lobha-rotted look at the sutta. Does what I wrote seem correct? > > "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, > and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for > play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. Ph: Ah, here come the prescriptive-sounding "shoulds." What I wrote above would never fly with results-oriented folks. ------------- Do not weaken Phil! Do not lose heart! :-) The words may sound like conventional wisdom, but their meaning is anything but. The smashers and demolishers are not people, they are mere dhammas - in a fleeting moment of path consciousness. Scott, this is what we have been talking about. What other topic could there be? :-) Ken H 59228 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 12, 2006 8:33pm Subject: Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Ph: Interesting that this is what happens *when* they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst etc. It is not a matter of taking forceful action in order to get desired (or chanda-ed) results - the forceful actions become possible as a result of developed understanding. So a sense of description rather than prescription - haven't heard that in a while! :) Do not weaken Phil! Do not lose heart! :-) The words may sound like conventional wisdom, but their meaning is anything but. The smashers and demolishers are not people, they are mere dhammas - in a fleeting moment of path consciousness. Scott, this is what we have been talking about. What other topic could there be? :-) Ah. The very deep and very hard to tolerate implication of anatta on locus of control in praxis. If you'll pardon the example, I was contemplating this very thing earlier today. While making note of the insistent sensations and feelings arising out of a full bladder, and while at the trough (as it were) during the process of micturation, it struck me that this very natural process is the template of all else. Allow me to elaborate before you say, "Now what are they up to in Canada, anyway?" Praxis is like urination. The desire to urinate will only arise when conditions are ideal. Liquids must be ingested. The somatic processes must take their course. The organs of the body must take their turn and function in their natural way. When I feel the tingle, I head to the head. I can't just walk into a urinal and stand their, no matter how I arrange my body, and expect to urinate just because I'm standing there. (For the women, please excuse the sexist descriptions of this bodily process; please make the necessary emendments). My point is that I guess I agree with Phil (and I hope I've understood this, Ken, or else I'm going to look rather dim-witted or oddly obsessed) that one can hope that when one sets out to practise the Dhamma, this effort is preceded by the appropriate level of understanding. Other wise its like standing and waiting, with the exception being, I suppose, that unlike micturation - which is inevitable - some fruits of practise are only dependent of right effort. Is this in line with the discussion? If not, my embarassed apologies. Sincerely, Scott. 59229 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hey Scott, I'm glad I don't own the discussion any more :-) I like the example you provide. One little addition below. On 13/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Ken, Praxis is like urination. The desire to urinate > will only arise when conditions are ideal. Liquids must be ingested. > The somatic processes must take their course. The organs of the body > must take their turn and function in their natural way. When I feel > the tingle, I head to the head. For someone who has not learnt bladder control, they soil themselves regardless of whether a tingle is felt . And for someone with bladder control, no need to run when the feeling is felt, you go at a time and place of your choosing. I hope it doesn't ruin the metaphor :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59230 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 1:05am Subject: Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Scott, ------------ KH: > > Scott, this is what we have been talking about. What other topic could there be? :-) S: > Ah. The very deep and very hard to tolerate implication of anatta on locus of control in praxis. ------------- You took the words right out of my mouth! :-) ------------------------------- S: > If you'll pardon the example, I was contemplating this very thing earlier today. While making note of the insistent sensations and feelings arising out of a full bladder, and while at the trough (as it were) during the process of micturation, it struck me that this very natural process is the template of all else. Allow me to elaborate before you say, "Now what are they up to in Canada, anyway?" -------------------------------- Too late, but never mind. :-) No, really, I think it was an excellent analogy. ------------------------------------------ <. . .> S: > My point is that I guess I agree with Phil (and I hope I've understood this, Ken, or else I'm going to look rather dim-witted or oddly obsessed) that one can hope that when one sets out to practise the Dhamma, this effort is preceded by the appropriate level of understanding. ------------------------------------------ Yes, dhammas arise according to conditions. Any understanding that might arise now will be dependent upon the understanding that went before it. And we can forget about future practice; it has to be now or never. The training and rehearsals are behind us. This is it! Do you get my drift? I will be a little bit jealous if you do because it has taken me five years with DSG to get this far - you've only just joined! :-) Ken H 59231 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii egberdina Hi Sukin, On 13/05/06, sukinder wrote: > > Hi Herman, Sarah, All, > > > Herman: > I think you sell the non-Indian world very short, Sarah. The following is > from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 1:7-8); > > All streams flow into the sea, > yet the sea is never full. > To the place the streams come from, > there they return again. > > All things are wearisome, > more than one can say. > The eye never has enough of seeing, > nor the ear its fill of hearing. > > > Sukinder: > I'm quite weak in this area of interpreting verse, so please would you > give > a commentary on this? ;-) No, I would prefer not to do that. If the above doesn't ring a bell, I certainly don't want to force the issue. Keep in mind though, the common practice of inadvertently projecting one's > own understanding onto another's words. In this case, the interpretation > of > these words in terms of your own understanding got from reading Dhamma, > propelled by the belief that the Buddha's insights are *not* so unique. Are you suggesting that only Buddhists can be aware of suffering and the causes of it? And that a book like Ecclesiastes is actually an instance of plagiarism? I remember that you once mentioned Hume as being one who understood Anatta. > Is it possible that this was because it coincided with your own yet vague > understanding of the concept at the time? Please tell me what the proper understanding of Anatta is. Also I would like to mention at this point that even Sariputta, before he > heard the Dhamma from Ven. Assaji, no "right view" ever arose for him. In > fact for the Buddha himself, Right View arose only moments before His > enlightenment. Had He even had a brief 'idea' about conditionality, > anatta, > or the path of satipatthana, he would have become enlightened in less than > a > second. But His was the path of the Bodhisatta and not a Savaka. So do you > suppose that Jesus, Shankara, Lao Tzu etc, that anyone of these were even > close to being a Bodhisatta? Is there anything that you know about the Buddha that was directly experienced? Why do you think anything you have learnt is superior to what the manyfolk around the world have learned? ========================== > > Herman: > There are a few people, from any culture, at any time, who do come to > understand the reality of suffering, and the causes for it. And there are > vast multitudes, from those same cultures, at any time, who remain totally > oblivious to these realities. > > Sukinder: > You mean that they understand the 1st and 2nd NTs? Is this possible > without > understanding kamma/vipaka? And can the understanding of this issue in the > belief in a creator God, whether it be one which stands apart from or that > which is part of his creation? I think it is precisely because of not > understanding the 4NTs that from 'self view', other religions and > philosophies are formed. Do you understand kamma/vipaka? I suggest you think carefully before answering. > > > Herman: > You express enormous faith in the path of the Buddha, and claim some > vicarious kudos because of the enlightenment of the Buddha and some of his > contemporary followers. And rightly so, though there is no vicarious > benefit > in that fact. > > Sukinder: > I think rather, that this confidence comes from correct understanding, > even > if weak. And this is certainly better than 'wrong understanding', one > which > then sees or tries to see similarities with other religions and > philosophies. > ============================ I would suggest that you study other religions and philosophies before you comment on them. Herman: > But what is the track record of recent millenia? Who, standing > on the bedrock of the Abhidhamma, has come within a bull's roar of living > up > to the promise of the Buddha? Given that, what has gone wrong? > > Sukinder: > Never mind about who and how many, track records are not going to change > anyone's views. One reason that I grow in confidence about the Abhidhamma > method is from hearing from those who don't value it, what I perceive to > be > wrong interpretation of the Dhamma. ;-) > ============================= If track records don't come into it, then you are simply blind in your faith. In that respect there is no difference between the "One Way Jesus" and the "One Way Buddha" crowd. Herman: > You say there can be no path outside the Buddha's teachings. I say that > particular Abhidhamma based understandings of anatta render the notion of > path meaningless, and all that is left is to wander ainlessly. > > Sukinder: > :-) I think you might like the double predestination of Calvin. It basically says that God (conditionality) has ordained who shall be saved and who shall be damned. Cheers, Big Ears Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59232 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 1:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Ken, On 13/05/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > Hi Phil and Scot, > The smashers and demolishers are not people, they are mere dhammas - in a > fleeting > moment of path consciousness. Physicists, chemists, and most people with a solid education in secular matters understand that the universe and everything in it is nothing but energy in various manifestations, that all hangs together to the extent that it hangs together by virtue of conditionality known and unknown. That fact, and knowing it, like the fact and understanding that there are only dhammas, makes not an iota of difference to anything, but, does it? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 59233 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sila, samadhi, panna jonoabb Hi Tep Thanks for the detailed reply. I have one or two other references on this topic, but I think there's no need to rush ;-)). Let's spend a while with the present sutta reference. On the main point of interest here (the significance of the 3-fold classification) you say: "It is required that the wise man is well established in virtue -- morality or sila -- before he develops consciousness (citta-- Nanamoli's translation) and understanding (paññaa-- Nanamoli's translation). So it is clear that the purification of citta and paññaa depends on the "established" sila." The problem I would see with a 'sila first, then and only then' reading is the uncertainty it leaves as to when exactly the development of samatha or vipassana may begin. Would you like to say a few words on that? Thanks. Jon PS On a side issue, I note there are quite a few negative remarks in your reply about the commentaries (and also the Abhidhamma). I think all active members are well aware of your views in this regard, so there is probably little point in repeating them each time a commentary is cited. Those of us who value discussing the commentarial material and the Abhidhamma above giving our own personal views or interpretations will continue to do so anyway ;-)). indriyabala wrote: >Tep: Without letting the commentary plant ideas in my head, I read >through the verse and pondered over it first. Now let me tell you what >I think I understand this verse. Then I will give a few thoughts on >the commentary to show that when we do not exercise our own thinking >(i.e. letting the commentator feed us like a baby), we might be >misled. Of course, it is possible that I myself misunderstand the >verse (i.e. not being wise enough). > >... >It is required that the wise man is well established in virtue -- >morality or sila -- before he develops consciousness(citta-- >Nanamoli's translation) and understanding(paññaa-- Nanamoli's >translation). So it is clear that the purification of citta and paññaa >depends on the "established" sila. However, only a bhikkhu who is >ardent(atapi) and discerning properly (sagacious?) is able to cut >through the jungle of tanha. > >My Comments on the Commentary >------------------------------ >-- "..being established well in virtue by fulfilling virtue" > >T: That is the same as saying that sila must be developed in order to >support developments of citta and paññaa. > >-- "Wise": possessing the kind of understanding that is born of kamma >by means of a rebirth-linking with triple root-cause. > >T: That is a mouth-full with the Abhidhamma jargon. > >-- "Develops Consciousness and Understanding" : develops both >concentration and insight. > >T: It is not clear whether the commentator means developing both >simultaneously or one at a time. > >-- ".. he—this bhikkhu who possesses the six things, namely, this >virtue, and this concentration described under the heading of >consciousness, and this threefold understanding, and this ardour--, >standing on the ground of virtue and taking up with the hand of >protective-understanding well-sharpened on the stone of concentration, >might disentangle, cut away and demolish all the tangle of craving .." > >T: The commentator was quite imaginative. This shows that if you have >ten commentators, they would possibly have ten different ways to >express their views. Then you'd have to decide whose commentary should >be followed! [So why don't we learn to be on our own two feet?] >............... > > 59234 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >> I prefer to talk about real Dhamma (whoops, sorry!). >> >> > >In my language that would mean you want to discuss Tipitaka. In Ken's case >that would mean he would like to discuss Tipitaka minus the Suttas. We all >have wants. I want to know what is real. I want to know what all this >wanting is about :-) > > These are 'good wants' (speaking conventionally of course); they must be so because they are wants that I have too ;-)) I appreciate your position regarding actual realisation (at whatever level) of 'THE DHAMMA' vs. knowledge of the 'Tipitaka Dhamma'. I make the same distinction myself. But I know of no other precursor to the former than the latter. If you know something that I don't, please share ;-)) (BTW, I think you're wrong about KenH and the Tipitaka minus the Suttas, but let's not lose the focus of our thread over that!) >>PS I know, I know, the real Dhamma is what it is, and is not what is in >>the book or for that matter what fell from the Buddha's lips (strictly >>speaking). But that goes without saying. Is there some further point >>you have in mind? >> >> > >I think the main point is that there are discussions I should butt out of >:-) > > There's wisdom for all of us in them there words. But sorry, not applicable where the thread is going smoothly and good sense is being spoken ;-)) Jon 59235 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:32am Subject: Re: Bodhisattva Ideal kelvin_lwin Hi Christine, > -->-->The Bodhisattva Way or the Arahat Way – does it matter?<--<-- I had a discussion with Chinese Zen master about their understanding of what it means to be Bodhisattva and Arahat. I hope you can shed more light on this from your friends and/or the conference. It is my understanding they consider it to be two levels of enlightenment. So a Bodhisattva is already enlightened and chose to stay in the world to liberate more people. Apparently since all defilements are gone, it's no longer dukka to go through birth/death cycle. The way it was described to me, I just thought it sounded like a longer/bigger cycle and not a final escape. The master was adament that escaping from this world totally doesn't sound appealing to them. Also, it sounds like Boddhisattva compassion is from stories of developing metta parami (nothing to do with eradicating defilements). Maybe Buddha = Bodhisattva way and Pacceka-Buddha = Arahat way? Anyway I would appreciate anything you can discern about their position. Thanks - Kel 59236 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Dan, Part 2.... --- "Dan D." wrote: > Yup. Outside the dispensation, these things are not known in > sufficient purity and clarity to conduce to complete elimination of > greed, hatred, and delusion, to complete disenchantment, enlightment, > Nibbana. That's why Sariputta needed to hear a few words from the > Buddha to attain magga and phala. But his understanding BEFORE he > heard even a whisper from the Buddha was much greater than mine or > yours after studying the Buddha's words and conceptual formulations > for decades. How can that be if there is no light at all outside the > dispensation, not any insight at all? .... S: When all the ingredients of a dish are washed up, sliced and fully prepared, it doesn't take much to produce the final delicacy. As I understand, it was the same for Sariputta - all the ingredients were in place so that when he heard the teachings, all the stages of insight were quickly developed. As we know with other examples, like Channa who Herman was discussing, one moment there can be despair without any insight and the next, complete eradication of the path. There are many examples like this in the Theri-theragatha too. Sariputta had great, great wisdom, great, great accumulations for jhanas with all sorts of abhinnas and so on before he heard the teachings. But, this wasn't the development of satipatthana as Sukin has said. I wrote a detailed and controversial 'Musing' on this same topic of prior attainments because I didn't accept some comments that other friends were making on this topic and discussed it in detail with K.Sujin. See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/45763 I'll be glad to hear your feedback. It's a difficult area. .... >How is it that there were so > many people in the Buddha's time who were so close to enlightenment > before hearing the Buddha that they were fully enlightened right > after hearing him? They went from absolutely no insight whatsoever to > enlightment in the blink of an eye?! .... S: Yes. Conditions were right for this - they were born at that time and heard the Buddha for a start. .... Understanding develops > gradually, Sarah, in baby steps. .... S: Yes, and these people like Sariputta had been accumulating the right ingredients for aeons, having made aspirations under prior Buddhas, developed the paramis and so on. If they had previously attained insights under prior Buddhas, however, they would have been savakas of those Buddhas and they weren't. They were savakas of Gotama Buddha. .... >Before hearing the Buddha's words, > Sariputta had highly refined, highly developed insight. He was only > one small step from enlightenment. Without Buddha, he most likely > would not have been able to take the final step or two, but with > Buddha's help he was able to make the leap to the final insights > leading to enlightenment. Are you saying there are no insights--not > even mundane satipatthana--before the insights leading to > enlightenment? .... S: Right. No direct understanding of conditioned dhammas, of anatta. .... >That wouldn't square with the model of the insight > knowledges culminating in insight leading to emergence > (vutthanagaminivipassana, e.g., in CMA IX:34) .... S: No insight knowledges at all before hearing the teachings in that life. .... >--unless even a brief > moment of satipatthana eventually and inevitably starts a chain of > events leading to full liberation. Or that for some utterly benighted > people the development from total ignorance to full enlightenment > takes place in a very short time? How can that be? It really makes no > sense, Sarah. .... S: It seems that for people like Sariputta that it all happened in a very short time, but it's not like that. It took aeons and kalpas of aeons (!) for the ingredients to be in place for a great disciple to attain liberation. .... >The other possibility is to take the sutta for what it > says, viz. that outside the dispensation there is no development of > understanding to the level of arahatta. .... S: We will have to differ in how we read the sutta I quoted, Dan (AN 10s, 123-127). I've also given other references in the past to indicate that it is not just 'understanding to the level of arahatta' that is meant. For example, commentary to Mahaparinibbana Sutta (PTS): "Of dhamma, the method (~naa.nassa): of dhamma which is the noble path. Wandering in the domain: practising even partial insight meditation (padesa = vipassanaa). Outside this: outside my teachings. There is no true ascetic: this is equal to saying that there is no one who practises even partial insight meditation, there is not even the first renunciate, namely a stream-enterer." .... > Path to final liberation is the magga citta of the fledgling arahat. > You seem to be strongly wedded to the notion of a conventional, > conceptual understanding of "path" and "samma". Not always so wedded, > but in this case, yes. .... S: There is the mundane path at moments of satipatthana, then there are the supramundane path moments. All are samma. None have anything to do with anything conventional. .... ***** > > D:> More, assuming you mean kusala-vipaka with somanassa or sukka. > > > More, assuming you mean kusala citta accompanied by somanassa. > > > But I'd also throw in kusala and kusala-vipaka with upekkha > > > as 'happiness' (more along the lines of happy as 'content' as > opposed > > > to happy as 'joyful'). > > .... > > S: Is this what the radio commentator you mentioned (Prager?) was > > referring to when talking about a duty to be happy? > > Please, Sarah, neither I nor Mr. Prager ever mentioned anything > about 'duty'. Instead, the term was 'moral obligation'. .... S: My mistake. Is what you wrote above what Mr Prager was referring to when talking about a 'moral obligation' to be happy? .... S:> > How can kusala vipaka be considered as a duty? > D:> It can't be. Instead, the formulation is that there is a moral > obligation to be happy. If unhappiness arises (dosa or pure moha), > then the consciousness is immoral (akusala). To be called 'moral' > (kusala), the citta must be 'happy' (with either somanassa or > upekkha). .... S: And to know the distinction between moments of kusala with somanassa vs moments of akusala with somanassa and likewise for upekkha would take a really great amount of wisdom, wouldn't you think? You'll hear discussions on the India tapes when Phil's qus about knowing kusala and akusala are raised and how it's stressed that without clearly understanding nama and rupa, it's really only a concept of kusala and akusala that we have. Ok, granted I'm making a mountain out of mole-hill here, Dan...but then I'd say I'm in good company:-)). .... >There is also a conventional, social understanding > of 'moral obligation', which is necessarily looser: unhappiness is > contagious, and it also happens to be a function of how the world is > viewed. In other words, unhappiness tends to spread misery to others, > so, if we are concerned about the well-being of others, we have an > obligation (loosely speaking) to be happy. .... S: Fine, I think conventionally speaking, this is good advice. 'Leave your grumps at home' kind of thing out of consideration for others. "No one likes to see a long face'. As long as we don't take it too far, no problem. Of course, there are examples in the texts of many very wretched beings who also had developed high insights. So these states are conditioned by mnay, many factors -- it's not just a case of a conventional 'moral obligation'. .... >> > In the Ab.Sangaha (or commentary), it refers to there being less > happy > > feeling rather than more when insight develops I believe:-) > > Again, Sarah, you are not discussing the ideas that I have spent > pages and pages outlining in detail. I presume that you mean that > with development of insight, there is less lobha with somanassa. > Fine. But I am defining 'happy' as kusala with somanassa (joy) or > upekkha (contentment), which, incidentally, is closer to what Mr. > Prager had in mind .... S: I'll gladly take your word for it Dan and apologise for my glib replies. .... (he was careful to say that taking pleasure in > wrongdoing [like gluttony or cruelty] is not true happiness). It's > easy to say that it would be wrong for me to think x-y-z (when I am > really thinking p-d-q); it's much harder to really consider what I am > saying. .... S: As Jon said to another friend 'I know just how you feel!'. Just my reaction to your paraphrase of what I've been saying for weeks about cittas and cetasikas:-) lol Always fun (and challenging) talking and trying to iron out the fine points, Dan... Metta, Sarah ======== 59237 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:03am Subject: The Three Searches ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Noble Eight-Fold Way Finalizes the Three Searches: The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these three searches. What three? The Search for Pleasure, The Search for Becoming, The Search for the Noble Life. These are the three searches… The Noble 8-fold Way should be developed: For the direct experience of these three searches… For the complete understanding of these three searches… For the utter destruction of these three searches… For the overcoming and leaving all behind of these three searches… And how does a Bhikkhu do so? Here, friends, the Bhikkhu develops: Right View, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Motivation, which has the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance as its final goal. Right Speech, which has the deathless as its base, as its destination, as its last resort. Right Action, which flows, falls into and inclines towards Nibbana, the Highest Bliss. Right Livelihood, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Right Effort, which has the deathless as its base, as its destination, as its last resort. Right Awareness, which has the removal of Greed, Hate and Ignorance as its final goal. Right Concentration, which flows, falls into and inclines towards Nibbana, the Highest Bliss. It is in this way, friends, that a Bhikkhu, comes to directly experience, fully understand, utterly destroy, completely overcome and leave all behind these three searches… Comment: Search for becoming is like wishing: ‘May I become rich, famous, praised, divine, & etc…) Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:54-5] section 45: The Way. 161: The Searches ... 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 !!! <....> 59238 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 3:22am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 444- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(f) 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;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** Even if one has not studied the Dhamma one can still have moral shame and fear of blame. One may not know very precisely what akusala is and what its consequences are, but one can still appreciate the value of kusala and see some of the disadvantages of akusala. There may be stinginess or laziness as to kusala, but at the moment the value is seen of kusala, moral shame and fear of blame which abhor akusala arise with the kusala citta. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59239 From: "Phil" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:10am Subject: Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Azita and all Neat question! > azita: How do u think 'should' would be translated in Abhidhammic > language? Not a trick question, as I've thought about this one for > a while. there must be a few cetasikas that make up 'should'; viriya > [energy] could be one - what do u think? Hmm. Well, virya on its own is not so decisive, is it? If I recall correctly there are very few cittas in which virya doesn't accompany the citta - not quite a universal cetasika, but close. But virya would certainly be involved in the should. There would be panna, right? Seeing the benefit of the kusala or the danger of the akusala involved prompting the should. And cetana, it is a universal cetasika, usually acting as kind of coordinating agent for the other cetasikas, but at times being being more the "will" kind of thing. Panna (amoha), virya, cetana, chanda, alobha, adosa.... ...also the hiri and otappa that we are seeing now in the Cetasikas corner - though that seems to be more of a thou-shalt not kind of function. En bref, I don't know. Let's make sure to ask this question to Nina when she gets back. Phil 59240 From: "Phil" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:14am Subject: Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Ken > Do not weaken Phil! Do not lose heart! :-) The words may sound like > conventional wisdom, but their meaning is anything but. The smashers > and demolishers are not people, they are mere dhammas - in a fleeting > moment of path consciousness. Thanks, I like this. "The smashers and demolishers are not people, they are mere dhammas." Phil 59241 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 393- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (d) sarahprocter... Dear Han, I hope you're still reading messages! I just came across a pile of messages I'd printed out and put aside to reply to a couple of months ago....apologies for the delay with this one of yours (and to several others too). --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > From your presentation I noted the following sentence. > > “The kusala citta which arises falls away immediately > but kusala is accumulated and thus there is a > condition for the arising of kusala citta again later > on.” > > Based on this sentence, I have the following statement > to make. > > When one does wholesome deeds kusala cittas arise > while doing these wholesome deeds. These kusala cittas > fall away but kusala is accumulated which will become > a condition for the arising of kusala cittas again > later on. Thus, by doing wholesome deeds now, one can > condition the arising of kusala cittas later on. > > Do you agree? ..... S: I think it depends on exactly what is meant by 'one can condition the arising of kusala cittas later one'. I think there is quite a difference between the two statements. I'd like to discuss this further with you and would just ask if you would clarify exactly what you mean by the last sentence above and whether you see any difference in the statements. Again, I apologise for the delay - I'll happily give this thread priority if you haven't run out of patience with this thread. Metta, Sarah ========= 59242 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meeting with Acharn Sujin (2) sarahprocter... Dear Han, I have one other message from you here as well: --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Rhys Davids Dictionary: > adhipateyya = is probably misreading for aadhipateyya. > > aadhipateyya = supreme rule, lordship, sovereignty, > power. > Thus, according to Rhys Davids you have to take the > word “aadhipateyya” to mean predominance. > I also checked with Patisambhidamagga. There also, in > Pali text, "aadhipateyya" is used. > > However, in Pali-Myanmar Dictionary, adhipateyya and > aadhipateyya have the same meaning. > > My opinion is they are the same, but in this > particular instance, since they are taken from > Patisambhidamagga, we will have to go by > Patisambhidamagga Pali text and take the word > “aadhipateyya”. .... S: Thank you for this detail. I was asking about atta adhipateyya (studying dhamma for self), loka adhipatteyya (studying for the world) and dhamma adhipatteya (for the sake of dhamma). (K.Sujin refers to these terms and I was curious). It seems that it's the same word, predominance. Do you have any references in what you quoted from Psm or other texts to these meanings of adhipatteyya, Han? Does it ring a bell to you at all? Many thanks in advance. Metta, Sarah ========= 59243 From: "Phil" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:33am Subject: Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi again Azita Again re "should" in paramattha terms - Phil > There would be > panna, right? Seeing the benefit of the kusala or the danger of the > akusala involved prompting the should. I am re-reading the chapter on sati in "Cetasikas" and came across this: "We may be stingy as to words of praise or we are lazy with regard to kusala and then we let opportunities for such a way of generosity go by. It is mindfulness which is non-forgetful of this way of generosity when the opportunity arises." So I guess it is sati that is non-forgetful of the opportunity for kusala. Really, "should" comes down to "non-forgetful of (insert kusala) when the opportunity arises" doesn't it, in paramattha terms? Phil 59244 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha, --- matheesha wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Tep: <...> > > > Because there are so numerous -- almost infinite, uncountable -- > > > neutral feelings, then how can one be precisely aware of the > beginning > > > and the end of an interval of neutral feeling? > > ... > > S: Why does one want to be aware of them? > > M: I'm struggling to understand why you asked this question.:) > Craving is the problemm with sukkha vedana, aversion with dukkha > vedana. Avijja is the problem with neutral vedana, but then you know > that. .... S: Is it that simple? If one wants to be 'precisely aware of the beginning and the end of an interval of neutral feeling', doesn't that suggest craving to you? .... > Being aware of the begining and the end means knowing when they arise > and pass away. Seeing this means seeing anicca. This opens the door > to seeing the rest of the tilakkana. subsequently to nibbida, to > magga and to vimukti! .... S: Isn't there a difference between highly developed insight which sees the impermanence of dhammas and wondering how one can be aware of such detail? .... <...> > > S: The first stage of insight is clearly distinguishing namas from > rupas. > > Is there any understanding of nama now? Of rupa now? > > M: yes. as it is arising now. no observer, just the observed, because > of purely focusing on something which is happening now, there is no > room for thought. If a thought does arise, even that would be seen to > arise and pass away- impermanant. .... S: What is the 'something which is happening now'? Is it a nama or a rupa? If there is focusing on it, is it now or has it already fallen away? ... > > S:Focussing on the > > arising of sounds or sensations is not the development of awareness > of > > dhammas as I understand it. > > M: I wonder if it is any clearer now? .... S: Not, so far....:-) .... <...> > M: Cittas do change very quickly. The Buddha says that they change > faster than rupas. Is that abhidhammically correct? ... S: Yes. A rupa lasts for 17 cittas ... >Since vinnana etc > arises with rupa, I think he was talking in a different sense. .... S: What do you mean when you say that vinnana arises with rupa? This isn't 'abhidhammically correct'. ... >That > of content: rupa arises again and again - but it is the same hardness > if you like. But thoughts change more drastically. .... S: As I said, rupas last for 17 cittas. When a rupa has fallen away, the sense door process is followed by a mind door process. When another rupa is experienced, it is a completely different rupa. Of course, rupas are arising and falling away regardless of whether they are experienced all the time. .... > When I speak of sati lasting a long time, I am speaking ofcourse in a > conventional sense. Obviously it arises and passess away like > everything else. .... S: Thank you for clarifying. ... >That is not to say that it cannot be made to arise > again and again. In fact you are doing that now, when you keep > awareness focused on this email. ... S: I think there is conventional awareness that we talk about in this way and then there is sati which can never be made to arise but arises by conditions with all wholesome cittas. .... >However it might have arisen and > passed away a thousand times by the time it took to get to the last > word in this sentence. The 'continuity' is an illusion obviously, but > it does arise again and again and it remains focused on this email. .... S: I'd say that of cittas and accompanying states. I wouldn't say that sati accompanied them all by any means. There are many moments of seeing visible object for a start and no sati with these cittas. I think that the focus is more that of other mental states such as ekaggata (concentration), vitakka, vicara, viriya, manasikara and so on. .... > I think it is also important to note that the Buddha did not speak of > a specific number (thousand,million) but is a commentarial addition. > When focused in vipassana there is hardly any time sense, which is > ofcurse another illusion. .... S: I agree that we don't have to count the thousand millions etc. When there is awareness of a dhamma, there's no idea of the numbers. But, I do question any focus (as you put it) in vipassana. To me, focus in this way is indicative of lobha, not of sati. .... > The Buddha asks us to be aware of the five aggregates arising and > passing away. To me this means that it is possible to be aware of > these things, and experience suggests that it is. But not with a > normal untrained mind. There has to be development of the mind for > this to be possible. :) .... S: Yes, I agree. A lot of development of understanding and awareness. So what aggregate is appearing now for a start as we speak? Good points for further discussion, I think, Matheesha. Again, apologies for the delay. Metta, Sarah ======== 59245 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I'm assuming that I have found my way into the substantive part of the discussion since no one has said otherwise. Scott's Analogy "Praxis is like urination. The desire to urinate will only arise when conditions are ideal. Liquids must be ingested. The somatic processes must take their course. The organs of the body must take their turn and function in their natural way. When I feel the tingle, I head to the head." Herman's Analogy "For someone who has not learnt bladder control, they soil themselves regardless of whether a tingle is felt. And for someone with bladder control, no need to run when the feeling is felt, you go at a time and place of your choosing." I think these are two different but related analogies. The former, I suppose, is one that can be taken to argue in favour of the thesis that one cannot exert control over the arising of a given dhamma. It can be seen to be demonstrative of the role of the person, that is, as one who responds to arising dhammas. Going to the proper place and excreting urine in a timely fashion, to one so instructed, is rather a rote and mindless action. The second analogy takes the role of the person up a notch, I guess, by introducing the element of learning. This might be seen as supporting the thesis that one can exert control, or at least perform action, at some point. It does not support the thesis that one can control the arising of any given dhamma. Although the continent person has learned to be more skilful in response to the tingle, he or she has no control over the tingle. I guess this would be the salient point I would like to further. The tingle is the entity in question, in my opinion. This analogy: The experience of the need to urinate which arises out of conditions is like any dhamma which arises out of its conditions, and there is no one who can cause or will this to be otherwise (its a weak analogy because one can say that one can stop drinking liquids but this would be absurd); is the one that seems central. The learning analogy needs further examination because it is at another level of discourse. It is much further removed from the level at which dhammas are posited to be arising and falling away. But I'll stop here for now, Herman. Please give me some feedback on these clarifications and lets see where we are. I am, continently, yours sincerely, Scott. 59246 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 1:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sukinderpal Hi Dan, ------------------------- Hi Sukinder, You write: "Also I would like to mention at this point that even Sariputta, before he heard the Dhamma from Ven. Assaji, no "right view" ever arose for him. In fact for the Buddha himself, Right View arose only moments before His enlightenment. Had He even had a brief 'idea' about conditionality, anatta, or the path of satipatthana, he would have become enlightened in less than a second." D: Do you not make a distinction between mundane (satipatthana) and supramundane (magga) right view? Suk: Thanks for asking. There is a distinction of course, between mundane and supramundane right view. What I was saying though, was that for a Savaka, satipatthana could not have arisen without first hearing the Teachings. And for a Buddha, the discovery of the Path must coincide more or less with enlightenment itself. This is not saying that in either of these cases, there was no satipatthana developed in previous lives. There must have been satipatthana to the max, possibly experiencing even some level of vipassana nana. However, in the particular life that enlightenment did occur, say in the case of the Savaka, satipatthana couldn't have arisen without first hearing the Teachings, as far as I can see. Once heard about and arisen, then yes, one informs the other. Satipatthana as you know is a level of panna much higher than intellectual understanding based on hearing or reading. Don't you think that had Satipatthana arisen on several occasions before hearing any Dhamma that it would have at least begun to realize the distinction between reality and concept? The concept of God for example is a proliferation at a level way beyond the simple 'thing' and 'I' making at the level of sense perception. What would have stopped any "right" concepts from issuing forth from the experience of these mundane path moments having been accumulated to the extent that it has? Wouldn't at least this proliferated idea of God start to be unreliable to fall back onto? Yet Augustine, Paul, Luther and so on have ended up only further adding attributes to this concept or refining it, no? Though they may have on the conventional level made some good observations regarding human nature, they couldn't help falling back on to the idea of God and any theory related to this. God controls all that goes on, so it is up to grace that any good can happen to man, is this an understanding of anatta? The little 'self' has only given the bigger 'SELF' credit. And you can't blame Jesus for filling their heads with this God idea, we all have accumulated much wrong view. Augustine, Paul, Luther 'love' the idea of God. They were happy and satisfied with all the explanations they gave themselves based on this. But like Ken H, I don't think there is any 'partial rt. View'. Besides wrong/right concepts inform how we would view our experience, I think that the God idea will only increase any accumulated wrong view. Look forward to your comments. Metta, Sukinder 59247 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 6:38am Subject: Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Oh, hang on a minute, I've got to go pee. S: "Ah. The very deep and very hard to tolerate implication of anatta on locus of control in praxis." ------------- K: "You took the words right out of my mouth!" Sorry (toilet humour from an immature goof), anyway I'm glad I got to the question at hand. K: "Yes, dhammas arise according to conditions. Any understanding that might arise now will be dependent upon the understanding that went before it. And we can forget about future practice; it has to be now or never. The training and rehearsals are behind us. This is it!" ("Do you get my drift? I will be a little bit jealous if you do because it has taken me five years with DSG to get this far - you've only just joined!") I'll start with the parenthetical comment above. Let's say I do get your drift. Even though I've only just joined, my getting your drift will not be because of any special qualities which might inhere to the fiction of a person who has just joined the DSG. The getting of your drift will have been conditioned. This doesn't solve the problem of who is correct in the debate, it merely suggests that there arises in me a certain understanding conditioned by a myriad of factors, none of which are under my control. I might get your drift and yet have no clue as to why I would get this drift, or "agree" with it, as opposed to getting, say, Herman's drift. Let's say that Herman's point is correct. I'm not able to see it. Conditions are not in place for me to do so. Debate, in this case, may not allow me to understand the correctness of Herman's point. On the other hand, skilful debate may allow for conditions such that suddenly I understand. I can't make myself understand because, from an experiential point of view, it just feels to me that, say, the view you put forward is correct and that put forward by Herman is incorrect. I can't make myself feel that Herman is correct. I could fool myself and adopt Herman's point of view, thinking that he must be right because he has a lot of experience or has been here longer or something but this would still just be a facade. I suppose that this makes the process we go through here an extremely important one since there must, in my opinion, be Right View that is only such a way and no other. How we discuss things seems to have a bearing on whether the discussion itself, conducted well, can actually serve as condition for the arising of understanding for us all. The conditionality of things can, in my opinion, be taken to suggest that we find ourselves here interacting in this way together at this time out of conditions. Can we be conditions for our mutual growth? I think so. Sincerely, Scott. 59248 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 6:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana sarahprocter... Hi Herman, ....and this was one of the ones on May 5th that didn't make it to my in-box.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: >Are you saying there can be no awareness of trying, lobha or wanting things > to be different without some type of wrong view? ... S: No, it can be with or without wrong view. ... >How does Channa's (MN144) > faultless taking of his own life fit in? .... S: As you know, I don't accept that any taking of life is done with 'faultless' mental states. The 'faultless' referred to his mental states before death, before parinibbana. .... <...> > My reflections suggest that the Dhamma can do nothing about vipaka but that > Morphine can. What do you reckon about that? .... S: I reckon that many factors support kamma in bringing its result. Conditions are very complex. The taking of morphine can definitely be a support in the (not)experiencing of pain, just like food and many other uncountable factors. Metta, Sarah ====== 59249 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 7:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >> But quite apart from that, if that was what I >>thought, why would I have an interest in Dhamma? >> >> > >I just started a thread a minute ago, before this came in. It basically asks >the same question. > > Great minds, then ;-)) >I respectfully decline your offer to write an essay. Mainly because you'll >be the one marking it :-) > >But I have some questions and would like to make some comments. >You say "Kusala arises due to conditions" >H says: Is there anything that doesn't arise due to conditions? (lets leave >Nibbana out of this) >J says: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own >choosing. >H: Does akusala arise at a time of one's choosing? > > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's choosing. Of course, the appearance is the opposite. A person wants a certain kind of akusala to arise and lo and behold it does. This is because f the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. It is the same for kusala qualities that have been developed to the extent that they are powers (bala), they can arise as if at will. But the nature of dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors explained in the teachings do not include intention. As you will see, I am giving an answer based on my study of the texts, not on my realisation of 'THE DHAMMA' (or, using the terminology from your next set of remarks, intellectual understanding rather than real understanding). >It is clear when someone has an >intellectual understanding of what they speak, and when someone has real >understanding of what they speak. And I would certainly put real >understanding in the kusala category. Because real understanding does lead >to seclusion and renuncation. And I would contrast that with intellectual >understanding. > >Now you boldly assert that intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for >kusala. > >The following is for 5 marks only (It is only an intellectual exercise :-)). > >a) Discuss the requirement for intellectual understanding as a prerequisite >for kusala (1 mark) >b) Provide evidence that it is so (4 marks) > > Hmm ... (Ponders how he can point out that the examiner has mis-read the set text, and still manage to score good marks with his answer. Ahh, got it: try a little flattery on the examiner). I confess that question (a) has got me stumped. The way I see it, the mere arising of kusala occurs for everyone, regardless of belief or views, so I don't see room for any intellectual understanding as a prerequisite. I can however offer something on the requirement of intellectual understanding as a prerequisite for the *development* of kusala. As I understand it, for the development of kusala to occur there must be an *appreciation of the value of* the kusala, and it is this or something like it that is meant by understanding at the intellectual level. Moments of dana (for example) that are accompanied by the knowledge that it is conducive to the welfare of others and oneself are of greater value than moments of dana not accompanied by that appreciation. (As you will no doubt be able to tell from my bodily intimations, Herman, this is all having to be carefully thought about and worded, so again it is not 'real understanding' speaking.) Hope you're having a good weekend. Jon PS I would give myself a good pass on Q.1 (mainly for rephrasing it for you), but a fail on Q.2 (evidence/proof: I have not put anything up). Overall score, 2 out of 5. 59250 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran jonoabb Hi Azita (and Phil) I like your suggestion for the cetasika of viriya (seems to serve many purposes). It might also be worth someone checking the Pali. I've seen 'should develop X' used for a construction that translates literally as 'X is to be developed'. Jon gazita2002 wrote: > Hello Phil and others, > > I can't resist either, but this is a very specific question >regarding the "should" > > > >> Ph: Ah, here come the prescriptive-sounding "shoulds." What I >>wrote above would never fly with results-oriented folks. >> >> >> Phil >> >> > > azita: How do u think 'should' would be translated in Abhidhammic >language? Not a trick question, as I've thought about this one for >a while. there must be a few cetasikas that make up 'should'; viriya >[energy] could be one - what do u think? > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita > > 59251 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/13/06 10:33:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Herman > > Herman Hofman wrote: > > >>But quite apart from that, if that was what I > >>thought, why would I have an interest in Dhamma? > >> > >> > > > >I just started a thread a minute ago, before this came in. It basically > asks > >the same question. > > > > > > Great minds, then ;-)) > > >I respectfully decline your offer to write an essay. Mainly because you'll > >be the one marking it :-) > > > >But I have some questions and would like to make some comments. > >You say "Kusala arises due to conditions" > >H says: Is there anything that doesn't arise due to conditions? (lets leave > >Nibbana out of this) > >J says: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own > >choosing. > >H: Does akusala arise at a time of one's choosing? > > > > > > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's > choosing. Of course, the appearance is the opposite. A person wants a > certain kind of akusala to arise and lo and behold it does. This is > because f the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. It is the > same for kusala qualities that have been developed to the extent that > they are powers (bala), they can arise as if at will. But the nature of > dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors > explained in the teachings do not include intention. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, when other requisite conditions are in place, it's not "as if" they arise at will. It is exactly the willing, whether wholesome or unwholesome, that is the triggering factor. ======================== 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) 59252 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 9:01am Subject: Re: Sila, samadhi, panna ... Negative Remarks indriyabala Hi Jon, Yes, there is no hurry necessary. >Jon: >On the main point of interest here (the significance of the 3-fold >classification) you say: "It is required that the wise man is well >established in virtue -- morality or sila -- before he develops >consciousness (citta--Nanamoli's translation) and understanding >(paññaa-- Nanamoli's translation). So it is clear that the >purification of citta and paññaa depends on the "established" sila." >The problem I would see with a 'sila first, then and only then' >reading is the uncertainty it leaves as to when exactly the >development of samatha or vipassana may begin. Would you like to say >a few words on that? Thanks. Tep: I don't think my concern is on drawing a line separating samatha and vipassana from the purification of virtue. Please note the wording : "So it is clear that the purification of citta and paññaa depends on the 'established" sila.' " It means that purification of citta and purification of understanding cannot be fulfilled when virtue has not been purified yet. The following sutta tells you why. "Here, Ku.n.daliya, having abandoned bodily misconduct, a bhikkhu develops good bodily conduct; having abandoned verbal misconduct, he develops good verbal conduct, having abandoned mental misconduct, he develops good mental conduct. It is in this way that the three kinds of good conduct are developed and cultivated so that they fulfil the four establishments of mindfulness." [SN 36.6, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi] ........................ >Jon: >PS On a side issue, I note there are quite a few negative remarks in your reply about the commentaries (and also the Abhidhamma). I think all active members are well aware of your views in this regard, so there is probably little point in repeating them each time a commentary is cited. Tep: I disagree with "negative remarks", Jon. It is similar to when a few members here keep telling me that it is wrong that I completely believe the suttas. But I never tell them that their remarks are negative. .................... Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > > Thanks for the detailed reply. I have one or two other references on > this topic, but I think there's no need to rush ;-)). Let's spend a > while with the present sutta reference. > (snipped) > > PS On a side issue, I note there are quite a few negative remarks in > your reply about the commentaries (and also the Abhidhamma). (snipped) 59253 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:09am Subject: Re: riddled indriyabala Dear Connie - Of course, if (short) email were the most effective communication device, then politicians would have adopted it instead of (long) speeches and interviews. Thanks for your understanding. {:>|]--[|<:} Best wishes, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > Imho-Tep: It seems that my lack of dancing skill (stepped on her foot a > few times?) has caused Cinderella to suddenly leave the dance floor (and > on her way back home). (snipped) > falling apart, but that's another story...anyway, i've got to see about a cart and some oxen and will get back with you. (snipped) 59254 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:17am Subject: Re: Tep Whispers indriyabala Hi Herman ( & Connie) - >H: > Connie broke a heel the other night, but don't tell her I told you. >You know how she gets :-) > T: She was a pretty good dancer (before her heel was broken). >H: > Anyhow, wassup, dude? You on sabbatical? T: I am fine, rabbit. My sabbatical leave is always unannounced, 'cause I am not a popular guy around here. Nobody would have noticed it even when I left for a month (and always without pay). Peace, Tep, your friend. ============== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Connie) > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > (Hofman H. 2005) > > > > 59255 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? indriyabala Dear Charles D. (and Joop) - Of course, everything is relative and there is no absolute except Nibbana. Charles D.: > The Self is sometimes dormant, like an egg a-waiting fertilization >for its activation/becoming. T: Isn't that true for 'kamma' as well? ................. >Charles D.: > Weather we say dormant, inherent, or etc. we mean: at least the >potential for it exists. > T: Isn't that true for all dhaatu (ultimate constituents of a whole -- Nyanatiloka)? ................... >Charles D.: > Oh ya, the mind is a container, form is a container, feelings can be > consider a container, consciousness can be consider a container, >memory can be consider a container, etc. > T: That is figurative (metaphorical) so to speak. Joop may like that. Sincerely, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles & Linda DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi all, > > > "The 'idea of self' is quite dormant." > (snipped) > Regards, > Charles DaCosta > > PS: it's all relative. > 59256 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:54am Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices indriyabala Hi Charles D. - I must say that your Dhamma understanding has now become more advanced, since the last time we talked. Is that because you have learned from the discussion with our friends here, or did you just come back from a long vipassana retreat? [:-|) >Charles D.: > You must also understand that clear comprehension is also realizing (e.g., seeing) the labeling process. And to block out this process, >or let it fall away to nothing is not really clear comprehension of >the non-dual nature of the ego and (i.e., examining) the object; >because the ego examines with concocting. T: Yes. Seeing that 'labeling' is just the "comimg together" and therefore, it is dukkha. Relinquishing(giving up; abandoning) goes together with clear comprehension-- but it is easy to say, though. ........... >Charles D.: > Labeling is Perception/recognition. And yes, anicca-sannaa is a > process/technique/practice for conditioning Perception/recognition. >It trains the mind to see objects in a certain way, e.g., (1) to >replace the habit of seeing things as permanent with (2) a new >perception that they are not. > T: Sounds good. .............. >Charles D.: > Now, when you invite troubles for your-self, it may be because of the need to practice Not-self. And, because of the true life-time > of the joy we caused others, there is always the need to practice >anicca-sannaa's impermanence so we never delude our-selves into >thinking it is enough. > T: That's a good reflecting on the Dhamma, Charles. Sincerely, Tep, your friend =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles & Linda DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > AN X.60 is a very good example of the process of manually labeling. > > And yes again, the connection you made between my saying "no real inherent value" and AN X.60 using Not-self is very good. Self has always been the thing of most value; therefore, where there is No-self vested, there is really No-value. > > 59257 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 11:09am Subject: [dsg] D.O. in three lifetimes and/or within one [was:Re: a "happy" proposition.. indriyabala Hi Charles D. - Whenever we are foolish enough to believe that 'teaching substitutes' are better than the real Teachings, it shows that we have real troubles (wrong views). >Charles D. : > > You also asked: "Doesn't the 'standard model', which is based > on 'the very same words of the Buddha', explain DO in a very natural, logical and realistic way?" > > To answer this question, I also have one of my usual one-liners: > --- Only if you believe in reincarnation/rebirth, e.g., of a soul. > e.g., Some times I view DO as a 3-life-times cycle (giving rise to the concept of reincarnation); Some times I view DO as a 1-life (giving rise to a concept that summarises existence); Some times I view DO as a 1-mind-moment event (giving rise to a concept that summarises the behavor of emotions, etc.); and then there are others, some I have even made up my self. T: Charles, reincarnation of a soul is NOT rebirth by the Buddha's definition of 'jaati'. "The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings, their being born, their conception (okkanti) and springing into existence, the manifestation of the groups (khandha), the acquiring of their sensitive organs: this is called birth" [DN 22]. ............. Best wishes, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles & Linda DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > You asked: "How is it possible that those 'DO substitutes' are better than the real, original explanation given by the Buddha?" > > To answer your question, I have one of my usual one-liners: > > --- Beings are different and have different needs that change at different times. --- > (snipped) 59258 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 13, 2006 8:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - One more important matter in your post that I consider very important to adderess: In a message dated 5/13/06 11:14:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > But the nature of > >dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors > >explained in the teachings do not include intention. > ======================= I don't know what you are saying here, Jon, but the straight reading of it makes it appear as if you are saying that kamma is without effect, not serving as condition for the arising of dhammas, and you are claiming "the teachings" as the basis for this assertion. I don't know what "teachings" those are, but they sure aren't the Buddha's! (I must assume that you mean something other than what you seem to me to mean!) 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) 59259 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 13, 2006 8:07am Subject: Clarification Re: [dsg] Re:... upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - I wrote the following: > In a message dated 5/13/06 11:14:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > upasaka@... > writes: > > >But the nature of > >>dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors > >>explained in the teachings do not include intention. > ======================== That's confusing. The above was of me quoting you, not myself. (I quoted you from my own post.) 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) 59261 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 1:11pm Subject: Clarification Re: [dsg] Re:... indriyabala Hi Howard, Your message was clear to me alright. >Howard: > That's confusing. The above was of me quoting you, not myself. (I quoted you from my own post.) Tep: Not confusing, Howard. Thanks for pointing out Jon's error. Warm regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Jon - > > I wrote the following: > > > In a message dated 5/13/06 11:14:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > upasaka@... > > writes: > > > > >But the nature of > > >>dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors > > >>explained in the teachings do not include intention. > > > ======================== (snipped) 59262 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 1:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... indriyabala Hi Howard & Jon, Can I quickly butt in and quickly "butt out" of your way? > > Jon: > > But the nature of dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the > >conditioning factors explained in the teachings do not include > >intention. > > > Howard: > ... and you are claiming "the teachings" as the basis for this >assertion. I don't know what "teachings" those are, but they sure >aren't the Buddha's! (I must assume that you mean something > other than what you seem to me to mean!) ............... Tep: I know what kind of teaching Jon is claiming as the basis of his assertion. It is a "teaching substitute" that Jon himself invented. The Buddha indeed included "intention" as a conditioning factor or support for the arising of consciousness. "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. [SN XII.38, Cetana Sutta : Intention] Regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Jon - > > One more important matter in your post that I consider very important > to adderess: 59263 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:50pm Subject: Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? ericlonline Hi Tep, Tep: You must have done a very good job in explaining, because it helped me recall the following passage from one of my favorite suttas. 'It's with possessiveness, friend Ananda, that there is "I am," not without possessiveness.... [SN XXII.83 Ananda Sutta] Yes, very nice Sutta. Tep: It is worth noting that the Arahant Punna Mantaniputta (who said the above) used the term "possessiveness", while you used "selfreflexiveness". But both terms work fine for me. Thank you one hundred times, Eric. My pleasure. ................... >Eric: >So, going even further, if we can see the falseness of the location itself (i.e. I am in my body, etc.) and the selfreflexiveness, then not only does the 20 personality beliefs become untenable but the coneit 'I am' also begins to lose its hold. We could call this a gateway into emptiness. Any thoughts? Tep: I would say the "seeing" of falseness (of the location itself and the selfreflexiveness) & the elimination of the 20 personality beliefs only follow extensive contemplation of the five aggregates (form, feeling, ..., formations, consciousness) with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' Yes, agreed. Re: 'extensive contemplation'. You are a slow learner like me! :-) metta E 59264 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? ericlonline Hi Paul, > Wonderfully said Eric. Thanks. Denada >It's quite interesting how this assumed > location gets us into so much trouble; it's amazing how much we become entrenched in certain kinds of assumption of space. Yes, 'me, myself and I' need a lot of elbow room. Hey you get out of 'my space'! This question of > assumption of location and assumption of self makes much more sense to me > now. Yep, that is how 'I' arises. peace E 59265 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Jon) - In a message dated 5/13/06 4:07:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Howard &Jon, > > Can I quickly butt in and quickly "butt out" of your way? -------------------------------------- Howard: Sort of a "hit & run"? ;-) -------------------------------------- > > >>Jon: > >>But the nature of dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the > >>conditioning factors explained in the teachings do not include > >>intention. > >> > >Howard: > >... and you are claiming "the teachings" as the basis for this > >assertion. I don't know what "teachings" those are, but they sure > >aren't the Buddha's! (I must assume that you mean something > >other than what you seem to me to mean!) > ............... > > Tep: I know what kind of teaching Jon are claiming as the basis of his > assertion. It is a "teaching substitute" that Jon himself invented. -------------------------------------- Howard: Er, Tep, Jon hasn't given a clarification yet. I remain uncertain of what he was saying, but whatever it was, I'm content to wait to hear what Jon can add without jumping to any conclusions. As to the matter of cetana being a condition, for example as in the following material you quote, you and I seem to be in agreement. But Jon may also be in agreement! I may well have misunderstood what he wrote, or there may be elements missing in what he wrote, but presumed by him, that will cast a whole other light on this matter. Jon, I much look forward to seeing whatever you would care to add. :-) -------------------------------------- > > The Buddha indeed included "intention" as a conditioning factor or > support for the arising of consciousness. > > "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: > This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a > support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. > When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of > renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of > renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging &death, > sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &despair. Such is the > origination of this entire mass of suffering &stress. [SN XII.38, > Cetana Sutta : Intention] > > Regards, > > > Tep > ======================= 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) 59266 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 13, 2006 3:06pm Subject: Ecard, Vesak [forwarded messge from Nina] jonoabb Subject: Ecard,Vesak Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:37:13 -0000 From: nilovg To: Jonothan Abbott Dear friends, I was thinking that I was missing you all, and then on my brother's computer, reading some messages, I saw that it was Vesak.Our best wishes to you all. In Paris we discussed all Han's excellent points. Here in the South of France we had very good walks, and I am working on the Vis. Tiika. Greetings from Nina and Lodewijk. 59267 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 3:15pm Subject: Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Jon, >Thanks for your post below in which I think you half concede that the general formulation given by the Buddha is not to be read as meaning that B necessarily occurs every time A does, but rather that A is a factor (one of many, perhaps) in the occurrence of B. Yes, 'everytime' is dogmatic and that is one thing I am not!! You say 'one of many perhaps' but in the Upanissa it is samadhi that the Buddha (not me) is emphasizing. Again, a more prudent use of our time would be to ask WHY?! >In our original sutta (the Upanisa Sutta) the conditional relationship is one of 'upanisa' = supporting condition/proximate cause (depending on which of the 2 Bhikkhu Bodhi versions you read). Now whatever this might mean, it is clearly something far short of a saying that whenever there is A there is B. OK you like the word 'conditionality'. How is this? Insight depends upon concentration. Surely you see this being said here in the Upanissa? E: Here is a pretty simple translation. Again, it is not 'MY' translation. http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut057.htm When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, that is not. From the ceasing of this, that ceases. J> In the article which you link here, the author distinguishes this formulation, which he calls 'Idappaccayata, Causality', from DO ('pa.ticca-samuppaada'). Now whether he is correct in doing so, I can't say, but he gives a couple of interesting examples of different conditional relationships: - Fuel is a condition for fire (but is not so in every case - i.e., only when ignited) Yes exactly. Insight does not always come from samadhi. But without fuel (samadhi) there is no fire (insight). J>- Fire is a condition for heat (and is so in every case) Really? When you rub your hands together your hands are on fire? Concentrated heat leads to fire. In the same way a concentrated mind leads to insight. Maybe this is why you think you dont have to meditate. You think your hands (mind) is on fire because you rub them together (read a book). :-) J> Again, the point is that without knowing in exactly what sense 2 given factors are linked we cannot appreciate the significance of the relationship. Insight depends upon (is conditioned by) samadhi. J>You may call it splitting hairs and avoiding the issue; I call it necessary analysis ;-)) Maybe analysis/paralysis in this case. ;-) E 59268 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 3:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 ericlonline Hi Jon, ericlonline wrote: >Flip a coin and call it in the air. >Heads or tails? J>Now, Eric, there's no need to be flippant (flip-ant, get it?) Dont quit your day job! ;-) E> >Heads, start your investigation with insight. >Tails, start your investigation with samatha. > >The coin nonetheless is one and you >cannot 'really' separate the two sides. J>And this interpretation of the teaching comes from which sutta? All the suttas you posted i.e. calm/insight coming in pairs. E>But you can take impressions of each side >and separate them and make definitions and >posit this and that and whole systems of >thought and meditation. And factions grow >around the one sided image. On and on it goes. >That is what thought does, it divides and >multiplies! > >Unification of mind however is in the other >direction. It shuns one sided views with the >stilling of vicara and vitaka and unifies >samatha and vipassana. J>I think a rough paraphrase of the foregoing would be: "You haven't done what I've done, so how would you know". Am I getting warm? I try and speak from what I experience and understand, I have little idea if we ever will have an in common understanding as you seem to want to just post others words. metta E 59269 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 3:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep Whispers egberdina Hi Tep, On 14/05/06, indriyabala wrote: > > Hi Herman ( & Connie) - > > >H: > > Connie broke a heel the other night, but don't tell her I told you. > >You know how she gets :-) > > > > T: She was a pretty good dancer (before her heel was broken). > > >H: > > Anyhow, wassup, dude? You on sabbatical? > > T: I am fine, rabbit. My sabbatical leave is always unannounced, > 'cause I am not a popular guy around here. Nobody would have noticed > it even when I left for a month (and always without pay). I'm very happy to read your posting again. I was becoming concerned that possibly something I said was a problem for you. If ever I cause offence in my writing to you , I would prefer that you tell me so. And please remember that I am Dutch, so you may have to tell me very LOUDLY :-) Which I understand is completely against your nature. So maybe you could ask Joop to tell me that I was being harsh :-) Whether you are popular or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't worry about that. I like you, and I would ask that if you were at all inclined, to cast your discerning eye over anything I write to anyone. Because I appreciate your analytical skills greatly. And I don't think I would object to having faults in my reasoning pointed out. Your friend Herman 59270 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 3:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? ericlonline Hi Charles, > "The 'idea of self' is quite dormant." > > The Self is sometimes dormant, like an egg a-waiting fertilization for its activation/becoming. Really! Where is it hiding and lying in wait? Please let me know so I can find mine and slit its throat! peace E 59271 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More on nothing (was Cooran) egberdina Hi Sarah and all, p.s On one of your other threads, no surprise to hear from me too that > cittas have to arise continuously - whether awake, in deep sleep, in the > womb, or under anaesthesia...without continuous cittas by contiguity > condition (anantara paccaya) [as Phil and Paul have said] and other > conditions too, there'd be no life. Like when we come out of a deep sleep, > there are sense door experiences and thinking immediately. Sometimes it > may seem to others that we're in a deep sleep, but in fact there is some > consciousness or some dreaming... > ======== > As I see it, the idea of continuity of cittas (mindstream) is actually the basis for the notion of identity and self-view. But of course, that continuity notion is produced by citta itself. Just like any other view. The Middle Way to the Max suggests that there is only this moment, and notions of past and future, continued and persistent existence are not necessary, and actually a hindrance to the appreciation of what is real, which is just this present moment. Kind Regards Herman. 59272 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Phil, > There is no telling. Just some more considerations on the above point that are becoming a bit of a hallmark. Like you, I am concerned about Jon's impending fall into drug use. But even less seriously, but perhaps worthy of your consideration nonetheless, is there any telling whether the Buddha will actually end up being reborn (despite all reports to the contrary)? 59273 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, On 13/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > I'm assuming that I have found my way into the substantive part of the > discussion since no one has said otherwise. I can't be sure about that. But let's discuss anyway :-) Scott's Analogy > > "Praxis is like urination. The desire to urinate will only arise when > conditions are ideal. Liquids must be ingested. The somatic processes > must take their course. The organs of the body must take their turn > and function in their natural way. When I feel the tingle, I head to > the head." > > Herman's Analogy > > "For someone who has not learnt bladder control, they soil themselves > regardless of whether a tingle is felt. And for someone with bladder > control, no need to run when the feeling is felt, you go at a time and > place of your choosing." > > I think these are two different but related analogies. The former, I > suppose, is one that can be taken to argue in favour of the thesis > that one cannot exert control over the arising of a given dhamma. It > can be seen to be demonstrative of the role of the person, that is, as > one who responds to arising dhammas. Going to the proper place and > excreting urine in a timely fashion, to one so instructed, is rather a > rote and mindless action. > > The second analogy takes the role of the person up a notch, I guess, > by introducing the element of learning. This might be seen as > supporting the thesis that one can exert control, or at least perform > action, at some point. It does not support the thesis that one can > control the arising of any given dhamma. Although the continent > person has learned to be more skilful in response to the tingle, he or > she has no control over the tingle. > > I guess this would be the salient point I would like to further. The > tingle is the entity in question, in my opinion. This analogy: > > The experience of the need to urinate which arises out of conditions > is like any dhamma which arises out of its conditions, and there is no > one who can cause or will this to be otherwise (its a weak analogy > because one can say that one can stop drinking liquids but this would > be absurd); Please feel free not to comment on my comments which you feel are peripheral, or which may obscure what you regard to be the salient points. But so far so good. Until this last line re the absurdity of not drinking fluids. I do not think it is quite so absurd. I am assuming that in your professional life you would have had to deal frequently with suicide, whether succesful, unsuccesful or considered. Suicide would have to rank as a fairly strong statement about the need and ability to control, wouldn't you say? is the one that seems central. > > The learning analogy needs further examination because it is at > another level of discourse. It is much further removed from the level > at which dhammas are posited to be arising and falling away. I wrote something to KenH yesterday about the worldview of physicists and chemists. Understanding the compounded nature of all things does not take away the fact that some aggregates have properties not found in their components, or that some aggregates can function in ways that their components cannot. The Buddha does not anywhere deny the reality of the body, he in fact asserts it. The Buddha also does not deny the dependence of the mind on the body. Dhammas, and discussions about dhammas, need to be firmly anchored as being relative to the body and its mind, or else they may as well be in the realm of theoretical physics (which can be very interesting, but always speculative). Can dhammas learn? No. Can body/minds learn? Well, let's find out :-) But I'll stop here for now, Herman. Please give me some feedback on > these clarifications and lets see where we are. > > I am, continently, yours sincerely, > > Scott. Scott, I very much like the way you write. I'm looking forward to your reply already. Kind Regards Herman 59274 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Azita, > azita: How do u think 'should' would be translated in Abhidhammic > language? Not a trick question, as I've thought about this one for > a while. there must be a few cetasikas that make up 'should'; viriya > [energy] could be one - what do u think? I very much like the way you can ask a question so that it makes immediate sense. I don't know about the Abhidhamma but in daily life I think should is used to express a want/desire while masking that want. If I say; you should do this and that, I am really saying that I want you or would like you to do that. It then becomes rationalised by saying that I want you to do that for your own or my benefit. "Should" in daily life becomes less of a hidden ego-trip when it is used in a question. What should I do? One can reasonably pose this question of someone who knows what we want and how to achieve that. An Abhidhammic translation of "should" should take these meanings into account :-) (because I want them to) Kind regards Herman 59275 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Jon, > > > > >But I have some questions and would like to make some comments. > >You say "Kusala arises due to conditions" > >H says: Is there anything that doesn't arise due to conditions? (lets > leave > >Nibbana out of this) > >J says: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own > >choosing. > >H: Does akusala arise at a time of one's choosing? > > > > > > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's > choosing. Of course, the appearance is the opposite. A person wants a > certain kind of akusala to arise and lo and behold it does. This is > because f the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. It is the > same for kusala qualities that have been developed to the extent that > they are powers (bala), they can arise as if at will. But the nature of > dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors > explained in the teachings do not include intention. Others have already made their misgivings about this last line known. Perhaps you can clarify? > > > >Now you boldly assert that intellectual understanding is a prerequisite > for > >kusala. > > > >The following is for 5 marks only (It is only an intellectual exercise > :-)). > > > >a) Discuss the requirement for intellectual understanding as a > prerequisite > >for kusala (1 mark) > >b) Provide evidence that it is so (4 marks) > > > > > > Hmm ... (Ponders how he can point out that the examiner has mis-read > the set text, and still manage to score good marks with his answer. > Ahh, got it: try a little flattery on the examiner). Well done :-) . OK, I'll have to reset the exam. > > > I can however offer something on the requirement of intellectual > understanding as a prerequisite for the *development* of kusala. As I > understand it, for the development of kusala to occur there must be an > *appreciation of the value of* the kusala, and it is this or something > like it that is meant by understanding at the intellectual level. > > Moments of dana (for example) that are accompanied by the knowledge that > it is conducive to the welfare of others and oneself are of greater > value than moments of dana not accompanied by that appreciation. This goes back to the learning discussion. Once having spontaneously experienced that appreciating of the value of kusala, does that end there , ie wait for the next spontaneous blip of kusala, or is there a possibility of learning, a coming to know what is for the benefit of others, and an avoidance of what is not beneficial. > Hope you're having a good weekend. You bet! PS I would give myself a good pass on Q.1 (mainly for rephrasing it for > you), but a fail on Q.2 (evidence/proof: I have not put anything up). > Overall score, 2 out of 5. I would much rather be having this discussion in a park, face to face. Because then every now and then I could poke you in the ribs :-) On your exam paper I would express my delight that you have directly and honestly pointed out my error, encourage you to proceed beyond the textbooks, give you 1 out of 5, and an apple that a girl gave to me with her paper (bribery didn't work for her). Kind Regards Herman 59276 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner ... Jumping to conclusion ? indriyabala Hi Howard (& Jon) - Yes, you are right in not jumping to conclusion too quickly. > Howard: > Er, Tep, Jon hasn't given a clarification yet. I remain uncertain of what he was saying, but whatever it was, I'm content to wait to hear what Jon can add without jumping to any conclusions. As to the matter of cetana being a condition, for example as in the following material you quote, you and I seem to be in agreement. But Jon may also be in agreement! I may well have misunderstood what he wrote, or there may be elements missing in what he wrote, but > presumed by him, that will cast a whole other light on this matter. > Jon, I much look forward to seeing whatever you would care to add. :-) Sorry, Jon. Now it is your turn. Warm regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Jon) - > > In a message dated 5/13/06 4:07:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > > Hi Howard &Jon, > > > > Can I quickly butt in and quickly "butt out" of your way? > > -------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sort of a "hit & run"? ;-) > -------------------------------------- > > > > > >>Jon: > > >>But the nature of dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the > > >>conditioning factors explained in the teachings do not include > > >>intention. > > >> > > >Howard: > > >... and you are claiming "the teachings" as the basis for this > > >assertion. I don't know what "teachings" those are, but they sure > > >aren't the Buddha's! (I must assume that you mean something > > >other than what you seem to me to mean!) > > ............... > > > > Tep: I know what kind of teaching Jon are claiming as the basis of his > > assertion. It is a "teaching substitute" that Jon himself invented. > > -------------------------------------- 59277 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 5:38pm Subject: Re: A little chat about nothing ... How does that work? indriyabala Hi, Eric (and Herman), If I can borrow your writing style, I probably can save a few hours everyday. > >Tep: I would say the "seeing" of falseness (of the location itself > >and the selfreflexiveness) & the elimination of the 20 personality > >beliefs only follow extensive contemplation of the five aggregates > >(form, feeling, ..., formations, consciousness) with right > >discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not > >what I am.' >Eric: > Yes, agreed. > > Re: 'extensive contemplation'. > You are a slow learner like me! :-) > Tep: Yes, and possibly much slower when it comes to writing. Herman is a lot faster and more productive too. Best wishes, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > Tep: You must have done a very good job in explaining, because it > helped me recall the following passage from one of my favorite > suttas. > > 'It's with possessiveness, friend Ananda, that there is "I am," not > without possessiveness.... [SN XXII.83 Ananda Sutta] > > Yes, very nice Sutta. > > Tep: It is worth noting that the Arahant Punna Mantaniputta (who said > the above) used the term "possessiveness", while you used > "selfreflexiveness". But both terms work fine for me. Thank you one > hundred times, Eric. > > My pleasure. > > ................... (snipped) 59278 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 6:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Tep Whispers indriyabala Hi Herman - It is my pleasure to read your email today. >H: > I'm very happy to read your posting again. I was becoming concerned that possibly something I said was a problem for you. If ever I cause offence in my writing to you , I would prefer that you tell me so. T: It wasn't anything important. Your last email showed that you had not had much time to write. But I understood why, looking at the many emails you produced each day ! ......... >H: And please remember that I am Dutch, so you may have to tell me very LOUDLY :-) Which I understand is completely against your nature. So maybe you could ask Joop to tell me that I was being harsh :-) T: No, Herman, you were not harsh. Are Dutch people witty like you, on average? BTW Most young Thai men I know are not as softly-speaking as the older generation. ............ >H: > Whether you are popular or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't worry about that. I like you, and I would ask that if you were at all inclined, to cast your discerning eye over anything I write to anyone. Because I appreciate your analytical skills greatly. And I don't think I would object to having faults in my reasoning pointed out. > T: I like you too, Herman, the same as everybody else. BTW About the "analytical skill": it has been interpreted as a disadvantage by some. But I wouldn't worry about that. {:-|] > > Your friend > > > Herman > I'm your friend too, dude. Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > On 14/05/06, indriyabala wrote: > > > > Hi Herman ( & Connie) - > > > > >H: > > > Connie broke a heel the other night, but don't tell her I told you. > > >You know how she gets :-) > > > (snipped) 59279 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 7:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, It is kind of you to compliment my writing. Thank you. H: "...re the absurdity of not drinking fluids. I do not think it is quite so absurd. I am assuming that in your professional life you would have had to deal frequently with suicide, whether succesful, unsuccesful or considered. Suicide would have to rank as a fairly strong statement about the need and ability to control, wouldn't you say?" Firstly, the reason I considered the statement about not drinking to control urination to be absurd was because I felt it took the analogy to a ridiculous length. I can see that you went in the natural direction the analogy implies: death of the organism. I'm not sure how you mean it when you say that suicide is "a fairly strong statement about the need and ability to control." From the point of view of whom? I have dealt with suicide in all three facets many times at work. I can think of the response required when the intent to commit suicide coincides with high risk: the state removes control from the individual. I can see how, from the point of view of the suicidal person, the act of suicide is like the ultimate taking of control - the one choice one can make that seems ultimately and paradoxically to be one's own. And then there is the manipulative use of suicidal threats and gestures to control others. And then, finally, this says nothing about the fact that despite stalwart attempts at "control" one so inclined will be dead by her or his own hand, sooner or later. I don't see how this relates to control from the point of view of the Dhamma. Suicide - self-murder - is an action and simply adds to the particular pattern of accumulations within a given stream of consciousness. The fact that one can take one's own life says nothing about control in the sense that I am understanding within this discussion. One cannot, in my opinion, take this example and then abstract to the level of the momentariness of arising and falling away of dhammas and conclude anything about control or lack thereof over this stream. I'd equate the statement, "I can choose to take my life," with, "I can choose to drink a glass of water." Only the final statement above, regarding the lack of control one has over the inevitable suicide of one so inclined, comes close to making the point I am positing: that of no control ultimately. I'm sure I've gone and missed your point and so, of course, I'd be interested to hear how you were considering the suicide analogy. H: "Understanding the compounded nature of all things does not take away the fact that some aggregates have properties not found in their components, or that some aggregates can function in ways that their components cannot. The Buddha does not anywhere deny the reality of the body, he in fact asserts it. The Buddha also does not deny the dependence of the mind on the body. Dhammas, and discussions about dhammas, need to be firmly anchored as being relative to the body and its mind, or else they may as well be in the realm of theoretical physics (which can be very interesting, but always speculative)." Oh oh. I don't know enough to say why exactly but "some aggregates hav[ing] properties not found in their components" sounds wrong. I'll need to ask you to be more specific here. Do you mean aggregates as in ruupa, sa~n~na, vedana, sankhara, vi~n~naana? What are the components of these aggregates? They are ultimate or paramattha dhammas as far as I understand, and hence have only the characteristic that they have and nothing more. And also they arise and fall away as part of the variegated nature of consciousness (citta). They are not further reducible. They themselves are the "components." The body is not real in the ultimate sense. "Body" is a concept. Where does the Buddha assert the reality of the body? He speaks conventionally of a body, as far as I know. Why do "dhammas, and discussions about dhammas need to be firmly anchored as being relative to the body and its mind?" See above, I guess, as the dhammas which go to make up the five aggregates all, as far as I know, are impermanent and without self. Since, as I've learned, the elements arise and fall away with such rapidity, thoughts of a doer of deeds are untenable. "Can dhammas learn? No. Can body/minds learn?" Yes. Ruupa is said to be the dhamma that knows nothing. The others are imbued with functions which are all about learning. Take sa~n~na, its function is to mark the object of perception, for example. This is a form of "learning." Naama/ruupa does indeed learn. I don't know if this is how you are meaning "body/minds." Are you? I keep suspecting you of belief in concepts as ultimates. Anyway, you'll quickly see my lack of knowledge in the above but I gave it a shot. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. 59280 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 8:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Herman, ---------------- H: > Physicists, chemists, and most people with a solid education in secular matters understand that the universe and everything in it is nothing but energy in various manifestations, that all hangs together to the extent that it hangs together by virtue of conditionality known and unknown. That fact, and knowing it, like the fact and understanding that there are only dhammas, makes not an iota of difference to anything, but, does it? ----------------- More good questions, thank you. I benefit from trying to answer them. I hope you are trying to answer them too. I don't mean by drawing conclusions from your own experiences, but by seeing how the Dhamma, as found in the Tipitaka and commentaries, would answer them. That is the anatta way, don't you think? You say the scientific fact (of there being only energy in its various manifestations) does not make an iota of difference. Of course it does! If the laws of physics were otherwise then the physical universe would be otherwise. (You probably didn't that part of your question give much thought.) But knowing it, as the scientist knows it, is a different matter. I agree that sort of knowing, ultimately, makes very little difference at all. Then you say that the fact of there being only dhammas, and the knowing of that fact, also makes no difference. Well, that, according to the texts, is the exact opposite of the truth. There are only dhammas (regardless of whether that fact is known or not). Therefore there is no use in looking to a creator god or to any other conceptual reality. As for "knowing dhammas" that is enlightenment itself! And that is how paramattha dhammas differ from scientific realities. The direct knowing of conditioned dhammas is the conditioning factor for the direct knowing of the unconditioned dhamma. And direct knowing of the unconditioned dhamma is the way to the final cessation of conditioned existence. Ken H 59281 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:03pm Subject: Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Scott, ------- S: > ("Do you get my drift? I will be a little bit jealous if you do because it has taken me five years with DSG to get this far - you've only just joined!") I'll start with the parenthetical comment above. Let's say I do get your drift. Even though I've only just joined, my getting your drift will not be because of any special qualities which might inhere to the fiction of a person who has just joined the DSG. The getting of your drift will have been conditioned. This doesn't solve the problem of who is correct in the debate, it merely suggests that there arises in me a certain understanding conditioned by a myriad of factors, none of which are under my control. I might get your drift and yet have no clue as to why I would get this drift, or "agree" with it, as opposed to getting, say, Herman's drift. Let's say that Herman's point is correct. I'm not able to see it. Conditions are not in place for me to do so. Debate, in this case, may not allow me to understand the correctness of Herman's point. On the other hand, skilful debate may allow for conditions such that suddenly I understand. I can't make myself understand because, from an experiential point of view, it just feels to me that, say, the view you put forward is correct and that put forward by Herman is incorrect. I can't make myself feel that Herman is correct. I could fool myself and adopt Herman's point of view, thinking that he must be right because he has a lot of experience or has been here longer or something but this would still just be a facade. I suppose that this makes the process we go through here an extremely important one since there must, in my opinion, be Right View that is only such a way and no other. How we discuss things seems to have a bearing on whether the discussion itself, conducted well, can actually serve as condition for the arising of understanding for us all. The conditionality of things can, in my opinion, be taken to suggest that we find ourselves here interacting in this way together at this time out of conditions. Can we be conditions for our mutual growth? I think so. > ----------- Excellent, thanks Scott. I had to concentrate (you psychologists talk funny) but agreed with what I understood you to be saying. You will be familiar with the incident in which Ananda said, "Friendship is half of the Dhamma," and the Buddha corrected him, saying, "No, Ananda, friendship is the whole of the Dhamma." I vaguely remember that being explained on DSG, and have some idea of how friendship could be the whole of the Dhamma. However, if you could articulate it in your inimitable style I am sure that would be helpful. Ken H 59282 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sat May 13, 2006 10:57pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition sukinderpal Hi Fabrizio, ------------------- > Well... the issue whether Jhana is needed or not for Vipassana surely > follows the one whether Sila is needed or not for both. So, for the > time being, let's focus on this second part: I will try to convince > you on the former later :> S: I look forward to it. Meanwhile I am encouraged by your giving importance to Sila. One of the annoying things about those who insist on the practice of jhana, is that they almost never talk about the ordinary everyday levels of kusala, which then gives me the impression that they don't in fact know jhana. ------------------ > > Suk: We are talking about momentary conditioned realities. There can > > be panna of the most basic level arising from time to time and we > > should not assume wrong view to arise just because it hasn't yet > > been eradicated. > > Wrong view does not arise by itself. This view, a wrong view itself, > leads to fatalism. > It is very important, to me, to distinguish between wrong views and > fetters. The difference is the same between using an incorrect map and > missing an autoroute exit. S: Could you elaborate on this? -------------------- > > Suk: No, however conditionality, kamma/vipaka, and the fact that all > > our experiences are anicca, dukkha and anatta are some of the things > > we come to face with constantly, right from the beginning. > > Not all our experiences: otherwise practice would be meaningless. Just > those that are conditioned. S: Again I am not sure of your point. --------------------- > > Suk: What is your understanding of the "gradual teaching"? Is it > > pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha? Or is it Sila, Samadhi and Panna > > (Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma?)? If it is the latter, please explain > > more, because as of now, I have a problem with such a formulation. > > My understanding is that the gradual character apply to all levels: > the ones you proposed and many others. > The simile is the one between a trek and a trip by car. S: Are you saying that there is a complexity of conditions involved and that nothing progresses linearly as we tend to think? If so, I agree. --------------------- > > Suk: I don't understand how the Dhamma is contradictory. > > It is ok. That part of the teaching is not good for you. S: You know this for sure? ---------------------- > > Good to hear about this from you. ;-) > > Ok: you have already framed me in some of your old experiences :-) S: Actually what I meant was that because I have not heard about this concept of miccha magga outside this group, it was inspiring therefore to hear it from an outsider. --------------------- > > Suk: Yes you are right about Sila being quite basic and not requiring a > > great level of understanding. However, like anything else, it can also > > become the object of wrong understanding, don't you think? > > It may not counteract wrong understanding, sure. Yet it does not > produce it by itself. S: No experience by itself conditions any right/wrong view. Many conditions must be involved, including the accumulated tendency. But wrong view being rooted in self view, and Sila followed with `self' does seem to me like good fodder for self view to be conditioned. ---------------------- > > In which > > case, only the development of panna can keep check. One might for > > example, proliferate into ideas about vegetarianism or celibacy, > > completely unaware of the influence of wrong view at those times. Or > > someone may think about following the vinaya as monks do and end up > > overreaching and later fall prey to kukucha........ > > Vegeterianism is not a sila matter. Celibacy is more the sign of an > unresolved issue, to me. S: The idea of `not killing' can lead to `not encouraging killing' to `not eating meat'. And this may be the result of following Sila blindly without reflection, don't you think? Furthermore, who is to stop this from leading to the idea of `developing purity', hence the danger of silabattaparamasa? ---------------------- > > Fab: > > > In our world I think it is impossible to practice Sila without at the > > > same time developing wisdom - short of neither giving up the practice > > > or one's own life. > > Suk: You mean as students of Dhamma? But what if even Dhamma is > > wrongly understood? > > The good thing about Sila is that it works even if the Dhamma is > temporarily misunderstood. S: Works towards what? To not commit akusala and increasing one's chances of a better rebirth? Isn't this still the stuff of samsara, while the goal of the Teachings is to become detached from all conditioned states? ------------------------ > > Suk: No, without ditthujukamma, Sila is more likely to become the > > object of wrong view, even as Dhamma students. > > You must live in a lucky environment. S: ?? ------------------------ > > Suk: Only if and when Sila is understood correctly. If not, then as > > objects of wrong view, it does become silabattaparamasa. > > Sila may not be misunderstood: it just means committing to not kill > any creatures, to not take what is not given, not say falsehood, not > use sex to bear sorrow (the most troublesome part), not drink alchol. S: But misunderstanding can arise, which then makes something else out of Sila than what it is meant to be. And the main point here is whether one can expect Sila alone to lead to any good with regard to the development of panna? ----------------------- > > Suk: Serial killing!? Then I wonder what you understand by Right > > View of the intellectual level? > > Right view has no meaning at the intellectual level. S: Why are we here engaging in discussions then? To convince ourselves and the other through reason alone, to follow some form of practice with the expectation that that will then lead to panna? ------------------------ > > Suk: I wouldn't want to trust any assessment based on comparison, the > > vipallasas are sure to take effect. It takes courage, truthfulness and a > > degree of wisdom to question oneself with regard to how much > > understanding of the present moment there is. And I must admit to > > having too little of all. > > Then you could try Sila, couldn't you? ;-) S: And I'm supposed to believe that this will then generate more courage, truthfulness and wisdom? ----------------------- > > Anyway, I think that you are implying that Sila makes the > > development of the Path easier. > Nope. It makes the development of the path "possible" [tout court]. > Sila, to me, comes before the teaching of the middle way. That is > another aspect of the gradual teaching. S: Are you saying that for one who just comes into contact with the Teachings that he must begin with faith regarding the actual patipatti without even a clue as to what that patipatti is about? I think the Middle Way involves the arising of panna cetasikas with certain other sobhana cetasikas. And its development begins with pariyatti, or the correct intellectual understanding of Dhammas. The virati cetasikas don't somehow cause the arising of panna regardless, does it? ----------------------- > > Suk: I don't think we can assume that of a 5 yr, old, nor for the > > matter, a 70 yr. old. > > Why? You are undervaluing Sila. S: Fabrizio, I really don't know if I am doing this and that is the reason I am interested in this discussion with you. I know to some extent the danger of akusala and the value of kusala and it is clear that the 10 unwholesome courses of action are wrong. But perhaps I am missing something. So please help me here. ------------------------ > > The precepts are training rules not meant to condition unwholesome > > regret and other akusala dhammas, just because the Dhamma student > > misses the significance of the Middle Way. > > Precepts are committments. Of course that does not mean one should > fail into despair if she does not follow the committment. S: There are many levels of Sila and the `intention' to it is one such level. But aren't you perhaps overvaluing this level of Sila? ;-) ------------------------ > > Suk: Allow me to put this, another way. Would you not give > > importance > > to the development of Right View over everything else? > > Of course: the problem is that it is not possible to develop right > view. The issue is thus one of pragmatic nature. S: You'll probably have to write a commentary on this for me. :-) ------------------------ > > Suk: Yes, none of the baskets should be ignored. But one question, > > should a lay person attempt to follow the Vinaya as the monk does? > > The Vinaya comes in the form of stories. Each precepts is introduced > by the Buddha after someone experiences the effects of not following > it. This is the value I encourage to enjoy. > For example masturbation is forbidden after a monk reports depression > after having performed it. S: Yes, always good to reflect on these matters. It can further one's overall understanding of Dhamma. But you will agree I think that simply following rules won't do the trick. ;-) Metta, Sukinder 59283 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 2:25am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(g) 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;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** Moral shame and fear of blame are the proximate cause of síla, morality. We read in the Visuddhimagga (I, 22): * "… For when conscience (hiri) and shame (ottappa) are in existence, virtue arises and persists; and when they are not, it neither arises nor persists…" * There are many degrees of síla and thus it is evident that there are many degrees of shame and fear of blame as well. When there are no shame and fear of blame even as to gross defilements, one lives like an animal. We read in the Gradual Sayings (I, Book of the Twos, Chapter I, § 9) that if moral shame and fear of blame would not protect the world there would be promiscuity between people, even between relatives, as exists “among goats and sheep, fowls and swine, dogs and jackals”. That is why moral shame and fear of blame are called the “guardians of the world”. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59284 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 1:39am Subject: The 3 mental fermentations ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these three Mental Fermentations (Asavas): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these three mental fermentations. What three? The mental Fermentation associated with sensuality.. The mental Fermentation associated with becoming.. The mental Fermentation associated with ignorance.. These are the three mental fermentations. The Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of these three fermentations, for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind...… Comment: The mental fermentation (asava) linked with sensuality is the false assumption, that sensing always brings pleasure, while actually sensing associated with pain and neutral feeling, is the most common! The mental fermentation associated with becoming is like wishing: May I become rich, famous, and praised, not noticing that any becoming inevitably is associated with death and thus suffering too! The mental Fermentation associated with ignorance is the misconceptions we make by approximation: Ex: We make the observation: The horizon is linear. Then we assume, project & simplify by conceptual generalization: 'The earth must be flat', which is a false mentally ‘brewed=fermented’ misconception… For quite a while many would chop off your head if you suggested anything else than that error… Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:56] section 45: The Way. 163: The fermentations ... 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 !!! <...> 59285 From: han tun Date: Sun May 14, 2006 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(g) hantun1 Dear Sarah and other DSG members, I like the following sentence in your presentation: [That is why moral shame and fear of blame are called the "guardians of the world".] How true! In this connection, I would like to post an article by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, titled “The Guardians of the World”, which was one of the BPS Newsletter cover essays. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom > ========================================== > That is why moral shame and fear of blame are called the “guardians of the world”. > ***** > Metta, > Sarah > ====== > 59286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... jonoabb Hi Howard Nice to hear from you again. upasaka@... wrote: >>As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, >>thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's >>choosing. Of course, the appearance is the opposite. A person wants a >>certain kind of akusala to arise and lo and behold it does. This is >>because f the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. It is the >>same for kusala qualities that have been developed to the extent that >>they are powers (bala), they can arise as if at will. But the nature of >>dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors >>explained in the teachings do not include intention. >> >> > >---------------------------------------- >Howard: > Jon, when other requisite conditions are in place, it's not "as if" >they arise at will. It is exactly the willing, whether wholesome or unwholesome, >that is the triggering factor. > > Yes, in the limited context of which I was speaking -- kusala qualities that have been developed to the stage of being a 'bala' (power) -- it can be said that those qualities arise at will (nonetheless there are limits, as in the case of Maha-Moggallana at the time of his death). But I think you are speaking more generally, because you refer to wholesome or unwholesome willing. Are you referring to qualities or actions (or what)? Of course, willing is a triggering factor, in the sense that this message is getting typed because of the will to do so. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind? Jon 59287 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >>But the nature of >>dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors >>explained in the teachings do not include intention. >> >======================= > I don't know what you are saying here, Jon, but the straight reading >of it makes it appear as if you are saying that kamma is without effect, not >serving as condition for the arising of dhammas, and you are claiming "the >teachings" as the basis for this assertion. I don't know what "teachings" those >are, but they sure aren't the Buddha's! (I must assume that you mean something >other than what you seem to me to mean!) > > Am I saying that kamma is without effect? I certainly hope not! Isn't that one of the heavy something-or-others? ;-)) Yes, the mental factor cetana (intention) is kamma; kamma conditions vipaka, the 5 sense-door experiencing consciousnesses. However, the sentence you have quoted is from a discussion about kusala and aksuala, and I really had those particular dhammas only in mind. See fuller quote below. Jon ************************** Herman: You say "Kusala arises due to conditions" >H says: Is there anything that doesn't arise due to conditions? (lets leave >Nibbana out of this) >J says: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's own >choosing. >H: Does akusala arise at a time of one's choosing? Jon: As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's choosing. Of course, the appearance is the opposite. A person wants a certain kind of akusala to arise and lo and behold it does. This is because f the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. It is the same for kusala qualities that have been developed to the extent that they are powers (bala), they can arise as if at will. But the nature of dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors explained in the teachings do not include intention. ************************** 59288 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object sarahprocter... Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Larry: The aim, as you know, is to find the end of dukkha. This > presumably entails finding the end of the cause of dukkha, i.e., desire. > > > So the question is, what do we desire? In my view the Buddha's method > for answering this question is to take a concept and reduce it to > ultimate dhammas. This suggests to me that, from the point of view of > ignorance, the object of desire is a concept. Analyzed with insight, > that concept is seen to be a formation of paramattha dhammas. Paramatta > dhammas, seen as such, are in themselves undesirable because they are > impermanent. .... S: :-/ a)A concept can never be reduced to ultimate dhammas b)the object of desire can be anything - ultimate dhamma or concept c)a concept is not a formation of paramattha dhammas either. d) I agree that parmattha dhammas are undesirable and impermanent - phew! ... > > Another way of looking at this is that the formation of paramattha > dhammas is undesirable because there is nothing to desire. A formation > has no defining characteristic (sabhaava). It is empty of self. This is > true of any kind of formation, not just a formation of paramattha > dhammas. If you experience your body as 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, and a > torso, you will experience the emptiness of your body. If Phil > experiences visible object as a formation of eye, object, and > consciousness, or even as a formation of various colors, he will > experience visible object as empty of self and, I'm sure, attain stream > entry in no time at all. Agreed ;-) .... S: the parts I could follow - No:-) Metta, Sarah ====== 59289 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >The Buddha indeed included "intention" as a conditioning factor or >support for the arising of consciousness. > >"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: >This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a >support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. >When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of >renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of >renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, >sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the >origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. [SN XII.38, >Cetana Sutta : Intention] > > Thanks for the sutta quote. Yes, intention plays a role in everything. But speaking generally, I do not understand it to be the case that kusala can be developed by willing to develop it. That is not to say that intention is absent from the picture, and so it must have a part to play. Jon 59290 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the monk's siila. Skillful Side-stepping ? sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- indriyabala wrote: > "And what is the training in heightened virtue? There is the case > where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the > Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains > himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the > slightest fault. This is called the training in heightened virtue." > [AN III.88 Sikkha Sutta] > > My understanding of "seeing danger in the slightest fault" is that it > is the same as achieving three good conducts in all occasions. Thus, > the above practices #1 and #2 according to the Kundliya Sutta plus the > monk's vinaya satisfies the requirement of 'adhisila'. Please feel > free to disagree. .... S: I understand all aspects you've mentioned are sila and in this sense a training in 'seeing danger in the slightest fault;. However, I understand that adhi sila only refers to the sila accompanied by the development of satipatthana. So the undertaking of the Patimokkha in itself is not adhi-sila. But we've discussed this at length before I think. .... > ........................ > > > We will very soon be uploading these recordings and you'd be doing > me a favour if you'd listen to the segment I have in mind. You may be > able to help me further. ... You've been making very solid (yes, > very 'core') contributions for the last few months. > > Tep: Sure, Sarah. I'll be more than happy to work with you. And I hope > to be more agreeable and not serving anymore "side dishes" that you > don't want. :-) ..... S: Two brief comments. a)Besides the track in Srinagar I mentioned on the Kundaliya Sutta, I came across another one - the 4th one in Bodh Gaya hotel restaurant. If you listen to them and have any comments, pls discuss them further. No need to agree:-) b) when I made a passing comment about a 'side dish', it was not a direct or indirect reference to anything you've said, Tep. It's never occurred to me that you've served side dishes I didn't want. .... > Please take your time, no hurry. I'll be around, don't worry about me > turning into another drama queen (or something like that)! <..> .... S: Good to know :-) Thanks Tep. Metta, Sarah =========== 59291 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 5:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Azita), --- indriyabala wrote: > Tep: I cannot imagine any real-life situation in which all defilements > arise in the same moment! ... S: No, they never do. Lobha and dosa cannot arise together for a start! .... > .................. > > > S: I would say, one moment evil and ignorant and the next moment > wise. Like two different people. And this is the meaning of carita or > character as I understand it - different characters changing all the > time. > > Tep: I am sure that you, Nina, and Jon and several other people here > behave a whole lot less erratic than that dangerous being whose > behaviors are randomly reversing all the time from one extreme to > another. Well, even Tep does not behave like that! [:>|) .... S: There is nothing random about the arising of any dhammas. Don't you see or experience different 'characters' all the time? Sometimes kind, sometimes selfish, sometimes calm, sometimes annoyed and so on. The more awareness develops, the more akusala becomes apparent, I think and also, the more apparent it is that the 'characters' don't last at all, but are constantly changing. .... > .......................... > > >S: > >BUT, the tendency to each is always there and it will depend on many > >factors as to which character shows up at anytime. > > > > Tep: That is an interesting "Theory of Totally Random Behaviors", > Sarah. Do you really believe there are real people with that kind of > behavior? It doesn't sound realistic because it is not stable. Life > processes tend to become stable after a shock (an external influence); .... S: No, it's the opposite of a "Theory of Totally Random Behaviors" - it's the truth about conditioned dhammas, about dependent origination. I don't believe there are 'real people' at all - merely ever changing conditioned dhammas. There is nothing stable, nothing lasting at all. This is an illusion of permanency, isn't it? .... > even the oceans do not become turbulent one day and completely calm > the next day. .... S: Perhaps it depends how we define 'turbulent'. In a sense, can't we say that whenever any unwholesome states arise, there is trubulence, agitation and a lack of calm. As soon as there is even subtle attachment arising now, there is in this sense turbulence. In India, Azita read out a nice sutta from AN4s which included our addiction to agitation or restlessness until we've heard and appreciated the Buddha's teachings. (Maybe you can quote it sometime, Azita, if you still have it....or I may look for it sometime. I was thinking about it the other day). Metta, Sarah ========= 59292 From: han tun Date: Sun May 14, 2006 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(g) hantun1 Dear Sarah, I find another good passage about moral shame (hiri) and fear of blame (ottappa). It is in SN 45.1 Avijjaa sutta. “Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along. For a wise person who has arrived at true knowledge, right view springs up. For one of right view, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. Fore one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up.” Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Notes: (1) “True knowledge (vijjaa) is knowledge of one’s responsibility for one’s own action (kammassakataanaana). It is a forerunner for hiri and ottappa in two modes, as a conascent condition (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states). (2) “The Commentary says that at the moment of mundane path the eight path factors are not all found together, but they are found together at the moment of supramundane path. Even in the development of the mundane path it would be a mistake to see the eight factors as following in direct sequence. Right view is the guide for all the other path factors and the direct condition for right intention. Right view and right intention jointly condition the next three factors, which make up the virtue group. These in turn serve as the foundation for right effort and right mindfulness, the effort being the application of energy to the practice of the four establishments of mindfulness. The fruit of right effort and right mindfulness is right concentration.” Respectfully, Han 59293 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 14, 2006 2:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/14/06 6:40:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Of course, willing is a triggering factor, in the > sense that this message is getting typed because of the will to do so. > Is that the kind of thing you have in mind? > ==================== Sure, Jon. Nothing more ... and nothing less. 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) 59294 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 14, 2006 2:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/14/06 7:13:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Am I saying that kamma is without effect? I certainly hope not! Isn't > that one of the heavy something-or-others? ;-)) ----------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Yes, exactly! ---------------------------------- > > Yes, the mental factor cetana (intention) is kamma; kamma conditions > vipaka, the 5 sense-door experiencing consciousnesses. > > However, the sentence you have quoted is from a discussion about kusala > and aksuala, and I really had those particular dhammas only in mind. > See fuller quote below. --------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, thank you for the clarification bringing in the more general context! So the specifics of the clarification involve 1) determining the precise moment of arising - which *can* occur, IMO, but rarely does, and certainly never independent of other conditions, and, along the same lines, 2) the matter of mastery, which, if 'mastery' implies an all-powerfulness of cetana independent of other conditions, never holds. As to your single sentence, "But the nature of dhammas is that they are conditioned, and the conditioning factors explained in the teachings do not include intention," as it stands it is sorely in need of reformulation, because it is misleading to say the least, and distorts your overall meaning. (To put it plainly, it is false. ;-)) --------------------------------------- > > Jon > > =================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 59295 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... jonoabb Hi Howard (and Tep) upasaka@... wrote: >Howard: > Er, Tep, Jon hasn't given a clarification yet. I remain uncertain of >what he was saying, but whatever it was, I'm content to wait to hear what Jon >can add without jumping to any conclusions. As to the matter of cetana being a >condition, for example as in the following material you quote, you and I seem >to be in agreement. But Jon may also be in agreement! I may well have >misunderstood what he wrote, or there may be elements missing in what he wrote, but >presumed by him, that will cast a whole other light on this matter. > Jon, I much look forward to seeing whatever you would care to add. :-) > > Thanks, Howard. I hope what I have added in posts to you and Tep has clarified (mainly a case of 'elements missing', I think). I of course 'agree' with Tep's sutta quote (but that still leaves open the question of just what it means ;-)). Jon 59296 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sila, samadhi, panna ... Negative Remarks jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >>Jon: >>On the main point of interest here (the significance of the 3-fold >>classification) you say: "It is required that the wise man is well >>established in virtue -- morality or sila -- before he develops >>consciousness (citta--Nanamoli's translation) and understanding >>(paññaa-- Nanamoli's translation). So it is clear that the >>purification of citta and paññaa depends on the "established" sila." >> >> >>The problem I would see with a 'sila first, then and only then' >>reading is the uncertainty it leaves as to when exactly the >>development of samatha or vipassana may begin. Would you like to say >>a few words on that? Thanks. >> >> > >Tep: I don't think my concern is on drawing a line separating samatha >and vipassana from the purification of virtue. >Please note the wording : "So it is clear that the purification of >citta and paññaa depends on the 'established" sila.' " It means that >purification of citta and purification of understanding cannot be >fulfilled when virtue has not been purified yet. > Yes, I agree the purification of sila precedes that of samadhi, and the purification of samadhi precedes that of panna. As I understand it, these purifications occur at the magga citta of the sotapanna, anagami and arahant respectively. Is that correct? But you do say that it is required that the wise man be well established in sila before he develops samadhi or panna. It was really this comment that I was addressing. At what stage does sila become sufficiently established that the development of sila and panna can occur? Is there a stage of establishment of sila before which samadhi and panna cannot be developed, as you understand it? >The following sutta >tells you why. > >"Here, Ku.n.daliya, having abandoned bodily misconduct, a bhikkhu >develops good bodily conduct; having abandoned verbal misconduct, he >develops good verbal conduct, having abandoned mental misconduct, he >develops good mental conduct. It is in this way that the three kinds >of good conduct are developed and cultivated so that they fulfil the >four establishments of mindfulness." [SN 36.6, translated by Bhikkhu >Bodhi] > > I would be interested to hear how this sutta passage ties in with your statement regarding the order of purification of sila, samadhi and panna, if you would care to explain. Thanks. >Tep: I disagree with "negative remarks", Jon. It is similar to when a >few members here keep telling me that it is wrong that I completely >believe the suttas. But I never tell them that their remarks are negative. > > You are more restrained than I am, Tep! Sorry if my remarks offended or upset you. Jon 59297 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 14, 2006 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Tep) - In a message dated 5/14/06 7:27:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Thanks for the sutta quote. Yes, intention plays a role in everything. > But speaking generally, I do not understand it to be the case that > kusala can be developed by willing to develop it. That is not to say > that intention is absent from the picture, and so it must have a part to > play. > ===================== Jon, would you be happy with the modification "But speaking generally, I do not understand it to be the case that kusala can be developed SOLELY by willing to develop it"? I certainly share THAT understanding! In fact, we can will all sorts of things to no avail ... if willing is all that occurs! Thoughts along the lines of "May this be! May that be!" are, on their own, utter nonsense! My reply to someone who believes that mere willing can prevail is "Get real!" 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) 59298 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 6:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(g) sarahprocter... Dear Han, Thank you very much for your helpful additions. Yes, I also like the expression 'guardians of the world' a lot. I like the chapter on hiri and ottappa a lot and value further reflections on their important role. Thank you also for this helpful sutta and the commentary notes you included. --- han tun wrote: It is in SN 45.1 Avijjaa > sutta. > > “Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner > in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of > shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) > following along. <...> > (1) “True knowledge (vijjaa) is knowledge of one’s > responsibility for one’s own action > (kammassakataanaana). It is a forerunner for hiri and > ottappa in two modes, as a conascent condition > (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously > arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition > (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for > subsequently arisen states). <...> S: Without the development of vijjaa, would there be any development of hiri and ottappa? Would there be any knowing abut which wholesome states are to be developed and which unwholesome states are to be avoided? I don't think so. It's interesting that it's kammassakataanaana only that is given here for vijjaa. Wrong view about kamma is said to be the most serious/dangerous kind of wrong view because when there is no understanding of it, one can do anything. The sutta in Itiv 42 about the role of these guardians (which BB gives a reference for) is a good reminder too. Also DN27, the Agga~n~na Sutta is full of shocking reminders of what happens when there is no hiri and ottappa if I recall. Thank you again for the relevant and useful sutta and notes, Han. I'm so glad to know that you're reading the extracts and considering the content. Please add any additions anytime you think of anything. Metta, Sarah ======== 59299 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:04am Subject: Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks for your reply. K: ". . .I had to concentrate (you psychologists talk funny) but agreed with what I understood you to be saying." Please don't indict psychologists; it is just I who talk funny (see, check the grammar on that last clause). I am honestly one of the fuzziest thinkers I know. I drive myself crazy with it. My apologies for "funny talk." K: "You will be familiar with the incident in which Ananda said, 'Friendship is half of the Dhamma,' and the Buddha corrected him, saying, 'No, Ananda, friendship is the whole of the Dhamma.' I vaguely remember that being explained on DSG, and have some idea of how friendship could be the whole of the Dhamma. However, if you could articulate it in your inimitable style I am sure that would be helpful." Well, Ken, I'm not very knowledgable and figure you'd likely be better off going into the archives to re-read that explanation you refer to. I'll take a shot at saying what I get out of it and would appreciate hearing your ideas as well. Thanks for the chance to consider this. I checked and its the Upaddha Sutta (SN.XLV.2). I read where the Buddha states that with admirable friends one can be "expected to develop and pursue the noble eightfold path." I see where he later asserts that "it is in dependence on [the Buddha] as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth...aging...death...sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair...have gained release..." Surfing Access To Insight, the Dighajanu Sutta (AN VIII.54) is cited as being related. Here "admirable friendship" is defined. Its actually exactly what we do here: "...when a layperson...spends time with [admirable friends]who are advanced in virtue. He talks with them, engages in discussions. He emulates consummate conviction...consummate virtue...consummate generosity... and consummate discernment in those who are consummate [in all these things]. This is called admirable friendship." This is why I have to admit to being surprised by your request to articulate anything because I really don't know much. The above is why I read on this forum. I consider myself to be in great need of instruction. I worried that I had sounded as if I did know something or acted sort of like a know-it-all. I hope not. My association with "admirable friends" is here. I try to get into a discussions, and try to be civil, agreeing or disagreeing as I do, yet hoping to be corrected and learn something. I try to stick out my neck so that I can learn. I try to get into discussions with those who seem to know more so that, by treading water, I can come up to a higher level of understanding. My preference is for discussing Dhamma as Dhamma, that is, I'd prefer to steer clear of discussions of a comparative nature; I don't really care what the physicists or psychoanalysts or whomever says or how it may or may not relate to the Dhamma. I definitely don't mean to bad-mouth these sorts of discussions; I'm just saying they don't do much for me, that I just want to talk of the Dhamma. So I guess the three aspects of admirable friendship described in the Upaddha and the Dighajanu suttas - association, learning, and emulation - are to be found and engaged in here. Enough of my ideas. Please do me the favour of putting yours forth, since mine are not really that great. It is our association that makes us learn and progress. There is Right View and we can all struggle to come to a mutual understanding of what this is. For what that is worth . . . Sincerely, Scott. 59300 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >Yes, 'everytime' is dogmatic and >that is one thing I am not!! >You say 'one of many perhaps' but >in the Upanissa it is samadhi >that the Buddha (not me) is >emphasizing. Again, a more prudent >use of our time would be to ask WHY?! > > OK, so let me ask: Why is the relationship between samadhi/jhana and insight singled out here, bearing in mind that the relationship in question is one of 'upanisaa'? >OK you like the word 'conditionality'. >How is this? > >Insight depends upon concentration. > >Surely you see this being said here in the >Upanissa? > > As long as we understand just what the 'dependency' is ;-)). And as long as we take this link as one of a number being described, and not giving it undue prominence out of its context. >Yes exactly. Insight does not always >come from samadhi. But without fuel >(samadhi) there is no fire (insight). > > >J>- Fire is a condition for heat (and is so in every case) > >Really? When you rub your hands together >your hands are on fire? > Fire is a condition for heat, and is so in every case. But fire is not the only condition for heat, since heat may occur other than by fire. >Concentrated heat >leads to fire. In the same way a concentrated >mind leads to insight. Maybe this is why you >think you dont have to meditate. You think >your hands (mind) is on fire because you rub >them together (read a book). :-) > > 'Concentrated heat leads to fire': well yes, but only in certain circumstances. >J>You may call it splitting hairs and avoiding the issue; I call it >necessary analysis ;-)) > >Maybe analysis/paralysis in this case. ;-) > > I think you might be right. I've analysed, now I'm about paralysed ;-)) Jon 59301 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 8:01am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... indriyabala Hi Jon - Thank you for the timely response. >Jon: >Thanks for the sutta quote. Yes, intention plays a role in >everything. But speaking generally, I do not understand it >to be the case that kusala can be developed by willing to >develop it. That is not to say that intention is absent from the >picture, and so it must have a part to play. Tep: It is great that we have the same understanding about intention playing "a role in everything". Willing, intention, or volition to develop kusala is the beginning of the development process that results in kusala being developed. Just like you intend to wash your dirty linen, but that intention does not (by itself) make the linen cleansed. Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > > indriyabala wrote: > > >The Buddha indeed included "intention" as a conditioning factor or > >support for the arising of consciousness. > > > >"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: > >This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a > >support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. > >When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of > >renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of > >renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, > >sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the > >origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. [SN XII.38, > >Cetana Sutta : Intention] > > > > > (snipped) > 59302 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 8:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Dear Friend Han and Sarah (Nina, Sukinder, Jon) - I commend you for focusing on hiri-ottappa the very first cornerstone of purification of virtue. > Han: I like the following sentence in your presentation: > [That is why moral shame and fear of blame are called > the "guardians of the world".] > > How true! > In this connection, I would like to post an article by > Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, titled "The Guardians of the > World", which was one of the BPS Newsletter cover > essays. Tep: Prior to 'shame and fear of doing wrong', new monks must have saddha in the Buddha and determination to become a recluse(samana). Majjhima Nikaya 39 Mahaassapurasuttam: "Bhikkhus, people call us recluses and you too acknowledge that we are recluses. Bhikkhus, you, who have promised to be recluses, should take upon yourself to live in the ways that make you a true recluse and brahmin. In so doing, your vows will be fulfilled. Then it will be meritorious to those who offer us robes, alms food, dwellings and medicine. Thus our going forth be fruitful and full of results. "Bhikkhus, what are the things that make you a true recluse and brahmin? Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will be endowed with shame and fear of doing wrong.' Bhikkhus, it might occur to you: 'We are endowed with shame and fear of doing wrong. With this much, the goal of recluseship has been reached' and you rest satisfied, thinking there is nothing more to do. Bhikkhus, I inform you, I declare to you, there is more to do; do not fall short of the goal of recluseship. .................... Questions: How important is hiri-ottappa in comparison to understanding? Is there an understanding that accompanies hiri-ottappa in order to make it work without falling prey to lobha & self-view? Or, can we the worldlings begin our path of no-craving (alobha) and not-self(anatta) with only "understanding" and NO hiri-ottappa? Thanks. Warm regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah and other DSG members, > (snipped) > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html > > 59303 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 8:53am Subject: Re: the monk's siila. Skillful Side-stepping ? indriyabala Hi Sarah, I am not sure what you talk about here : S: .. Besides the track in Srinagar I mentioned on the Kundaliya Sutta, I came across another one - the 4th one in Bodh Gaya hotel restaurant. If you listen to them and have any comments, pls discuss them further. What and where are these tracks? Sincerely, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, > 59304 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 10:56am Subject: Re: Sila, samadhi, panna ... Satipatthana from three good conducts indriyabala Hi, Jon (& Charles D., Herman, Sarah, Sukinder, Han and all)- Our discussion has been productive as usual. >Jon: >Yes, I agree the purification of sila precedes that of samadhi, and the purification of samadhi precedes that of panna. As I understand it, these purifications occur at the magga citta of the sotapanna, anagami and arahant respectively. Is that correct? Tep: I believe so too, Jon. That's one reason why the Sotapanna is known as one who has perfect Sila and the Anagami as one who has purified consciousness (perfect jhanas). And the Seven Chariot (the discourse of the arahant Punna Mantaniputta talking to the Chief Disciple Sariputta) also clearly affirms that fact. But (pardon me, if you feel my remark is negative) unfortunately, some commentaries contradict to this fact. But should we believe in the arahant's words or the words of those "ancient commentators"? ...................... >Jon: >But you do say that it is required that the wise man be well established in sila before he develops samadhi or panna. It was really this comment that I was addressing. At what stage does sila become sufficiently established that the development of sila and panna can occur? Is there a stage of establishment of sila before which samadhi and panna cannot be developed, as you understand it? Tep: Thanks for the clarification, Jon. I believe it is the stage of Stream-entry when "sila becomes sufficiently established" (i.e. when the purification of sila is fulfilled; see the discussion above) so that real progress toward anagami-magga (of purified consciousness) can begin. However, sila of the arahant is of course higher than that of a Sotapanna, according to the Vism. So it seems that all things are relative, like Charles DaCosta has said. Of course, anyone can start to develop samadhi and paññaa any time, but I don't think you can fulfil purification of consciousness (becoming Anagami) before your virtues have been purified (becoming Sotapanna) first. ..................... >Jon: >>"Here, Ku.n.daliya, having abandoned bodily misconduct, a bhikkhu >develops good bodily conduct; having abandoned verbal misconduct, he >develops good verbal conduct, having abandoned mental misconduct, he >develops good mental conduct. It is in this way that the three kinds >of good conduct are developed and cultivated so that they fulfil the >four establishments of mindfulness." [SN 36.6, translated by Bhikkhu >Bodhi] > >I would be interested to hear how this sutta passage ties in with >your statement regarding the order of purification of sila, samadhi >and panna, if you would care to explain. Thanks. Tep: Thank you very much for asking me to "explain", even though my sutta explanation is not yet free from drawbacks. But it is not a rotten fruit by all means. The key word in this Kundliya Sutta is "fulfil". There are two Pali words that mean fulfil. Saadheti = to accomplish, further, effect. Nipphaadeti = to bring forth, produce; accomplish, perform. So I interpret "the three kinds of good conduct are developed and cultivated so that they fulfil the four establishments of mindfulness" to mean the three good conducts, when developed and cultivated, bring forth or further produce the foundations of mindfulness. Now, how do the three good conducts further "produce" or fulfil the four establishments of mindfulness (sati-patthana)? I think with a full training in the restraint of the senses <'Seeing a form with the eye we will not take the sign or the details. To one living with the mental faculty of the eye not protected, evil demerit of covetousness and displeasure may arise. ... Cognising an idea with the mind will not take the sign or the details. To one living with the mental faculty of the mind not protected, evil demerit of covetousness and displeasure may arise'.> the "monk" will not let out bad bodily actions, bad speeches, or bad thoughts. But can the restraint of the sensing media automatically establish a perfect awareness (in every moment) in the monk? I am afraid not. I believe a further training in the 3 good conducts as stated in the above passage of the Kundliya Sutta would establish continuity in awareness (sati and sampajanna) in the monk. Why? Because such non-stop reflections (a vipassana, for sure) on every tiny actions in the 3 aspects (including thinking) to establish three good conducts is a very rigorous training for awareness beyond the sense faculties restraint may give. .................... >Jon: >You are more restrained than I am, Tep! Sorry if my remarks offended or upset you. Tep: Well, since the beginning of this year I have not been offended or upset by any provoking members of the DSG yet. As you know, I was frustrated and discouraged by Sarah's posts early this year, but "that" was far from being offended or upset. So, there is no need to say sorry yet. {:-)) Sincerely, Tep == --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > (snipped) 59305 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 11:58am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' yet ! indriyabala Hi Jon & Herman (Nina and Han), In your dialogue H says this and J says that, but I don't see if anyone listens! So let me play the role of both sayer & listener. > >J says: Kusala arises due to conditions, but not at a time of one's >own choosing. > >H: Does akusala arise at a time of one's choosing? > > Tep listens & says: You're wrong Jon. Kusalas like the three good conducts do arise "at a time of one's own choosing". Abstaining from killing is kusala here and now ! Abstaining from taking what is not given is kusala here and now! Abstaining from sensual misconduct is kusala here and now! Abandoning false speech, abstaining from false speech is kusala here and now! Abstaining from drinking intoxicants (whiskeys and wines included) is kusala here and now! [see AN X.176] Coversely, akusala can arise at a time of one's choosing too, friend Herman. ................ >J says: >> As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery > >and, thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of > >one's choosing. Tep listens & says: You ain't seen nothing yet. Read my comment above and AN X.176. One more example to convince you; note carefully the words "whenever I want": "If a monk would wish, 'May I attain — whenever I want, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now,' then he should be one who brings the precepts to perfection, who is committed to mental calm, who does not neglect jhana, who is endowed with insight, and who frequents empty dwellings. [AN X.71 Akankha Sutta :Wishes] ................ Warm regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > (snipped) > I would much rather be having this discussion in a park, face to face. > Because then every now and then I could poke you in the ribs :-) > On your exam paper I would express my delight that you have directly and > honestly pointed out my error, encourage you to proceed beyond the > textbooks, give you 1 out of 5, and an apple that a girl gave to me with > her paper (bribery didn't work for her). > > 59306 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, On 14/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > It is kind of you to compliment my writing. Thank you. > > H: "...re the absurdity of not drinking fluids. I do not think it is > quite so absurd. I am assuming that in your professional life you > would have had to deal frequently with suicide, whether succesful, > unsuccesful or considered. Suicide would have to rank as a fairly > strong statement about the need and ability to control, wouldn't you say?" > > Firstly, the reason I considered the statement about not drinking to > control urination to be absurd was because I felt it took the analogy > to a ridiculous length. I can see that you went in the natural > direction the analogy implies: death of the organism. > > I'm not sure how you mean it when you say that suicide is "a fairly > strong statement about the need and ability to control." From the > point of view of whom? I was talking from the point of view of the suicider. I am happy to persevere with the suicide-angle if you think it will be useful, but I also hope that we will focus on learning and knowing at some time. I don't see how this relates to control from the point of view of the > Dhamma. Suicide - self-murder - is an action and simply adds to the > particular pattern of accumulations within a given stream of > consciousness. It seems that you already have quite a fixed view of the way things are, and what Dhamma is. Later on you talk about concepts and your suspicion that I take them as ultimate. Could I point out that there are very fundamental assumptions and conceptualisations in your "stream of consciousness", assumptions and conceptualisations that are beyond your capacity to verify or falsify? But having made those assumptions, you have obliged yourself to an identity view of sorts. As I am, in conceiving of body/mind. The fact that one can take one's own life says nothing > about control in the sense that I am understanding within this > discussion. One cannot, in my opinion, take this example and then > abstract to the level of the momentariness of arising and falling away > of dhammas and conclude anything about control or lack thereof over > this stream. Yes, but we are only talking about an analogy, it was just a model. And in the same way, urination is unlike Dhamma in many respects, but is was a useful analogy none the same. I'd equate the statement, "I can choose to take my life," with, "I can > choose to drink a glass of water." Only the final statement above, > regarding the lack of control one has over the inevitable suicide of > one so inclined, comes close to making the point I am positing: that > of no control ultimately. I'm sure I've gone and missed your point > and so, of course, I'd be interested to hear how you were considering > the suicide analogy. You seem to again have made a fundamental assumption about the way things work. I have no idea what you mean or could mean by saying that there is no control ultimately. Do the laws of nature "exist", and do they hold in the situations where they hold? Do the laws of nature control the way things develop and unfold? The root condition for suffering is ignorance (not knowing). Does knowing control or not? When suicidal folks came to see you, did you say to them "ultimately there is no control" or did you apply what you knew? H: "Understanding the compounded nature of all things does not take > away the fact that some aggregates have properties not found in their > components, or that some aggregates can function in ways that their > components cannot. The Buddha does not anywhere deny the reality of > the body, he in fact asserts it. The Buddha also does not deny the > dependence of the mind on the body. Dhammas, and discussions about > dhammas, need to be firmly anchored as being relative to the body and > its mind, or else they may as well be in the realm of theoretical > physics (which can be very interesting, but always speculative)." > > Oh oh. I don't know enough to say why exactly but "some aggregates > hav[ing] properties not found in their components" sounds wrong. > I'll need to ask you to be more specific here. Do you mean aggregates > as in ruupa, sa~n~na, vedana, sankhara, vi~n~naana? What are the > components of these aggregates? They are ultimate or paramattha > dhammas as far as I understand, and hence have only the characteristic > that they have and nothing more. And also they arise and fall away as > part of the variegated nature of consciousness (citta). They are > not further reducible. They themselves are the "components." Hydrogen is not liquid in natural form, neither is oxygen. Combine the two, and you have liquid. Ruupa, sa~n~na, vedana, sankhara, vi~n~naana do not exist. They are categories. Some folks like to categorise dead and gone mindstates. That's fine. They even like to call some dead and gone mindstates paramattha dhammas. That's fine too. But if it is your understanding that these are useful taxonomies, then please explain to me how the conclusion that anything at all is irreducible is arrived at. If you succeed even with 50% margin of error I will happily concede the point that consciousness is "made" of irreducible components. The body is not real in the ultimate sense. "Body" is a concept. When you pour concept(alcohol) down the concept (throat) of a concept (body), is the effect also conceptual? I wonder why there would be precepts against concepts? Is bodily intimation conceptual? Where does the Buddha assert the reality of the body? He speaks > conventionally of a body, as far as I know. Scott, I do not think you are just learning, as you explain elsewhere to Ken H. I think you already are wearing a well-defined set of spectacles through which you view the Tipitaka. I doubt that me pointing to endless references to the fathom-long body, the contemplation of the body, the break up of the body, precepts in relation to the body, the remaining of the body reacting to life itself when the mind has been stilled etc etc will make any difference to the preconceived notion that there are two realities. Why do "dhammas, and > discussions about dhammas need to be firmly anchored as being relative > to the body and its mind?" See above, I guess, as the dhammas which > go to make up the five aggregates all, as far as I know, are > impermanent and without self. Since, as I've learned, the elements > arise and fall away with such rapidity, thoughts of a doer of deeds > are untenable. Who said anything about a doer? The body/mind is no less subject to the laws that govern everything than atoms. But atoms don't and can't know anything. Body/minds can. The discussion needs to be anchored in body/minds because dhammas arise in dependence on the body. "Can dhammas learn? No. Can body/minds learn?" > > Yes. Ruupa is said to be the dhamma that knows nothing. The others > are imbued with functions which are all about learning. Take sa~n~na, > its function is to mark the object of perception, for example. This > is a form of "learning." Naama/ruupa does indeed learn. I don't know > if this is how you are meaning "body/minds." Are you? I keep > suspecting you of belief in concepts as ultimates. I suspect that you are unaware of your "ultimates" as being concepts. Do you think that eyesense, earsense, bodysense etc etc arise in a vacuum, or do they arise in dependence on the body? Anyway, you'll > quickly see my lack of knowledge in the above but I gave it a shot. > What do you think? I hope that this discussion will not end up in appeals to authority, but that what we know and understand from experience will guide it. Kind Regards Herman 59307 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:39pm Subject: Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Azita, I couldn't resist searching for an answer, but perhaps not as you suggested ("Abhidhammic language"). You were referring to a search for suitable cetasikas whose function might be equivalent to a sense of "should" or control (I surmise). Azita: "How do u think 'should' would be translated in Abhidhammic language?" I asked a Pali expert, who suggested that in Pali, the idea of "should" might be expressed using a Future Passive Participle, an Imperative, or an Optative. I consulted Duroiselle's Practical Grammar of the Pali Language. A participle is "a form of verb that . . . can function independently as an adjective;" passive is "of relating to, or being a verb form, or voice used to indicate that the grammatical subject is the object of the action or the effect of the verb." The Future Passive Participle is also known as the "pariciple of necessity," the "potential participle," or a "gerundive." It is "passive in sense, expresses suitability, fitness, propriety and may be translated by 'fit to be...' 'must be...' 'ought to be...' 'to be...'" An optative is "of, relating to, or being a mood of verbs...used to express a wish." I thought this might be a helpful way into this since key passages might need to be examined to determine the sense of a given Pali phrase, i.e. whether a "should" is implied. Sorry if this is unhelpful. I got to study a bit of Pali grammar. Perhaps someone more knowledgable might critique this attempt of mine. Sincerely, Scott. 59308 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 4:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Ken, On 14/05/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > ---------------- > H: > Physicists, chemists, and most people with a solid education in > secular matters understand that the universe and everything in it is > nothing but energy in various manifestations, that all hangs together > to the extent that it hangs together by virtue of conditionality known > and unknown. > > That fact, and knowing it, like the fact and understanding that there > are only dhammas, makes not an iota of difference to anything, but, > does it? > ----------------- > > More good questions, thank you. I benefit from trying to answer them. > I hope you are trying to answer them too. You bet! I don't mean by drawing > conclusions from your own experiences, but by seeing how the Dhamma, > as found in the Tipitaka and commentaries, would answer them. That is > the anatta way, don't you think? > > You say the scientific fact (of there being only energy in its various > manifestations) does not make an iota of difference. Of course it > does! If the laws of physics were otherwise then the physical universe > would be otherwise. (You probably didn't that part of your question > give much thought.) But knowing it, as the scientist knows it, is a > different matter. I agree that sort of knowing, ultimately, makes very > little difference at all. What I was aiming at is that knowledge or understanding of anatta, whether that be as a sotapanna or as a physicists, does not make one iota of difference to the reality of suffering. When there is thinking in terms of "I" it is I that suffers. When there is no thinking in terms of I, there is suffering, nonetheless. Then you say that the fact of there being only dhammas, and the > knowing of that fact, also makes no difference. Well, that, according > to the texts, is the exact opposite of the truth. There are only > dhammas (regardless of whether that fact is known or not). Therefore > there is no use in looking to a creator god or to any other conceptual > reality. Sure. Agreed. But the plunge in letting go of "I", whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever is enormous. The knowledge of the necessity of letting go of self-view is a cause of extreme anxiety (whether known or not). Because, with self-view, there remains the view that it might be possible to organise the world in such a way for it to be a happy place. Without a self, what becomes the locus for faith that things that are not allright are going to be allright? Despite science blowing away every foundation for theistic beliefs, Gods of all kinds are clung to with fanatical determination that defies belief. Given the above, understandably so. As for "knowing dhammas" that is enlightenment itself! And > that is how paramattha dhammas differ from scientific realities. The > direct knowing of conditioned dhammas is the conditioning factor for > the direct knowing of the unconditioned dhamma. And direct knowing of > the unconditioned dhamma is the way to the final cessation of > conditioned existence. I sincerely hope that you come to find this to be so. In relation to Nibbana as an element known by mind, this is from the Pali-English dictionary on Nibbana: "It is the speculative, scholastic view and the dogmatising trend of later times, beginning with the Abhidhamma period, which has more and more developed the simple, spontaneous idea (HH>of Nibbana) into an exaggerated form either to the positive (i. e. seeing in N. a definite *state* or sphere of existence) or the negative side (i. e. seeing in it a condition of utter annihilation). Yet its sentimental value to the (exuberant optimism of the) early Buddhists (Rh. Davids, *Early Buddhism,* p. 73) is one of peace and rest, perfect passionlessness, and thus supreme happiness." Kind Regards Herman 59309 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep Whispers egberdina Hi Tep, > > T: No, Herman, you were not harsh. Are Dutch people witty like you, on > average? BTW Most young Thai men I know are not as softly-speaking as > the older generation. I lived in Holland till I was thirteen. Then we moved to Australia. It is going from one extreme to another. One of the most densely populated countries in the world, the size of a postage-stamp, to a large open continent with relatively few inhabitants. Conditionality being what it is, most Dutch people are just what you would expect from sardines squashed into a tin. My cousins in Holland that I grew up with really do not understand my way of thinking anymore. But that is understandable. Until you can view yourself from outside, you don't really understand what goes on. By sheer conditionality, I went to 3 different schools before I finished grade 1, and 8 different schools before I finished high school. I am neither proper Dutch, or proper Australian, I have no roots in any place. And when I remember, I like to make fun out of everything, especially seriousness :-) Kind Regards, dude :-) Herman 59310 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] herman egberdina Hi Connie, I hope that the heel you broke the other night was attached to your shoe, not your ankle. Kind Regards Herman 59311 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 6:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for taking the time to respond. There is a lot to consider and I appreciate the chance to learn. On that topic, I guess I am both learning and consolidating and hence, yes, I am finding that there is a body of concepts forming itself within my mind and structuring the way I respond, for example, to the points you raise. I hope I am open to revising these, but its true, sometimes it seems as if I have what appear to be rather fixed ways of seeing things. That this is occuring seems to me to be an inevitable consequence of the learning process. I can't help but come at things with a primary assumption that there is what is Right, as well as what is not. It is also true that, prior to a year and a half ago, I had absolutely no clue about the Dhamma whatsoever. It is a lot of effort to try to figure things out. I'm sure you've been through this. H: "...you talk about concepts and your suspicion that I take them as ultimate. Could I point out that there are very fundamental assumptions and conceptualisations in your "stream of consciousness", assumptions and conceptualisations that are beyond your capacity to verify or falsify? But having made those assumptions, you have obliged yourself to an identity view of sorts. As I am, in conceiving of body/mind." I agree that the idiom "stream of consciousness" is inadequate. Again, as I have come to understand things, I refer in this to the flow of variegated cittas which arise and fall away. I understand that it is not appropriate to consider this "flow" to be in any way an "identity." I understand that a prior citta or moment of consciousness, with all of its inherent properties, is condition for the subsequent citta or moment of consciousness but that the characteristic of anatta is predominant, hence no moment of consciousness ought to be considered to be another way of referring to some notion of identity. I'm still not sure how you are defining or using "body/mind." I am given to understand that it is possible to become aware of the arising and falling away of dhammas, that this is the essence of satipatthaana. Do you mean to suggest, might I ask you to clarify, that such knowlege cannot arise? I'm quite willing to be corrected since I'm very prone to having misunderstood satipatthaana. H: "You seem to again have made a fundamental assumption about the way things work. I have no idea what you mean or could mean by saying that there is no control ultimately. Do the laws of nature "exist", and do they hold in the situations where they hold? Do the laws of nature control the way things develop and unfold? The root condition for suffering is ignorance (not knowing). Does knowing control or not?" I mean to say what I think I have learned about anatta in relation to dhammas and the concept of a person who thinks she can control things in an ultimate sense. If I am angry, I can't say, "Be happy" and have it be so. I mean that anger arises, is clung to, becomes an object of concentration, is thought about, or whatever, until conditions are such that it falls away. Is this not in some way consistent with what is taught by the Buddha as seen within the Theravada school? "Laws of nature" exist. They hold in the situations in which they hold. These laws are conditions for what happens as prior things are cause for subsequent ones. While there is ignorance there is suffering. There cannot be wisdom when there is ignorance. Conditions can come into place such that wisdom (or knowing?) can arise. This is the essence of the four noble truths is it not? (There is likely something of the parrot in me at this early point in my learning. I can't help it, but I fear it might be rather annoying; sorry.) H: "Hydrogen is not liquid in natural form, neither is oxygen. Combine the two, and you have liquid. Ruupa, sa~n~na, vedana, sankhara, vi~n~naana do not exist. They are categories. Some folks like to categorise dead and gone mindstates. That's fine. They even like to call some dead and gone mindstates paramattha dhammas. That's fine too. But if it is your understanding that these are useful taxonomies, then please explain to me how the conclusion that anything at all is irreducible is arrived at. If you succeed even with 50% margin of error I will happily concede the point that consciousness is "made" of irreducible components." Part of my problem is that I am taking some things on faith (some might say that at times saddhaa arises with regards to certain things; others might suggest that this is intuition - whatever). From what I have learned, the sa.nkhaara dhammas are real. Please show me where it says that they do not exist, if you care to of course, because what you say there very much contradicts what I have been learning. H: "When you pour concept(alcohol) down the concept (throat) of a concept (body), is the effect also conceptual? I wonder why there would be precepts against concepts? Is bodily intimation conceptual?" I would say that the substance alcohol causes altered experience but that the drinker isn't real. Of course there is alcohol and drunkeness and precepts relating to abstinence. Bodily intimation is ruupa cause by nama, as I understand. The movement is real. The volition is real. The person who moves is not. H: "I doubt that me pointing to endless references to the fathom-long body, the contemplation of the body, the break up of the body, precepts in relation to the body, the remaining of the body reacting to life itself when the mind has been stilled etc etc will make any difference to the preconceived notion that there are two realities." Sorry if I am causing you to be exasperated. I have read only some of these but I think I get the gist. I'm beginning to think that you must just not accept some of what is presented within the Abhidhamma teachings. I think you know the difference between a conventional use of terms and an ultimate one. If I can make the distinction at this point, I'm sure you have done long since. I think you just might not agree with such a distinction. Is this correct or have I missed the point? I'm stopping for now. Please accept this as my attempt to stick it out with you. You've clearly been at this longer than I have. If I am interacting with you that is in any way inappropriate or offensive please let me know. I want to come up against your ideas in as vigourous and yet respectful a fashion as I can. This is how I like to learn. Thanks again for the opportunity. Hoping we can continue! Sincerly, Scott. 59312 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(g) egberdina Hi all, Just some fleeting comments. * > There are many degrees of síla and thus it is evident that there > are many degrees of shame and fear of blame as well. When > there are no shame and fear of blame even as to gross defilements, > one lives like an animal. All children below a certain age feel no sense of shame with nakedness at all. There are also many adults who also have no shame with regards to their bodies, but society in general seems to take offence at nudity. Hence, nudist beaches and camps. Methinks, if everyone lived naked, having been brought up in naked environments, there would not be shame with regards to nudity. Shame, in this regard, is totally learned and not at all inherent. It is this human capacity to be ashamed of what is natural that is one distinguishing feature between man and animal. Living like an animal has its upsides. Kind Regards Herman 59313 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object lbidd2 Hi Sarah, L: "Agreed ;-)" .... S: "the parts I could follow - No:-)" L: No problem. It was just a thought. I'll meditate on it and see if I can explain what I have in mind another way. Larry 59314 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 14, 2006 3:49pm Subject: Re: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Mo =?WINDOWS... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/14/06 10:09:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi all, > > Just some fleeting comments. > > * > >There are many degrees of síla and thus it is evident that there > >are many degrees of shame and fear of blame as well. When > >there are no shame and fear of blame even as to gross defilements, > >one lives like an animal. > > > All children below a certain age feel no sense of shame with nakedness at > all. There are also many adults who also have no shame with regards to their > bodies, but society in general seems to take offence at nudity. Hence, > nudist beaches and camps. Methinks, if everyone lived naked, having been > brought up in naked environments, there would not be shame with regards to > nudity. Shame, in this regard, is totally learned and not at all inherent. > It is this human capacity to be ashamed of what is natural that is one > distinguishing feature between man and animal. Living like an animal has its > upsides. > > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > ========================= The shame you speak of here is not "Buddhist shame". In Dhamma, I believe, shame is the dismay at acting harmfully to oneself and others. The fear of falling into such action is its handmaiden. Dhammic shame involves remorse at causing hurt and harm, and in not resisting what is injurious and unwholesome. 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) 59315 From: han tun Date: Sun May 14, 2006 9:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap hantun1 Dear Tep (Sarah, Nina, and others), Your question: (1) How important is hiri-ottappa in comparison to understanding? Is there an understanding that accompanies hiri-ottappa in order to make it work without falling prey to lobha & self-view? -------------------- Han: I think you missed my second message on this subject. In my second message I had quoted SN 45.1 Avijjaa sutta. I will repeat the extract from SN 45.1 again: [“Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along.] And Bhikkhu Bodhi explained further on this point. [True knowledge (vijjaa) is a forerunner for hiri and ottappa in two modes, as a conascent condition (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states).] If you agree to take “true knowledge” as the same as “understanding”, the above passages answer the first part of your question No. (1). You also asked how to make it work without falling prey to lobha & self-view? The answer is in the sutta itself. A person with true knowledge would take up the noble eightfold path which would prevent lobha and self-view and other kilesas as well. The passage from the sutta in this respect is as follows: [For a wise person who has arrived at true knowledge, right view springs up. For one of right view, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. Fore one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up.] ==================== (2) Your second question: “Or, can we the worldlings begin our path of no-craving (alobha) and not-self (anatta) with only "understanding" and NO hiri-ottappa?” ------------------ Han: Again, the same sutta extract [“Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) following along.] shows that hiri and ottappa will follow true knowledge. Therefore, there will not be any question of NO hiri-ottappa. If there is true knowledge there will be hiri-ottappa. Respectfully, Han --- indriyabala wrote: > Questions: How important is hiri-ottappa in > comparison to > understanding? Is there an understanding that > accompanies hiri-ottappa > in order to make it work without falling prey to > lobha & self-view? > Or, can we the worldlings begin our path of > no-craving (alobha) and > not-self(anatta) with only "understanding" and NO > hiri-ottappa? > 59316 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, On 15/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for taking the time to respond. There is a lot to consider and > I appreciate the chance to learn. I would be close to the world's worst teacher. But if you are happy to consider what I have to say, then I am happy to say it :-) > It is also true that, prior to a year and a half ago, I had > absolutely no clue about the Dhamma whatsoever. It is a lot of effort > to try to figure things out. I'm sure you've been through this. You show great erudition for your one-and-a-half years. H: "...you talk about concepts and your suspicion that I take them as > ultimate. Could I point out that there are very fundamental > assumptions and conceptualisations in your "stream of consciousness", > assumptions and conceptualisations that are beyond your capacity to > verify or falsify? But having made those assumptions, you have obliged > yourself to an identity view of sorts. As I am, in conceiving of > body/mind." > > I agree that the idiom "stream of consciousness" is inadequate. > Again, as I have come to understand things, I refer in this to the > flow of variegated cittas which arise and fall away. I understand > that it is not appropriate to consider this "flow" to be in any way an > "identity." I understand that a prior citta or moment of > consciousness, with all of its inherent properties, is condition for > the subsequent citta or moment of consciousness but that the > characteristic of anatta is predominant, hence no moment of > consciousness ought to be considered to be another way of referring to > some notion of identity. I, like you, am here to learn, and that can and will happen with an open mind. But we may not be here to learn the same things. At the moment, it seems you are doing a splendid job of learning the model of mind as put forward in selected books of the Abhidhamma. And if that is what you want to do, good for you! I have also spent time on that model, as I find it portrayed here and there, but there are features of it which I cannot connect to what I experience, or what I read in sources that supposedly gave rise to the model. I cannot see the point of persisting with a model for the sake of persisting with a model. I'm still not sure how you are defining or > using "body/mind." I don't know how to approach this question. The body is a given for me. There is breathing, drinking, eating, walking, moving, urinating, defecating and all the rest of it. There are occasions and circumstances in which that falls away in various degrees, but there is always a return to the body as locus of experience. For me anyway. Between my wife and I we have a few decades of professional experience in the health sector, though not as clinicians. From this experience, it is clear from the effects of impact brain injuries and brain trauma like strokes, aneurism and anoxia that the mind is a product of the brain (not the heart as suggested in scholastic texts, or free floating as you seem to be allowing room for). I would be very happy to be prompted to see it otherwise, and how that could be maintained. I am given to understand that it is possible to become aware of the > arising and falling away of dhammas, that this is the essence of > satipatthaana. Do you mean to suggest, might I ask you to clarify, > that such knowlege cannot arise? I'm quite willing to be corrected > since I'm very prone to having misunderstood satipatthaana. Fifteen academics around a table, with rows and rows of books behind them, may come to an agreement as to what meaning is intended by a statement in a book. But you will understand that if that statement purports to be about reality, it's correctness is not established by recourse to any number of books or commentators. We can correct each other if discussions are about what it says in a book, and we say something that is different to what it says in the book. But I could not correct you if you expressed something about experience. At best, I could suggest ways of reviewing that experience in another light. The formulation of the arising and falling of dhammas in unproblematic. But the arising of discrete, ultimate components of mind with knowable essence, with such knowledge leading to enlightenment, is contrary to anything I understand the suttas to be saying. And with regards to enlightenment, sutta claims abound, but the scholastic period and beyond is no more than a valley of dry bones in that regard, IMHO. Now, I see the possibility of being asked here to provide some sort of Herman's Synoptic Sutta View, but I would prefer to avoid that at all costs. Because my interest in the suttas is not an acacemic one. H: "You seem to again have made a fundamental assumption about the > way things work. I have no idea what you mean or could mean by saying > that there is no control ultimately. Do the laws of nature "exist", > and do they hold in the situations where they hold? Do the laws of > nature control the way things develop and unfold? > The root condition for suffering is ignorance (not knowing). Does > knowing control or not?" > > I mean to say what I think I have learned about anatta in relation to > dhammas and the concept of a person who thinks she can control things > in an ultimate sense. If I am angry, I can't say, "Be happy" and have > it be so. I mean that anger arises, is clung to, becomes an object of > concentration, is thought about, or whatever, until conditions are > such that it falls away. Is this not in some way consistent with what > is taught by the Buddha as seen within the Theravada school? Yes, that seems unproblematic. But the issue at hand is, is learning possible? Or more precisely, is the unlearning of conditioned responses possible? "Laws of nature" exist. They hold in the situations in which they > hold. These laws are conditions for what happens as prior things are > cause for subsequent ones. While there is ignorance there is > suffering. There cannot be wisdom when there is ignorance. > Conditions can come into place such that wisdom (or knowing?) can > arise. This is the essence of the four noble truths is it not? > (There is likely something of the parrot in me at this early point in > my learning. I can't help it, but I fear it might be rather annoying; > sorry.) I'm not an expert on the academic technicalities of the 4NT, I am happy to leave an evaluation of your statement of it to others. And, no, I do not find any of what you say annoying. H: "Hydrogen is not liquid in natural form, neither is oxygen. > Combine the two, and you have liquid. Ruupa, sa~n~na, vedana, > sankhara, vi~n~naana do not exist. They are categories. Some folks > like to categorise dead and gone mindstates. That's fine. They even > like to call some dead and gone mindstates paramattha dhammas. That's > fine too. But if it is your understanding that these are useful > taxonomies, then please explain to me how the conclusion that anything > at all is irreducible is arrived at. If you succeed even with 50% > margin of error I will happily concede the point that consciousness is > "made" of irreducible components." > > Part of my problem is that I am taking some things on faith (some > might say that at times saddhaa arises with regards to certain things; > others might suggest that this is intuition - whatever). One thing that you will never need to take on faith, and it would be silly to do so, is the reality of suffering. Suffering announces itself. From what I > have learned, the sa.nkhaara dhammas are real. Please show me where > it says that they do not exist, if you care to of course, because what > you say there very much contradicts what I have been learning. The following is from Nyanatiloka's Dictionary on the aggregates; "The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness." and "Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five* khandha*are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such" > H: "When you pour concept(alcohol) down the concept (throat) of a > concept (body), is the effect also conceptual? I wonder why there > would be precepts against concepts? Is bodily intimation conceptual?" > > I would say that the substance alcohol causes altered experience but > that the drinker isn't real. Of course there is alcohol and > drunkeness and precepts relating to abstinence. Bodily intimation is > ruupa cause by nama, as I understand. The movement is real. The > volition is real. The person who moves is not. Yes, there is no mover, no willer apart from that body/mind in it's context, the entire universe it is in. H: "I doubt that me pointing to endless references to the fathom-long > body, the contemplation of the body, the break up of the body, > precepts in relation to the body, the remaining of the body reacting > to life itself when the mind has been stilled etc etc will make any > difference to the preconceived notion that there are two realities." > > Sorry if I am causing you to be exasperated. Rest assured I am not exasperated, Scott. I am very happy to be considering what you say, and certainly have no agenda to make you see things my way. I have read only some of > these but I think I get the gist. I'm beginning to think that you > must just not accept some of what is presented within the Abhidhamma > teachings. I have a rational streak in me. I do not think that the future conditions the past, but that the past conditons the future. It is clear to me that Abhidhamma readings, and Abhidhamma commentary readings, often do not clarify the suttas, they supplant them. And yes, you are quite right, I do not accept it where that is the case. I think you know the difference between a conventional use > of terms and an ultimate one. If I can make the distinction at this > point, I'm sure you have done long since. I think you just might not > agree with such a distinction. Is this correct or have I missed the > point? I may at times have believed that I knew what an ultimate view was, but now I accept such a thing as being completely meaningless. I'm stopping for now. Please accept this as my attempt to stick it > out with you. You've clearly been at this longer than I have. If I > am interacting with you that is in any way inappropriate or offensive > please let me know. I want to come up against your ideas in as > vigourous and yet respectful a fashion as I can. This is how I like > to learn. Thanks again for the opportunity. > > Hoping we can continue! I hope so too, Scott, thanks for your time and consideration. Respectful vigour has a lot going for it :-) Kind Regards Herman 59317 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 10:09pm Subject: The 3 kinds of Suffering ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these three kinds of Suffering (Dukkha): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three? The Suffering caused by painful feeling... The Suffering caused by construction... The Suffering caused by change… These are the three kinds of suffering! This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of all three kinds of suffering, for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…The Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for ending suffering!!! Comment: The first kind of suffering due to painful feeling, whether mental or bodily, is fairly obvious… The second suffering is things disguised as pleasure, which become suffering when falling apart… The third kind of suffering is when a pleasant or neutral object inevitably changes and decays… Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:56] section 45: The Way. 165: The Sufferings ... 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 !!! <....> 59318 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 14, 2006 11:42pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... philofillet Hi Jon and all > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's > choosing. Of course, the appearance is the opposite. A person wants a > certain kind of akusala to arise and lo and behold it does. This is > because of the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. Ph: Interesting, especially the last sentence. It is because of "the sheer weight of the accumulation of the akusala" that it arises. And if there is kusala, the same. If we decide to say a kind word to someone, it is easy for people to believe that there is conventional "intention" involved in it, but of course this is not so. "It is the sheer weight of the accumulation" - I might print up a T shirt: "Smile if you have the sheer weight of an accumulation to do so" > It is the > same for kusala qualities that have been developed to the extent that > they are powers (bala), they can arise as if at will. Ph: Best not even mention or think of balas, in my opinion. There is the risk that people will think they can develop them. I really doubt anyone can in this day and age but I imagine there are bala workshops in Arizona every other weekend. I intended to stop writing things like that but I still have the sheer weight of the accumulation to do so. Phil 59319 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran sarahprocter... Dear Phil, Azita & Scott, I've been glad to read the further discussion on the Satta Sutta (A Being)and the demolishing of sand-castles, SN 23:2. To add a little more to Scott's helpful Pali lesson as well: --- Scott Duncan wrote: <...> > Azita: "How do u think 'should' would be translated in Abhidhammic > language?" > > I asked a Pali expert, who suggested that in Pali, the idea of > "should" might be expressed using a Future Passive Participle, an > Imperative, or an Optative. .... S: Yes, in simple English, we may read that 8-fold path qualities, for example, are 'to be developed', 'develop them!' or 'you should develop them'/'they should be developed'. Just a recap here on the translation I gave by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: <....> " "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:4 as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." " ============== S: Now, let me add Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the same section: "Suppose, Raadha, some little boys or girls are playing with sand castles. So long as they are not devoid of lust, desire, affection, passion, and craving for those sand castles, they cherish them, play with them, treasure them, and treat them possessively. But when those little boys or girls lost their lust, desire, affection, thirst, passion, and craving for those sand castles, then they scatter them with their hands and feet, demolish them, shatter them, and put them out of play. "So too, Raadha, scatter form, demolish it, shatter it, put it out of play; practise for the destruction of craving. Scatter feeling....Scatter perception...Scatter volitional formations...Scatter consciousness, demolish it, shatter it, put it out of play; practise for the destruction of craving. For the destruction of craving, Raadha, is Nibbaana." =========== S: I just checked the Pali for this last paragraph and it reads: "Evameva kho raadha, tubbhepi ruupa.m vikiratha vidhamatha viddha.msetha, viki.lanika.m karotha. Ta.nhakkhayaaya pa.tipajattha. Vedana.m vikiratha vidhimatha viddha.msetha viki.lanika.m karotha ta.nhakkhayaaya pa.tipajjatha. Sa~n~na.m.... sa.mkhaare.....Ta.nhakkhayo hi raadha, nibbaananti." S: Here, the imperative tense is used as in B.Bodhi's translation, 'Scatter form, demolish it etc'. As you all appreciate, when we read any suttas, whether the imperative or any other tenses or wordings are used, we know that there is no self that can do anything. That any scattering, demolishing, shattering or practise for the 'destruction of craving' is only done by pa~n~naa, assisted by the other path factors. So the imperative 'practise!'(pa.tipajjatha) here is a shorthand reminder to apply the teachings we've heard so much about with wisdom. In other words, it is wisdom which does the practising. This can only be done by appreciating the value of it and understanding it is these 5 khandhas which are to be known for what they are, so that craving will be abolished. This is the only way that the end of samsara will be reached so that there will be no more conditions for the khandhas to arise again. They will be completely demolished! Thanks for encouraging me to check further! Metta, Sarah ===== 59320 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:18am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 446- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(h) 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;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** There may be moral shame and fear of blame with regard to gross defilements but not with regard to defilements which are more subtle. One may not kill or steal, but one may have no shame and fear as regards gossiping or unkind thoughts. We may often mislead ourselves as to kusala and akusala. There are countless moments of clinging but we do not notice them. When the citta is akusala citta there is ignorance which does not know what is right and what is wrong, and there is also shamelessness, ahirika, which has no shame of akusala, and recklessness, anottappa, which does not fear its consequences. Through the Dhamma we will know more precisely when the citta is kusala citta and when akusala citta, and thus moral shame and fear of blame will develop. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59321 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > Ph: Best not even mention or think of balas, in my opinion. There is > the risk that people will think they can develop them. I really doubt > anyone can in this day and age but I imagine there are bala workshops > in Arizona every other weekend. I intended to stop writing things like > that but I still have the sheer weight of the accumulation to do so. ... S: I also intended not to take a peek at your messages when I'm trying to respond on other threads because I get so distracted by laughing when I read them and completely forget what I set out to respond to....but as you say, there's that 'sheer weight of the accumulation' to be distracted in this way:-)). A bala bala party in Hawaii, anyone? Blame it on Phil! Metta....(hmmm), Sarah ======== 59322 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Creator? sarahprocter... Dear Ng Boon Huat, I liked your message on 'Creator?' very much and especially all the pertinent questions you raised. I agree with all your conclusions here as well, though others may not: --- Ng Boon Huat wrote: > So is there such a creator ?? > > The answer is NO. There is no creator. Only Buddhism > can answer to all those question above. Only Buddhism > can answer the question of the Beginning and explain > why there is no such Beginning. And why there is > Impermanance, Suffering and Non-Self (Anicca, Dukka, > Anata). > > Everything that has a Beginning has an End... and if > there is no Beginning, there is no End. ... S: Please keep sharing your comments on threads:-). Metta, Sarah p.s Can I persuade you to sign off with 'Boon Huat' or 'Ng Boon Huat' or however you liked to be addressed? Thx in advance. ==================== 59323 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:56am Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition fbartolom Dear Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > S: I look forward to it. Meanwhile I am encouraged by your giving > importance to Sila. One of the annoying things about those who insist > on the practice of jhana, is that they almost never talk about the > ordinary everyday levels of kusala, which then gives me the impression > that they don't in fact know jhana. Happy to tackle this point too. Of course Jhana without Sila is no better that Panna without Sila. I could just mention Japanese kamikaze pilots that must have had their mind focused on the enemy ships in a way difficult to be attained by a meditator on his (neutral) object. Of course the Buddha talked about the need of at least suppressing the unwholesome states to reach jhana absorption but, perhaps, His teaching do not apply to minds that are expressions of a totalitarian organization or similar polarized structure. > It is very important, to me, to distinguish between wrong views and > > fetters. The difference is the same between using an incorrect map > and > > missing an autoroute exit. > S: Could you elaborate on this? An example: a man could smash a mosquito that is biting him (fetter), while another could chase mosquitos in the room for fear they might bite his only child (wrong view). Of course the remedied for the two are totally different. > Not all our experiences: otherwise practice would be meaningless. > Just > those that are conditioned. > S: Again I am not sure of your point. Our lives are full of unconditional objects. Only we tend to give attention just to those that are conditioned (possibily by us). > > My understanding is that the gradual character apply to all levels: > > the ones you proposed and many others. > > The simile is the one between a trek and a trip by car. > > S: Are you saying that there is a complexity of conditions involved > and > that nothing progresses linearly as we tend to think? If so, I > agree. As a matter of fact our progress is very linear: of course we become aware of the path we walked, at best, only much later. It is just the ordinary man that thinks he walks around without any meaning and direction. > > It is ok. That part of the teaching is not good for you. > > S: You know this for sure? Yes. I take it as a very useful rule of thumb. If some part of the teaching is not understood by a mind it means it comes too late, too early or belongs to a costellation of concepts not part of the mind. Luckly the Buddha proposed so many different teachings to accomodate virtually every mind. > S: Actually what I meant was that because I have not heard about > this > concept of miccha magga outside this group, it was inspiring > therefore > to hear it from an outsider. As a matter of fact Buddhism in the west tends to be presented with the help of a sort of "flou" filter. Thus most teachings of the Buddha directed at the unwholesome - and there are many like the description of the Avici hell - tend to be shielded from the minds of the poor troublesome westeners to almost give the impression the Buddha was a sort of NewAge guru... > > It may not counteract wrong understanding, sure. Yet it does not > > produce it by itself. > > S: No experience by itself conditions any right/wrong view. Many > conditions must be involved, including the accumulated tendency. But > wrong view being rooted in self view, and Sila followed with `self' > does seem to me like good fodder for self view to be conditioned. Self view, in the form of conceit, goes away only when attaining the status of Arahat! No-returners are still plagued by the higher fetters. I would not mind about it so much, frankly... :-) > > Vegeterianism is not a sila matter. Celibacy is more the sign of an > > unresolved issue, to me. > S: The idea of `not killing' can lead to `not encouraging killing' > to `not eating meat'. I remind you this topic was one of the proposals of His evil cousin Devadatta that the Buddha rejected. > And this may be the result of following Sila blindly without > reflection, don't you think? Furthermore, who is to stop this from leading > to the idea of `developing purity', hence the danger of > silabattaparamasa? Sorry, but I am not familiar with this latter term. > > The good thing about Sila is that it works even if the Dhamma is > > temporarily misunderstood. > S: Works towards what? Nibbana, of course. What else? > To not commit akusala and increasing one's > chances of a better rebirth? Isn't this still the stuff of samsara, while the > goal of the Teachings is to become detached from all conditioned > states? This latter. Precepts are impossible to follow spotlessly in the west without matching them with a powerful meditation practice and Dhamma study. That is where the complexy of our lives becomes helpful and where the appreciation for the evil deeds others do to us stems for. > > > Suk: No, without ditthujukamma, Sila is more likely to become the > > > object of wrong view, even as Dhamma students. > > You must live in a lucky environment. > S: ?? I am surrounded by liars. > > Sila may not be misunderstood: it just means committing to not kill > > any creatures, to not take what is not given, not say falsehood, not > > use sex to bear sorrow (the most troublesome part), not drink alchol. > > S: But misunderstanding can arise, which then makes something else > out of Sila than what it is meant to be. And the main point here is > whether one can expect Sila alone to lead to any good with regard to > the development of panna? That is my thesis. Anyway what I know better, from my experience, is the effect of too little Sila rather than too much. So, perhaps, if I lived in Burma, I would have expressed my opinions in a very different way. > > Right view has no meaning at the intellectual level. > S: Why are we here engaging in discussions then? To convince > ourselves and the other through reason alone, to follow some form of > practice with the expectation that that will then lead to panna? In fact that is a very tough point. Franckly I have not yet clarified my mind on whether communications by internet leads to any progress. Just yesterday at the Santacittarama monastery I was invested by the perplexity of another meditator for the fact he saw me as so gentle there, while so aggressive on the net... Still, if I did only the things I were totally sure of, I would probably need to stay motionless :-) > > Then you could try Sila, couldn't you? ;-) > S: And I'm supposed to believe that this will then generate more > courage, truthfulness and wisdom? Yes. For the time being you could trust me in this. > S: Are you saying that for one who just comes into contact with the > Teachings that he must begin with faith regarding the actual > patipatti without even a clue as to what that patipatti is about? The problem is the way people tends to come in contact with the Teaching. Most often they do not want some one saying them to behave correctly and so teachers tend to propose them esoteric teachings hinting at the fact Sila is not really needed, and they can keep shouting and rolling table at bad people even when enlightened. > I think the Middle Way involves the arising of panna cetasikas with > certain other sobhana cetasikas. And its development begins with > pariyatti, or the correct intellectual understanding of Dhammas. The > virati cetasikas don't somehow cause the arising of panna > regardless, does it? Sila came before. I invite you to check the disciples whom he directed teachings on Panna, and the ones He directed teachings on Sila. > > Why? You are undervaluing Sila. > > S: Fabrizio, I really don't know if I am doing this and that is the reason I > am interested in this discussion with you. I know to some extent the > danger of akusala and the value of kusala and it is clear that the 10 > unwholesome courses of action are wrong. But perhaps I am missing > something. So please help me here. You may do this: 1) Abstain from killing any living being (that is easy) 2) Abstain from taking what is not given (this is hard) 3) Abstain from bringing sorrow by sex (this is impossibile, but anyway...) 4) Abstain from saying what you are not sure is true (this is tough but possibile) 5) Abstain for alchols and other drugs (this is the easiest of all). Of course anyone would say that they already follow them but still I suggest to commit to following them. > > Precepts are committments. Of course that does not mean one should > > fail into despair if she does not follow the committment. > S: There are many levels of Sila and the `intention' to it is one such > level. But aren't you perhaps overvaluing this level of Sila? ;-) It is not a point of value but one of precedence: I remind the Buddha defined the first step of the progress (sotapatti or entrance in the current) just in terms of intentions. Once-returners will still keep on behaving madly, and only when reaching the state of non-returner just attacks to their spiritual development will elicit madness! So only Arahat are totally free from madness, while already at the first step intention is purified. > > Of course: the problem is that it is not possible to develop right > > view. The issue is thus one of pragmatic nature. > S: You'll probably have to write a commentary on this for me. :-) :-) > S: Yes, always good to reflect on these matters. It can further one's > overall understanding of Dhamma. But you will agree I think that simply > following rules won't do the trick. ;-) But you are not sure, otherwise you would not be talking about it ;-) Ciao, Fabry 59324 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Eric), (A delayed response - apologies) --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Eric & Sarah - > > In a message dated 4/21/06 11:17:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > ericlonline@... quotes Sarah saying the following: > > > S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a > > mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly > > with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be > > spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and > > jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. > > > > > ========================== > Sarah, there is the following from AN V.28, also found in many > other > suttas: > __________________ > > "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, > withdrawn > from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: > rapture and > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and > evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body > with the > rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his > entire body > unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." > __________________ > > Please note in particular the sentence "He permeates and > pervades, > suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born > from > withdrawal." This, of course, is figurative speech given that there is > no literal > "he" to be doing anything .... S: Yes. No 'he' doing anything and no mental qualities such as rapture and pleasure which are literally experienced through the body-sense as some have suggested. .... > . The reality is that cetana in cooperation with other operations > manages to > do what is conventionally referred to permeating, pervading, suffusing, > and > filling the body. .... S: I would say that whatever rupas are conditioned in this case, they are conditioned by the jhana states - particularly the rapture and pleasure. As we discussed before, no experience of such rupas at moments of jhana however. .... >But it really makes no sense to me to do this "dance" > every > time conventional language is used, or when it suits one. The Buddha > didn't do > that. .... S: If I recall, my questioning of Eric's comments was primarily not so much with any 'dance' about 'he', rather the suggestion that mental states such as piiti and sukha could somehow be equated with bodily sensations along the lines we've discussed at length when feelings and bodily sensations are blended into one. Without any clear distinction between namas and rupas, everything remains fuzzy as I see it. Metta, Sarah ====== 59325 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. sarahprocter... Hi Eric, Hope you enjoyed the break (from my posts to you:-)). I've been enjoying your wit and good humour in your discussion with Jon meanwhile. Keep it up!! --- ericlonline wrote: > S: Who or what affects it for the better?. Willed by who or what? > E:> Lets please not get into the need for non-dual speak > Sarah. The one who wills is the one who looks > in the mirror in the morning. Conventionally > existing YOU. .... S: How can the 'conventionally existing YOU or ME' do any willing? .... > S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a > mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly > with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be > spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and > jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. > E:> Again Sarah, you will never know what this > is until you experience it. This is the problem > with an abstract intellectual approach to the > teachings. The 'organic' experience in this > fathom long body gets excised out and you have > nothing but an intellectuals philosophy. .... S: lol So does everyone who thinks they experience jhana (regardless of whether it accords with any teachings) really do so as long as they have "the 'organic' experience"? I assure you that half my yoga class would be included for a start:-). ... > S> Eric, I don't really mind who teaches what, but I think we need > to really consider and look deeply at the texts. > E:> Back to the fundamentalist position. Because, it says > so in the Bible!! Sooner or later, alive or dead, > you are going to have to let go of your beloved > book collection. .... S: Yes, that's true and we're all going to have to let go of our cherished " 'organic' experiences" too:-). The sooner, the better. .... > S> For a while, everyone seemed to be sotapannas. Now everyone seems > to have jhana attainments. Of course it's all very appealing to > lobha, but I think we have to keep questioning what the path really > is at this moment, otherwise we'll be led astray all the time. > E:> Again Sarah, maybe have the experience > and then see what you think. You are talking > to someone about diving and you havn't even > waded into the shallow end yet. .... S: Thanks for the advice:-) Oh well, maybe we all talk about things we really know nothing much about. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not even wading in the shallow end, but I'm also confident that any wishing or trying to do so will just be a condition for that shallow end to be even further away....Lobha is a big obstacle in the development of calm - easy to be swept away by a big wave.... Metta, Sarah ======= 59326 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, Just going through those posts I'd put aside, I came across this: --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, TG & Fabrizio - <...> > On the other hand, the terminological distinction of ultimate > (literal) versus conventional (figurative) when it comes to speech is > fine. We can and > do speak conventionally (figuratively) of people, puppies, philosophies, > and > powder rooms quite meaningfully and even truthfully so long as we > understand > that the speech is figurative. Speech may be literal or figurative or > somewhere > in between, but reality is just that. There is not a variety of > "realities". .... S: I liked the way you expressed this in your own good style very much. I'd just like to ask you to clarify the last sentence. Metta, Sarah ======== 59327 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? sarahprocter... Hi Fabrizio, --- Fabrizio Bartolomucci wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" > wrote: > > > I appreciate that others gave you more pleasing replies! > > Right: it is interesting to note how the wing of compassion, that once > was a feminine quality, now has entered the domain of men; while the > one of wisdom, that once was embodied by males, now has become the > favorite domain of women. .... S: Can 'non-pleasing' replies also be compassionate in your opinion? Metta, Sarah ======== 59328 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action sarahprocter... Hi Fab again, --- Fabrizio Bartolomucci wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > > S: Wrong View. > > I try to articulate Sarah's concise statement, if she does not mind. > The point is that interpreting reality in terms of our position in the > chain of events tends to foster the illusion in the existence of a > distinct self. .... S: I loved your articulation. Please help me out anytime. If you can add some diplomatic touches to my 'concise statements', all well and good:-). Metta, Sarah ====== 59329 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) sarahprocter... Hi Fab, One more for now.... I was very interested in your comments on this topic too: --- Fabrizio Bartolomucci wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological > > issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged > > psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any > > real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. > > I think this is one of the hottest topics in modern times about > practice. For instance most teachers in the IMS group (notably Corrado > Pensa from Italy) favor theraphy along or before practice for > troublesome people. The logic behind this is that concentration might > make some mental illnesses worse, what might in fact be true. This > expecially if a particular teaching does not enforce an ethical > practice along the meditation one. .... S: I think it's also very easy to take akusala concentration for kusala concentration. If one is developing akusala concentration more and more, it can be dangerous as you suggest. .... > Yet the problem about theraphy is that it tends to fix the ego and > thus naturally makes letting it go much more difficult than for a not > scientifically cleaned one as the one most of us are originally > provided with. > The simile is with a car we wanted to get rid of, and someone that in > secret repaints it. .... S: I kept thinking of your helpful analogy. I think that often we may be encouraged to cling on all the harder to the past by examining it, giving it importance, dwelling on it and as you say 'fixing the ego' more and more. Really, we need to be encouraged to let go of the past, not cling to the future and be realistic about the present through the development of awareness of impermanent dhammas. So, let's not go about repainting the old car.... Thanks Fab, Metta, Sarah ======= 59330 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:53am Subject: Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Herman > Like you, I am concerned about Jon's impending fall into drug use. Well, it could happen to any of us. The probability is fairly slim in Jon's case, so let's not worry about it too much. Anyways, worry is akusala - doesn't change anything. I guess the concern could take a kusala form if it manifested in keeping the channel open to him, letting him know that he always has our support, looking into meth- amphetamine support groups in Hong Kong etc. In any case, I'm sure he knows that we are always here for him. 24-7. > But even less seriously, but perhaps worthy of your consideration > nonetheless, is there any telling whether the Buddha will actually end up > being reborn (despite all reports to the contrary)? I have no idea whatsoever about this. I've never applied thinking (or had thinking applied, to be more accurate) to the cosmology of the Buddhas. I think there is enough to be busy with what is happening here and now through the six doors. Didn't the Buddha say "he who sees my teaching sees me" or something like that? Is that why some Zen (?) people say "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him?" Not a very nice way to show gratitude. I would rather bring him home for some green tea and lovely Japanese sweets. Phil 59331 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Creator? mr39515 Dear Sarah... Hi there... I do not know why I try many times to sign off at mr39515 but it always came up to be Ng Boon Huat. So strange this happen or perhaps I am not that good at this internet related software... hahaha I think I better sign off as STEVen from now on since it always came up to be my real name... hahaha so STEVen it is.... from now on... Metta STEVen --- sarah abbott wrote: <...> > p.s Can I persuade you to sign off with 'Boon Huat' > or 'Ng Boon Huat' or > however you liked to be addressed? Thx in advance. > ==================== 59332 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: I loved your articulation. Please help me out anytime. If you can add > some diplomatic touches to my 'concise statements', all well and good:-). Sharing your problem I would highly appreciate if you could reciprocate when necessary... :-) 59333 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? fbartolom Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Can 'non-pleasing' replies also be compassionate in your opinion? It depends. The problem with the internet, and written text in general, is that many topics change meaning when not matched with a suitable body posture. For example any talks on Kamma or Death become gloomy if the talker does not smile or exposes a certain body posture at the same time. Obviously all this gets lost in the virtual world and so some people could be pushed to exhibit only pleasing behaviours for fear of getting other people upset. Frankly I do know the solution of this dilemma, as most of the topics discussed in this list could not realistically be discussed in the real world. Ciao, Fabrizio 59334 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Mon May 15, 2006 2:24am Subject: Re: Re: Creator ? mr39515 Dear Daniel and All Hi there... I would expect some to question back and I am glad to comment further. First of all, I think I better answer the easy question of "where I am from?" first. I am from Malaysia, the country above Singapore. Somewhere in south east asia.... hahaha And second, to answer the argument..... > And second, with regards to your argument about the > creator : If I would reply > to your arguments that since we are created by the > creator, we cannot know his > exact qualities, and therefore questions about the > exact motivations of the > creator cannot be answered because we are created by > him, and cannot understand > him - what could the reply be? > Hmmm... I really don't understand why is such... such that a creator create the created which not able to understand the creator. Imperfection ?? How can the creator create imperfection ? Unless the creator is imperfect as well. Even so, If you buy a car (manufactured by a company) and when you found it to be faulty, you do not blame the car right?? Off course, you will blame on the manufacturer for manufacturing such a faulty car. And if you are created faulty, you should not blame it on yourself cause you were created faulty in the first place. You should blame it all on the creator as one were created faulty and not equal. So there could NOT be a creator who creates imperfections and blame it all on the created for being faulty. Or How can a perfect being create imperfection....?? If a perfect being create imperfectin, then he is no longer perfect.... and faulty. So is there such a creator....?? It is an easy way out to answer that one can not question or do not understand the quality thus no answer is given. This is called ignorance... or "not knowing". And that is the first link to the law of dependant origination. And thus the cycle of suffering exist. Hope this helps... Metta STEVen --- Daniel wrote: > Dear Ng Boon Huat, > > > > > > First, could you tell me please what > country are you from? > > And second, with regards to your argument about the > creator : If I would reply > to your arguments that since we are created by the > creator, we cannot know his > exact qualities, and therefore questions about the > exact motivations of the > creator cannot be answered because we are created by > him, and cannot understand > him - what could the reply be? <..> 59335 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 14, 2006 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The 3 kinds of Suffering ... !!! upasaka_howard Dear Bhikkhu Samahita - In a message dated 5/15/06 2:16:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bhikkhu.samahita@... writes: > Friends: > > There are these three kinds of Suffering (Dukkha): > > > The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of > suffering. What three? > > The Suffering caused by painful feeling... > The Suffering caused by construction... > The Suffering caused by change… > > These are the three kinds of suffering! > This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of all > three kinds of suffering, > for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for > their final overcoming, > abandoning and leaving all behind…The Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed > for ending suffering!!! > > > > Comment: > The first kind of suffering due to painful feeling, whether mental or > bodily, is fairly obvious… > The second suffering is things disguised as pleasure, which become suffering > when falling apart… > The third kind of suffering is when a pleasant or neutral object inevitably > changes and decays… > ========================== Bhante, how is the second not an instance of the third? On the face of it, they are close. Is the second actually a "dukkha of disappointment" - the dukkha of the specific disappointment at having mistaken what is pleasant for a source of satisfaction? That is, is the dukkha being pointed to in that case the dukkha that comes from realizing that one has "bet on the wrong horse"? If it is, instances of such dukkha are very beneficial, because they are the emotional accompaniments to insights that are the beginning of wisdom, it seems to me. That dukkha seems to me to be the sorrow of disenchantment, and if it should lead to relinquishment, then that dukkha will bring the eventual joy of release. 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) 59336 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 15, 2006 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/15/06 4:15:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard &all, > > Just going through those posts I'd put aside, I came across this: > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > >Hi, TG &Fabrizio - > <...> > > On the other hand, the terminological distinction of ultimate > >(literal) versus conventional (figurative) when it comes to speech is > >fine. We can and > >do speak conventionally (figuratively) of people, puppies, philosophies, > >and > >powder rooms quite meaningfully and even truthfully so long as we > >understand > >that the speech is figurative. Speech may be literal or figurative or > >somewhere > >in between, but reality is just that. There is not a variety of > >"realities". > .... > S: I liked the way you expressed this in your own good style very much. > > I'd just like to ask you to clarify the last sentence. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I suspect you are wondering whether I was denying a multiplicity of actual phenomena. I was not. I meant merely that whatever is real .. is real (or, what is .. is), and that it is only speech that has degrees of "reality" or literalness to it. Again, to clarify: By " There is not a variety of 'realities' " I meant that there is not both a "figurative reality" and a "literal reality" and a bunch of "realities" in between. There is just whatever is, as it is. ----------------------------------------- > > 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) 59337 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 4:45am Subject: Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Scott, -------------- <. . .> S: > I am honestly one of the fuzziest thinkers I know. I drive myself crazy with it. My apologies for "funny talk." -------------- Not at all! There were no signs of fuzzy thinking (or funny talking). I was just having a joke at my own expense - being out of my depth with anyone who could present in-depth arguments in a scholarly manner. Thanks for giving your thoughts as requested, and thanks also for finding that sutta. I had a fair idea of how friendship could be called the whole of the Dhamma. The quote you gave said it all: "it is in dependence on [the Buddha] as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth...aging...death...sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair...have gained release..." ---------------- S: > This is why I have to admit to being surprised by your request to articulate anything because I really don't know much. Enough of my ideas. Please do me the favour of putting yours forth ---------------- Well, I am glad I asked, and I agree with all you said - about why DSG is such a great place, about the advantages of sticking your neck out occasionally, about leaving aside matters of conventional science (although it's perfectly OK for others to include them) and the rest. I'm sure there are good Abhidhamma explanations of how friendship is the whole of the Dhamma. I'm not ready to venture any though - especially as I have been driving half the day and my brain really is fuzzy. Thanks again, Ken H 59338 From: "matheesha" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 3 kinds of Suffering ... !!! matheesha333 Hi Howard, Butting in... I was under the impression the second type of dukkha was the type of dukkha one gets when pleasant sensation ends (because it has ended). For example if Yahoo closed down its eGroups, the type of suffering many people would have! I would like to know your opinion/understanding on something. Any dukkha is ultimately an interpretation by the 'observer'. Reality if neutral - what it's nature is (sukha/dukkha), is a Nama component - an interpretation given by the observer. If this were the case when a person understands that everything is neutral (even that classification is a Nama component), there would also be no reason for phenomena to be seen as something so bad. Then what is the reason to give it up? metta Matheesha 59339 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for persisting with me. And thanks for the ongoing clarification of your view. An implicit rule seems to have crept into our discourse: no recourse to sources other than our own rational process (well, you used Nyanatiloka, which is fine because we can then use terms in an agreed upon fashion). Let's try it for awhile. H: "The body is a given for me. There is breathing, drinking, eating, walking, moving, urinating, defecating and all the rest of it. There are occasions and circumstances in which that falls away in various degrees..." So far so good, although I'm not sure what "falls away in various degrees" means; either if "falls away" or it doesn't, says Mr. Black-and-White. "...but there is always a return to the body as locus of experience...it is clear from the effects of impact brain injuries and brain trauma like strokes, aneurism and anoxia that the mind is a product of the brain (not the heart as suggested in scholastic texts, or free floating as you seem to be allowing room for). I would be very happy to be prompted to see it otherwise, and how that could be maintained." We may have to agree to disagree on this: "the mind is a product of the brain." I've come to see these as one seamless unity. However, having given up dualism in this respect, I'm too fuzzy a thinker to totally explain why. You seem to be referring to "experience," though, and it would help if you could say more on how you see this. I see that you are able to see things as existing by degrees. A massive enough insult to the brain and all experience in this body ceases. But this is not relevant, in my opinion, when one considers that at each moment there is ceasing. I think you are getting caught up in taking the gestalt of experience as real, in other words "self," versus not taking the overall effect of conscious experience as implying a unity that lasts or that is real. See Nyanaliloka below. H: "The formulation of the arising and falling of dhammas in unproblematic. But the arising of discrete, ultimate components of mind with knowable essence, with such knowledge leading to enlightenment, is contrary to anything I understand the suttas to be saying." Okay. H: "...the issue at hand is, is learning possible? Or more precisely, is the unlearning of conditioned responses possible?" How do you define "learning?" H: "The following is from Nyanatiloka's Dictionary on the aggregates; 'The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness.' and 'Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five* khandha*are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such" I referred to "conditioned dhammas," and not the five khandhas. I meant dhamma as in "lit. the 'bearer;' constitution (or nature of a thing)...quality; thing; object of the mind...dhamma as object of the mind may be anything past, present, or future, corporeal or mental, conditioned or not...real or imaginary," (Nyanatiloka). I meant the five khandhas as classified by ruupa, cetasika, and citta (these latter consisting of vedanaakhandha, sa~n~nakhandha, sa.nkhaarakhandha, and vi~n~nanakhandha). The groups don't exist but the constituents (the "paramattha dhammas") do. Here we might be at an impasse since you see this differently. We may have to agree to disagree. So, we seem to differ or at least have no consensus on "body/mind," on the level of "reality" or some such, the place of the Abhidhamma, learning, the nature of "falling away." I see you as arguing as if the gestalt of perception (self?) has a validity beyond what is classically considered illusion. Is this because you are a "dualist?" Oh well, lets see where this can lead. I see me as flailing away, likely with no clear point or direction. Thanks, as always, for your kind persistence! Sincerely, Scott. 59340 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:39am Subject: Re: Be Here Now philofillet Hi all As mentionned earlier, I will post some helpful passages from the venerable Dhammadharo's "Be Here Now" every now and then. I think the passages speak for themselves so won't add comments, but if anyone else wants to discuss them, please do - please address your comments to the group rather than me personally. Thanks! Below is first passage, that I have posted before but find really helpful. I hope you will as well :) Phil **** Can you be aware now? Yes, if you want to develop insight you have to be aware now. We have no other opportunity. And what will you be aware of? Sitting is not a reality. But there is seeing now. Why go past the eye. So we see. Seeing is not sitting, seeing sees. And there is visible object, which makes it possible for seeing to arise. So there is visible object to be aware of too. And how do you know you are sitting? Because you do not see what you call your body, in the position that you conventionally label ?gsitting posture?h You also have experiences of hardness here and there, there are tangible objects being experienced in different places where there is bodysense. Then, when you think about all that information, you have the idea of a person or someone as a ?gwhole?h. That is what you call ?gsitting?h. But the whole purpose of the Buddha's teachings is to destroy that wrong idea of a ?gwhole?h through seeing the truth of the different realities. They are not a ?gwhole?h. Seeing is not sitting. The experience of hardness at this point does not sit. The experience of coolness at that point does not sit. The coolness itself does not sit. ?gSitting?h is a conventional idea which enables us to communicate. It is not a reality. (from "Be Here Now") --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi all > > For anyone who hasn't read this, I recommend it. > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/be%20here%20now.htm > > > Perhaps I will start posting passages from it as I am doing at > another group. > > Phil > 59341 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 3 kinds of Suffering ... !!! upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 5/15/06 8:18:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Butting in... > > I was under the impression the second type of dukkha was the type of > dukkha one gets when pleasant sensation ends (because it has ended). > For example if Yahoo closed down its eGroups, the type of suffering > many people would have! --------------------------------------- Howard: And my question is why that would not be an instance of dukkha due to change. ---------------------------------------- > > I would like to know your opinion/understanding on something. Any > dukkha is ultimately an interpretation by the 'observer'. Reality if > neutral - what it's nature is (sukha/dukkha), is a Nama component - > an interpretation given by the observer. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't quite agree. As I see it, it isn't that a given sensation could be interpreted as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. I instead think that what we identify as one sensation that is here (or now) interpreted as pleasant, here (or now) as unpleasant, and here (or now) as neutral is actually three different sensations with differing affective "tastes". The thing is, though: What is pleasant need not be craved or clung to, and what is unpleasant need not be disliked and obsessed about. It is the craving, aversion, and attachment that are the sources of dukkha, not pleasantness or unpleasantness - though they are contributing conditions. -------------------------------------------------- If this were the case when a > > person understands that everything is neutral (even that > classification is a Nama component), there would also be no reason > for phenomena to be seen as something so bad. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: They aren't all affectively neutral, but only all neutral in the sense of not to be either craved nor hated. -------------------------------------------------- > > Then what is the reason to give it up? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no need to give up dhammas or to annihilate them, but only to disengage from them. It is attachment that must be given up, and not phenomena. ----------------------------------------------- > > metta > > Matheesha ======================== As I see it, what arises in the mind is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. That is a separate issue from how we react to it. What is unpleasant is "merely unpleasant" if we don't react aversively. I doubt that the Buddha found the dart in his heel - I think that's what it was - as anything but unpleasant, but I also don't think he *minded* that unpleasantness. Had he minded it, that would have been dukkha, and he would not have been an arahant. The dukkha that is Dhammically significant isn't unpleasant feeling. The dukkha that has Dhammic significance is unnecessary, reactive mental pain. 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) 59342 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:04am Subject: Feelings and Dukkha: The Dart/Matheesha upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - With regard to our current conversation, there is the sutta I copy below, to be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn36-006a.html. With metta, Howard ___________________ SN XXXVI.6 Sallatha Sutta The Dart Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera Alternate translation: Thanissaro Nyanaponika PTS page: S iv 207 CDB ii 1263 Source: From Contemplation of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright © 1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. Copyright © 1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Access to Insight edition © 1998 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. "An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling? "When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare. "But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare. "This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling." /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) 59343 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Herman seeking to understand Jon (was Re: Samatha and vipassana 1) jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >Hi Jon, > >On 13/05/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > >>Nice try, but I'm not going to back off in this thread ;-)). >> >That sounds more like a promise than a thread (threat, get it :-)). > Good one (but mine was cornier). >I would sincerely like to understand your position better. > > Thanks. And I'd like to understand yours. >If I understand correctly, you are saying, and have consistently said, that >you study only certain authorative texts, and that you do not wish to >digress beyond them. > Nope, never said by me (but have doubtless said things that could be taken for that). What I would say is that I consider certain texts to be authoritative as regards a proper understanding of the Tipitaka, and I am more interested in those texts -- or texts that help me understand those texts -- than any others. >Can I ask you why you study these texts? And if I can ask you that, let me >ask you that; why do you study these texts, and only those texts? > Answers Q.1: To help gain a better understanding of the Dhamma. Q.2: I have no rule about not reading other texts. Hope I've answered what you wanted to have answered. Waiting now for the follow-up questions (the sting in the tail?). Meanwhile a question for you, to help me understand your position better: Do you see a distinction between the Buddha's words when encountered in aural form and the Buddha's words when encountered in written form? Jon 59344 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 6:41am Subject: Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Ken, I appreciate your kind remarks. "Well, I am glad I asked, and I agree with all you said - about why DSG is such a great place, about the advantages of sticking your neck out occasionally, about leaving aside matters of conventional science (although it's perfectly OK for others to include them) and the rest. I'm sure there are good Abhidhamma explanations of how friendship is the whole of the Dhamma. I'm not ready to venture any though - especially as I have been driving half the day and my brain really is fuzzy." My brain is fuzzy and I've just been up for two-and-a-half hours! Sincerely, Scott. 59345 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 6:57am Subject: Suffering doesn't always announce itself. (Was [dsg] Re: More on Cooran philofillet Hi Herman and all I was looking through a post you sent to Scott and came across this. You always have a colourful way of putting things. Herman >> One thing that you will never need to take on faith, and it would be silly to do so, is the reality of suffering. Suffering announces itself. Let me be silly, then, and say no, it doesn't, not always. The Buddha defined the purpose of the holy life to understand suffering, in a sutta in SN 35 (can't track it down now but will if you wnat me to) but the suffering in that sutta is not the conventional suffering of growing old, geting sick dying, being separated from the loved one, jammed together with the one we dislike etc. It is the suffering inherent in the eye and visible object, and the other ayatanas. The suffering that results from the impermanence of them, if I recall. Suffering announces itself, yes, but I is always *I* that is suffering, not suffering in the paramattha sense, the understanding of which is the purpose of the holy life. Let me go get that book It is SN 35:152 "The eye, friends, is suffering: it is for the full understanding of this that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One. (Repeat for forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition) The ear is suffering (Repeat as above)" And repeat for all the doors. Surely the suffering implicit in forms, for example, doesn't announce itself. I will take it on faith, because for now there is certainly not insight of the degree that would allow me to understand the suffering that is described in the sutta above. I will take it on faith - there is no other way to understand it - not yet, and not yet by a long shot. Phil p.s as I've said before, I think we botch it out of greed and ignorance (either subtly or in very obvious ways) when we throw sutta quotations around to make points, so please point out how I've botched the above, anyone. 59346 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 15, 2006 7:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran sarahprocter... Dear KenH & Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > I'm sure there are good Abhidhamma explanations of how friendship is > the whole of the Dhamma. I'm not ready to venture any though - > especially as I have been driving half the day and my brain really is > fuzzy." > > My brain is fuzzy and I've just been up for two-and-a-half hours! .... S: I thought you wrote a good post, Scott. Ok, you fuzzy guys - there's always U.P. for more too. Try #23483, #23493 from 'Kalyana Mitta' and also posts under 'superior persons (sappurisa)'. I think 'association with right view' is the key. I'm also too fuzzy to write more:-). K.Sujin always stresses the aspect of being a good friend rather than trying to find good friends which I like a lot. On this, Leo quoted a great sutta before....I'll look for it tomorrow unless someone else finds it first. Maybe under 'Metta'. metta, Sarah ========== 59347 From: "matheesha" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 8:03am Subject: Re: Feelings and Dukkha: The Dart/Matheesha matheesha333 Hi Howard, I agree with what you say ..mostly! I think I didnt word my question carefully though. I make a distinction in dukkha as mental suffering (brought on by dukkha vedana), and dukkha as an insight knowledge of the tilakkana variety (the third type of dukkha) which is not based directly on dukkha vedana, even though that can arise as response to that insight. Now the latter dukkha can be known from seeing impermanence repeatedly (moment to moment arising and passing away) as an inherant quality of dhammas. I agree with you that both 2) and 3) are based on impermanance. But I guess the differences are 1) dukkha as emotion/dukkha as insight 2) experiencing impermance on a macro level/on a micro level 3) a normal mind can experience this/a mind developed through bhavana can experiene this. But my question is even the tilakka insight dukkha is a subjective thing. It is dukkha because our minds see impermanance as something unsatisfactory. However if we come to accept impermanance (can we?) we would be 'ok' with it. Certainly we will be detached. But then there can be no nibbida/revulsion if we simply become detached. Then again I guess that level of detachment comes only after an arahath attainment level, so there is no need for further nibbida! I may have answered my own question to some degree..! What do you think about it? metta Matheesha 59348 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 15, 2006 6:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Feelings and Dukkha: The Dart/Matheesha upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 5/15/06 11:09:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I agree with what you say ..mostly! > > I think I didnt word my question carefully though. I make a > distinction in dukkha as mental suffering (brought on by dukkha > vedana), and dukkha as an insight knowledge of the tilakkana variety > (the third type of dukkha) which is not based directly on dukkha > vedana, even though that can arise as response to that insight. > > Now the latter dukkha can be known from seeing impermanence > repeatedly (moment to moment arising and passing away) as an inherant > quality of dhammas. > > I agree with you that both 2) and 3) are based on impermanance. But I > guess the differences are 1) dukkha as emotion/dukkha as insight 2) > experiencing impermance on a macro level/on a micro level 3) a normal > mind can experience this/a mind developed through bhavana can > experiene this. > > But my question is even the tilakka insight dukkha is a subjective > thing. It is dukkha because our minds see impermanance as something > unsatisfactory. > > However if we come to accept impermanance (can we?) we would be 'ok' > with it. Certainly we will be detached. But then there can be no > nibbida/revulsion if we simply become detached. Then again I guess > that level of detachment comes only after an arahath attainment > level, so there is no need for further nibbida! > > I may have answered my own question to some degree..! What do you > think about it? > > metta > > Matheesha > ======================= I think I follow you, and I largely agree with you. There is a sense, however, as I see it, that "Sabbe sankhara dukkha" is true independently of how we evaluate impermanence. That sense is that no conditions are sources of satisfaction. It requires translating 'dukkha' in this context as 'unsatisfying' or 'deficient'. It is not that conditions are "bad" or in themselves cause suffering. It is that satisfaction just isn't to be found in them. Rather, relinquishing our grasping of them is what satisfies. There are several reasons why conditions aren't sources of satisfaction: One, of course, is that they don't last. Another is that they lack essence, are impersonal, and are uncontrollable (by will alone). And even without reasons, plain experience, if we don't ignore the plain truth, shows that they don't satisfy. And, moreover, their not being sources of satisfaction guarantees that clinging to them and seeking them as sources of satisfaction will only result in frustration and suffering. The cycle of dukkha is ongoing for us. Dukkha breeds further dukkha. In reaction to dukkha, we seek happiness in conditions. That seeking fails, breeding further dukkha which leads us on in our perpetual chase after elusive happiness. And so on, and on, and on, and on ... until finally, by doing what needs to be done, most of all coming to see what our true situation is, disenchantment sets in, and we finally move to break this vicious cycle. 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) 59349 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 10:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Jon, J, OK, so let me ask: Why is the relationship between samadhi/jhana and insight singled out here, bearing in mind that the relationship in question is one of 'upanisaa'? OK so we agree, that according to the Upanisaa, that insight depends upon or is conditioned by samadhi. I see it as a more close relationship as the sutta is called Trancendent Origination and not 'kind of a cool place to hang out for awhile origination'. There is an implication that this is a pretty important relationship. You wish to downplay its importance for what I see as personal disinclinations towards samadhi. Nonetheless, the sutta reads 'insight depends upon (is conditioned by) samadhi'. Right? Can we move on finally? E>OK you like the word 'conditionality'. >How is this? > >Insight depends upon concentration. > >Surely you see this being said here in the >Upanissa? > > J>As long as we understand just what the 'dependency' is ;-)). And as long as we take this link as one of a number being described, and not giving it undue prominence out of its context. For the last month we have been talking about samadhi and insight. This has a clear linkage between the 2 in the Upanisaa. How am I pulling this out of context of the sutta or our discussion? Yes there are other relationships shown in the sutta. But the way you want to bring the Buddhist world into our discussion, you would have to write a novels worth of commentaries with footnotes. Surely, you dont have time for this! Lets just TRY AND FOCUS (CONCENTRATE Jon, I know you can do it!!) on this one relationship. Who knows, maybe both of us will learn something. E>Yes exactly. Insight does not always >come from samadhi. But without fuel >(samadhi) there is no fire (insight). > > >J>- Fire is a condition for heat (and is so in every case) > E>Really? When you rub your hands together >your hands are on fire? > J> Fire is a condition for heat, and is so in every case. Fire as in flames? Are you sure you dont have this backwards? Heat (concentrated kinetic energy) is a condition for fire (flames) to occur. Fire is the transfer of heat. Without heat, no fire. That fire can feed back (convection) into itself and heat can increase also shows that fire depends upon heat. As fire is the release of heat. This same relationship can occur with insight. Insight can feed back into samadhi thus increasing samadhi (the power of mind) and insight (its clear non-discursive knowing). This is why the defilements themselves can be the source of insight. The concentrated mind burns them up. J>But fire is not the only condition for heat, since heat may occur other than by fire. Exactly, you have it backwards. There is always heat (samadhi) with fire (insight) but not vice versa. So heat (concentrated energy) is a condition for fire (to occur) and not fire is a condition for heat (to occur). Maybe this is why you dont understand a simple relationship like, 'insight depends upon samadhi'. You have been thinking about this all backwards.! Hey, it is understandable, with all those post-it-notes flying around! :-) E>Concentrated heat >leads to fire. In the same way a concentrated >mind leads to insight. Maybe this is why you >think you dont have to meditate. You think >your hands (mind) is on fire because you rub >them together (read a book). :-) > > J>'Concentrated heat leads to fire': well yes, but only in certain circumstances. Yes heat has to concentrate to a degree to ignite fuel for fire to emerge. It is called a flash point. There is a minimum temperature (degree of heat) required for fire to happen. So heat conditions fire. This metaphor is worth considering in the relationship of samadhi to insight. At what point does the mind catch fire with insight? How much concentration is needed for this to occur? peace e 59350 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 10:58am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. ericlonline Hi Sarah, S>Hope you enjoyed the break (from my posts to you:-)). I always welcome your thoughts Sarah! S> I've been enjoying your wit and good humour in your discussion with Jon meanwhile. Keep it up!! :-) > S: Who or what affects it for the better?. Willed by who or what? > E:> Lets please not get into the need for non-dual speak > Sarah. The one who wills is the one who looks > in the mirror in the morning. Conventionally > existing YOU. .... S: How can the 'conventionally existing YOU or ME' do any willing? It is the way teeth get brushed. .... > S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a > mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly > with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be > spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and > jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. > E:> Again Sarah, you will never know what this > is until you experience it. This is the problem > with an abstract intellectual approach to the > teachings. The 'organic' experience in this > fathom long body gets excised out and you have > nothing but an intellectuals philosophy. .... S: lol So does everyone who thinks they experience jhana (regardless of whether it accords with any teachings) really do so as long as they have "the 'organic' experience"? I assure you that half my yoga class would be included for a start:-). Yes, yoga, yoking the mind to the body (ala Anapanasati) is the start. ... > S> Eric, I don't really mind who teaches what, but I think we need > to really consider and look deeply at the texts. > E:> Back to the fundamentalist position. Because, it says > so in the Bible!! Sooner or later, alive or dead, > you are going to have to let go of your beloved > book collection. .... S: Yes, that's true and we're all going to have to let go of our cherished " 'organic' experiences" too:-). The sooner, the better. That is one of the points Sarah. You cannot keep these jhanic states going for ever and ever. They too are conditioned. Since these states are fairly rarified, one begins to grasp less and less at some idylic real/imagined state no matter how subtle or happy. One begins to see that even heavenly existence is not worth clinging too!! .... > S> For a while, everyone seemed to be sotapannas. Now everyone seems > to have jhana attainments. Of course it's all very appealing to > lobha, but I think we have to keep questioning what the path really > is at this moment, otherwise we'll be led astray all the time. > E:> Again Sarah, maybe have the experience > and then see what you think. You are talking > to someone about diving and you havn't even > waded into the shallow end yet. .... S: Thanks for the advice:-) Oh well, maybe we all talk about things we really know nothing much about. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not even wading in the shallow end, but I'm also confident that any wishing or trying to do so will just be a condition for that shallow end to be even further away....Lobha is a big obstacle in the development of calm - easy to be swept away by a big wave.... Dont be afraid of lobha Sarah. You cant posses the ocean. Just put down all those thoughts of what you can or can't do and just step in, the water is warm. metta E 59351 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. ericlonline Hi Sarah & ( Howard) > ========================== H> Sarah, there is the following from AN V.28, also found in many > other > suttas: > __________________ > > "There is the case where a monk â€" quite withdrawn from sensuality, > withdrawn > from unskillful qualities â€" enters and remains in the first jhana: > rapture and > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and > evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body > with the > rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his > entire body > unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." > __________________ > > Please note in particular the sentence "He permeates and > pervades, > suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born > from > withdrawal." This, of course, is figurative speech given that there is > no literal > "he" to be doing anything .... S: Yes. No 'he' doing anything and no mental qualities such as rapture and pleasure which are literally experienced through the body-sense as some have suggested. How do you know this Sarah? 1st, 2nd or 3rd person accounting? Be honest, arent you just speculating? .... > . The reality is that cetana in cooperation with other operations > manages to > do what is conventionally referred to permeating, pervading, suffusing, > and > filling the body. .... S: I would say that whatever rupas are conditioned in this case, they are conditioned by the jhana states - particularly the rapture and pleasure. As we discussed before, no experience of such rupas at moments of jhana however. How do you know this Sarah? 1st, 2nd or 3rd person accounting? Be honest, arent you just speculating? metta e 59352 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 15, 2006 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. upasaka_howard Hi, Eric & Sarah - In a message dated 5/15/06 2:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@... writes: > Hi Sarah &( Howard) > > > >========================== > H> Sarah, there is the following from AN V.28, also found in > many > >other > >suttas: > >__________________ > > > >"There is the case where a monk â€" quite withdrawn from > sensuality, > >withdrawn > >from unskillful qualities â€" enters and remains in the first > jhana: > >rapture and > >pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and > >evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this > very body > >with the > >rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his > >entire body > >unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." > >__________________ > > > > Please note in particular the sentence "He permeates and > >pervades, > >suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure > born > >from > >withdrawal." This, of course, is figurative speech given that > there is > >no literal > >"he" to be doing anything > .... > S: Yes. No 'he' doing anything and no mental qualities such as > rapture and > pleasure which are literally experienced through the body-sense as > some > have suggested. > > How do you know this Sarah? > 1st, 2nd or 3rd person accounting? > Be honest, arent you just speculating? > > .... > >. The reality is that cetana in cooperation with other operations > >manages to > >do what is conventionally referred to permeating, pervading, > suffusing, > >and > >filling the body. > .... > S: I would say that whatever rupas are conditioned in this case, > they are > conditioned by the jhana states - particularly the rapture and > pleasure. > As we discussed before, no experience of such rupas at moments of > jhana > however. > > How do you know this Sarah? > 1st, 2nd or 3rd person accounting? > Be honest, arent you just speculating? > > > metta > > e > ====================== From my limited personal experience, in jhana and even in lesser states there are physical sensations that are indeed rapturous and that pervade (and can be made to pervade) the entire body, and along with that a glorious joy. Moreover, that is what I get from the Buddha's discussions of jhanas. 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) 59353 From: "ericlonline" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:50pm Subject: Emptying... ericlonline stream empties into river river empties into ocean ocean empties into sky sky empties onto land breath empties into space space empties into mind mind empties onto this page, 'all is emptying and empty' only `me and mine' makes it appear not so 59354 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' yet ! egberdina Hi Tep, Thank you very much, for both listening and saying. Tep listens & says: > You ain't seen nothing yet. Read my comment above and AN X.176. > > One more example to convince you; note carefully the words "whenever I > want": > > "If a monk would wish, 'May I attain — whenever I want, without > strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened > mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now,' then he should be > one who brings the precepts to perfection, who is committed to mental > calm, who does not neglect jhana, who is endowed with insight, and who > frequents empty dwellings. [AN X.71 Akankha Sutta :Wishes] Of course. I am convinced, bbbbbbbaby. Kind Regards Herman ................ > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > ==== > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > (snipped) > > I would much rather be having this discussion in a park, face to face. > > Because then every now and then I could poke you in the ribs :-) > > On your exam paper I would express my delight that you have directly and > > honestly pointed out my error, encourage you to proceed beyond the > > textbooks, give you 1 out of 5, and an apple that a girl gave to me > with > > her paper (bribery didn't work for her). > > 59355 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 2:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Jon, As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's > > choosing. > > "All things can be mastered by mindfulness" (Anguttara, 8:83). Jon, if this is just a discussion about the meanings of words, I'd just as soon drop the matter. But if it is about the way things are, then let's proceed. It seems trivial to say that with the arising of a thought "I'm cold", and with the knowledge of how to light a fire, and the availability of fuel, blah,blah,blah that a being can bring about the arising of warmth where there was none. But you seem to have a fundamental objection to this, which I would like to understand (refute would be even better, but I won't get ahead of myself :-)) Kind Regards Herman 59356 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:10pm Subject: Re: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Mo =?WINDOWS... egberdina Hi Howard, ========================= > The shame you speak of here is not "Buddhist shame". In Dhamma, I > believe, shame is the dismay at acting harmfully to oneself and others. > The fear > of falling into such action is its handmaiden. Dhammic shame involves > remorse > at causing hurt and harm, and in not resisting what is injurious and > unwholesome. This sounds very scary! How can anyone live in a group of more than two people? Do everyone's thoughts of what is wholesome and unwholesome need to be accomodated? Just as a bye-the-bye, this is Vishahka's take on nudity "Impure, Lord, is nakedness, disgusting, and revolting". (I'm glad I'm not married to her :-)) Her take does not seem to be at odds with the rest of the Canon. Kind Regards Herman 59357 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) indriyabala Hi Herman - I really like your reply to Jon's belief that "no dhammas are subject to mastery and, thus, cannot be made to arise ..". >H: > It seems trivial to say that with the arising of a thought "I'm cold", and with the knowledge of how to light a fire, and the availability of fuel, blah,blah,blah that a being can bring about the arising of warmth where there was none. But you seem to have a fundamental objection to this, which I would like to understand (refute would be even better, but I won't get ahead of myself :-)) T: It is not trivial to me at all, dude ! Your friend Tep =============== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > > > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's choosing. > > > > > "All things can be mastered by mindfulness" (Anguttara, 8:83). > > Jon, if this is just a discussion about the meanings of words, I'd just as soon drop the matter. But if it is about the way things are, then let's proceed. > (snipped) > 59358 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 15, 2006 11:29am Subject: Re: Re: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' stu =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?dy_co... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/15/06 6:12:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ========================= > > The shame you speak of here is not "Buddhist shame". In Dhamma, I > >believe, shame is the dismay at acting harmfully to oneself and others. > >The fear > >of falling into such action is its handmaiden. Dhammic shame involves > >remorse > >at causing hurt and harm, and in not resisting what is injurious and > >unwholesome. > > > This sounds very scary! How can anyone live in a group of more than two > people? Do everyone's thoughts of what is wholesome and unwholesome need to > be accomodated? ----------------------------------- Howard: Er, no. Herman, what's being discussed is just plain a matter of conscience, of "feeling bad" about having done hurtful, harmful things, and of wanting to avoid doing harm. As to deciding what is moral and what is immoral, well, hey, we do the best we can, and there will be differences of opinion. ------------------------------------ > > Just as a bye-the-bye, this is Vishahka's take on nudity "Impure, Lord, is > nakedness, disgusting, and revolting". (I'm glad I'm not married to her :-)) ----------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! (Of course, we never saw the men in her family!) ----------------------------------- > Her take does not seem to be at odds with the rest of the Canon. ---------------------------------- Howard: What upsets people's sensibiltities is strongly culturally influenced, I suppose. But the basic sila outlined by the Buddha, refraining from killing, stealing, engaging in harmful sexuality and so on is pretty clear and pretty standard. ---------------------------------- > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ===================== 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) 59359 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:32pm Subject: Re: Emptying... indriyabala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > stream empties into river > river empties into ocean > ocean empties into sky > sky empties onto land > > breath empties into space > space empties into mind > mind empties onto this page, > 'all is emptying and empty' > > only `me and mine' makes it appear not so > How should I read your poem : 'me and mine" makes stream appear not emptying into river, or streams and rivers are emptying and empty? {:>) Your friend Tep. =============== 59360 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Dear Han - You're right -- I wrote my questions before reading your next message or any other messages! >Han: >And Bhikkhu Bodhi explained further on this point. [True knowledge (vijjaa) is a forerunner for hiri and ottappa in two modes, as a conascent condition (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states).] >Han: If you agree to take "true knowledge" as the same as "understanding", the above passages answer the first part of your question No. (1). Tep: So, you are suggesting that true knowledge(vijjaa) is the same as understanding. But vijja is opposite to avijja, and avijja is found only in the arahant! So, only the arahants have hiri-ottappa? ............................ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep (Sarah, Nina, and others), > > Your question: > (1) How important is hiri-ottappa in comparison to > understanding? Is there an understanding that > accompanies hiri-ottappa in order to make it work > without falling prey to lobha & self-view? > -------------------- > > Han: > I think you missed my second message on this subject. > In my second message I had quoted SN 45.1 Avijjaa > sutta. I will repeat the extract from SN 45.1 again: > > ["Bhikkhus, true knowledge (vijjaa) is the forerunner > in the entry upon wholesome states, with a sense of > shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (ottappa) > following along.] > > And Bhikkhu Bodhi explained further on this point. > > [True knowledge (vijjaa) is a forerunner for hiri and > ottappa in two modes, as a conascent condition > (sahajaatavasena, a condition for simultaneously > arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition > (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for > subsequently arisen states).] > > If you agree to take "true knowledge" as the same as > "understanding", the above passages answer the first > part of your question No. (1). > (snipped) 59361 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... egberdina Hi Phil, On 15/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > This is > > because of the sheer weight of accumulation of the akusala. > > Ph: Interesting, especially the last sentence. It is because of "the > sheer weight of the accumulation of the akusala" that it arises. And if > there is kusala, the same. If we decide to say a kind word to someone, > it is easy for people to believe that there is conventional "intention" > involved in it, but of course this is not so. "It is the sheer weight > of the accumulation" - I might print up a T shirt: "Smile if you have > the sheer weight of an accumulation to do so" We all know there is no Phil, right? But the sheer weight of accumulations is real, right? Riiiiight. :-) Kind Regards Herman 59362 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:04pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) philofillet Hi Jon, Herman and all Interesting discussion. > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery and, > > > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of one's > > > choosing. Ph: To me, this is made very clear in the anatta sutta, the Buddha's second discourse. "Volitional formations are nonself. For if volitional formations were self, volitional formations would not lead to affliction, and ***it would be possible to have it of volitional formations: 'Let my volitional formations be thus: let my volitional formations not be thus.'*** But because volitional formations are nonself, it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my volitional formations be thus, let my volitional formations not be thus.'" The same goes for all the khandas. I have no confidence in my own ability or the ability of anyone else here to understand suttas to the degree that the Buddha's audience did, but even to me the above sounds pretty clear. No dhammas are subject to mastery. > > > It seems trivial to say that with the arising of a thought "I'm cold", and > with the knowledge of how to light a fire, and the availability of fuel, > blah,blah,blah that a being can bring about the arising of warmth where > there was none. But you seem to have a fundamental objection to this, which > I would like to understand (refute would be even better, but I won't get > ahead of myself :-)) Ph: I don't understand the lighting a fire analogy, Herman. Lighting a fire is not a dhamma. It's a concept. Jon was talking about dhammas. Dhammas involved in lighting a fire cannot be mastered. There might be aversion for some, lust for others, probably both. There could be karuna or metta if one is lighting a fire for someone. This cannot be mastered. In fact, the dhammas involved in lighting a fire would be so jumbled up and multifarious that only the Buddha could know which were arising at which moment. But even the Buddha couldn't master their arising. It goes against his teaching of anatta, as stated pretty clearly in the anatta sutta, as far as I can see. (Which isn't far.) Phil 59363 From: han tun Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap hantun1 Dear Friend Tep, You wrote: “So, you are suggesting that true knowledge (vijjaa) is the same as understanding. But vijja is opposite to avijja, and avijja is found only in the arahant! So, only the arahants have hiri-ottappa?” Han: No, I am not suggesting that true knowledge (vijjaa) is the same as understanding. I am only saying “if” you agree to take "true knowledge" as the same as "understanding". Why I said “if” is you were talking about understanding (without Pali word), whereas the sutta says true knowledge (vijjaa). If you take “true knowledge (vijjaa)” of the sutta different from your “understanding”, then I cannot quote the sutta and I cannot proceed further. You added: “But vijja is opposite to avijja, and avijja is found only in the arahant! So, only the arahants have hiri-ottappa?” Han: A very good question! If I may, I would also like to ask you a similarly good question {(:>)} A lot of discussions had been going on in this forum about radiating “metta”. Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa or vyaapada is eradicated only by anaagaami. So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta? {(:>)} Respectfully, your friend Han --- indriyabala wrote: > >Han: If you agree to take "true knowledge" as the > same as > "understanding", the above passages answer the first > part of your > question No. (1). > > Tep: So, you are suggesting that true > knowledge(vijjaa) is the same as > understanding. But vijja is opposite to avijja, and > avijja is found > only in the arahant! So, only the arahants have > hiri-ottappa? 59364 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner =?windows-1252... philofillet Hi Herman > > But the sheer weight of accumulations is real, right? > > > Riiiiight. :-) > Right. I think it's natural decisive support condition. Well, I guess the paccayas are not dhammas, per se, but the dhammas involved are...dhammas. But whatever, it's all very real, in the terms that the Buddha taught for our liberation. Phil 59365 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 6:11pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) philofillet Hi again Thinking about what I wrote below > But even the Buddha couldn't master their arising. It goes against > his teaching of anatta, as stated pretty clearly in the anatta > sutta, as far as I can see. (Which isn't far.) > There are balas, of course. The powers of the noble ones. In those cases, the kusala becomes unshakeable. There is mastery. The mastery arises, due to conditions. There is mastery, yes, but it cannot be said even of the ariyan that he masters dhammas. Thus Spoke Phil. Phil 59366 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 7:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for those references. Good Dhamma. "K.Sujin always stresses the aspect of being a good friend rather than trying to find good friends which I like a lot." Sincerely, Scott. 59367 From: "indriyabala" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 7:32pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Dear Friend Han - I like your trick in getting me interested in your good question (without completely answering my previous good question). Some parents do use the same trick with their children. But the trick may not work, if the kids are smart enough to know that their parents don't know the answer to their question. {:-|]. >Han: >A lot of discussions had been going on in this forum about radiating >"metta". Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa >or vyaapada is eradicated only by anaagaami. >So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta? {(:>)} Tep: The metta that an anaagaami radiates is pure 'adosa', while the metta of a worldling is a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. Technically, I would reject the faked adosa and answer you with a 'yes'. Warm regards, Tep, your buddy. ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Friend Tep, > > You wrote: "So, you are suggesting that true knowledge > (vijjaa) is the same as understanding. But vijja is > opposite to avijja, and avijja is found only in the > arahant! So, only the arahants have hiri-ottappa?" > > Han: > No, I am not suggesting that true knowledge (vijjaa) > is the same as understanding. > I am only saying "if" you agree to take "true > knowledge" as the same as "understanding". > Why I said "if" is you were talking about > understanding (without Pali word), whereas the sutta > says true knowledge (vijjaa). If you take "true > knowledge (vijjaa)" of the sutta different from your > "understanding", then I cannot quote the sutta and I > cannot proceed further. > > You added: "But vijja is opposite to avijja, and > avijja is found only in the arahant! So, only the > arahants have hiri-ottappa?" > > Han: > A very good question! > If I may, I would also like to ask you a similarly > good question {(:>)} (snipped) 59368 From: han tun Date: Mon May 15, 2006 7:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap hantun1 Dear Friend Tep, This is the first time I hear the metta of a worldling as a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. Will a worldling be then never able to practice metta bhaavanaa? Anyway, as the kids are smart enough to know that their parents don't know the answer to their question, I accept your answer with a {:-|]. Respectfully, your friend Han --- indriyabala wrote: > Dear Friend Han - > Some parents do use the same trick with their > children. But the trick may not work, > if the kids are smart enough to know that their > parents don't know the answer to their question. > {:-|]. > > Tep: The metta that an anaagaami radiates is pure > 'adosa', while the metta of a worldling is a make- > believed (faked) 'adosa'. Technically, I would > reject the faked adosa and answer you with a 'yes'. > Warm regards, > Tep, > your buddy. > ========== 59369 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 9:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A matter of method (was Re: More on Cooran) egberdina Hi Scott, On 15/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, Just so you know why sometimes you get a prompt reply and other times it takes bit longer, I am self-employed, and when there is work and the inclination to do it, I do it before dsg. I may split of some parts of your posts, like this one, into separate threads, so that some posts will be quicker to process, so to speak. Thanks for persisting with me. And thanks for the ongoing > clarification of your view. An implicit rule seems to have crept into > our discourse: no recourse to sources other than our own rational > process (well, you used Nyanatiloka, which is fine because we can then > use terms in an agreed upon fashion). Let's try it for awhile. I did not mean to introduce any limits on how we discuss, accepting that both vigour and respect are not limits in any way, shape or form. Feel free to quote any source you are inclined to, as long as I am at liberty to express the following when that is necessary. If a view that you put forward cannot be sustained from your experience or sutta evidence alone, then I must conclude that your source includes material that is based on someone-other than-the-Buddha's thought processes. And whether I am at liberty to express that at will is not up to you, that is a matter for the moderators. The parameters of this group are clear, certain non-sutta texts are considered to be the word of the Buddha and / or authoratative. Kind Regards Herman 59370 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 10:28pm Subject: The 3 kinds of Craving ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are these three kinds of Craving (Tanhaa): The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these three kinds of craving. What three? The Craving for Sensing... The Craving for Becoming... The Craving for Non-Becoming… These are the three kinds of Craving! This Noble 8-fold Way is to be developed for the direct experience of these three kinds of Craving, for the full understanding of them, for their complete elimination, and for their final overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind…The Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the ceasing of all Craving! Comment: The first kind of Craving for sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, & thoughts is fairly obvious… The second Craving is for becoming things such as: Rich, famous, praised, satisfied, beautiful…etc… The third kind of Craving is for not becoming things such as: Sick, criticized, poor, ugly, dead…etc… The proximate cause of all Suffering is Craving, which have to be left! This is the 2nd Noble Truth! Craving means: All kinds of lust, desire, hunger, thirst, longing, urging, yearning, hankering, & hoping.. Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:58] section 45: The Way. 175: The 3 Cravings ... 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 !!! <...> 59371 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 11:26pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap fbartolom Hi Indriyabala, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Dear Friend Han - > > I like your trick in getting me interested in your good question > (without completely answering my previous good question). Some parents > do use the same trick with their children. But the trick may not work, > if the kids are smart enough to know that their parents don't know the > answer to their question. {:-|]. That reminds me of a similiar unpleasing technique: that of extending the scope of the speech of the adversary, attack that extension and hope he will defend it... 59372 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Mon May 15, 2006 11:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Friend Tep, > > This is the first time I hear the metta of a worldling > as a make-believed (faked) 'adosa'. > > Will a worldling be then never able to practice metta > bhaavanaa? no no no... that way of speaking is the one a meditator uses when he is very upset at someone - the analogy for a woldling would be cursing, insulting, blaming and physically hitting (if the possiblity is given). So we might be happy enough it all boiled down to the view that love does not exist in the world... 59373 From: Bhikkhu samahita Date: Tue May 16, 2006 0:31am Subject: Re: The 3 kinds of Suffering ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Dear friend Howard: The pali compounds of the 3 kinds of Suffering speaks clearly for themselves IMHO: 1: Dukkha-dukkhata - = pain-pain i.e. suffering due to painful feeling... 2: Sankhara-dukkhata - = construction-pain i.e. suffering due to falling apart... 3: Viparinama-dukkhata - = change-pain i.e. suffering due to non-constancy... Often they overlap yes. Seeing this lead to disgust and then mental release... Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> 59374 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 1:20am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 447- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottappa(i) 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;-) ========================================== Moral Shame & Fear of Blame (hiri & ottappa) contd ***** Through the development of right understanding we come to see the danger of all kinds of akusala, be it gross or more subtle. One may know in theory that wrong view is dangerous, but there may still be the tendency to take realities for self. When there is still a notion of self who sees or hears, there is no shame and fear of akusala. When we consider the difference between the sotåpanna who has eradicated wrong view and the non-ariyan, it will help us to see the danger of wrong view. The sotåpanna has no more conditions to commit gross akusala kamma which can produce an unhappy rebirth whereas the non-ariyan still has conditions for the committing of gross akusala kamma. Because of clinging to “self” one becomes more and more enslaved to gain and loss, praise and blame and the other vicissitudes of life. So long as defilements have not been eradicated we have to continue to be in the cycle of birth and death. Even if one cannot see the danger of rebirth one may understand that it is sorrowful that defilements are bound to arise again and again. ***** Ch27 - Moral Shame & Fear of Blame(hiri & ottappa) to be continued Metta, Sarah ====== 59375 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the monk's siila. Skillful Side-stepping ? sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- indriyabala wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I am not sure what you talk about here : > > S: .. Besides the track in Srinagar I mentioned on the > Kundaliya Sutta, I came across another one - the 4th one in Bodh Gaya > hotel restaurant. If you listen to them and have any comments, pls > discuss them further. > > What and where are these tracks? .... S: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Scroll down to 'Audio' Under the second set of audio discussions, India 2005 Scroll down to: a)Srinagar day 2 afternoon, 01, 02 you should find yourself listening to questions I ask K.Sujin about the Kundaliya sutta and later some difficult points on virati and Patsiambhidda Magga (for your extracts) b)Bodh Gaya (hotel) 04 you may have to be a little patient before you find more questions on the Kundaliya sutta. Tep, I don't know if you have broadband or can download easily. If not, pls let me know if you'd like me to send a cd. If you're too busy to listen, I understand too. Metta, Sarah ======= 59376 From: "Joop" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 1:30am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap jwromeijn Hallo Tep, Han, Fabrizio, all To me the question of Han is an important one, although I don't understand the context in which it started (Re: `Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap) and although I don't understand the too personal dimension between the participants of the thread till now. So back to the question: "Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa or vyaapada is eradicated only by anaagaami. So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta?" My answer: - No, a 'worldling' can radiate metta, his or her mind can be pure enough to do so during the moments of metta-meditation. Of course not all worldlings can do it the whole day. - Metta is a positive energy that everybody has (potential), I don't agree with the idea that it's the opposite of something negative that had to be eradicted: it's something positive that had to be strengthened. ("eradicting" is a much too agressive term) - I prefer not to talk about anaagaami or arahants, that's flying form our situation; I only want to discuss about our situation as a wordling, one soon as I got stream-enterer then it's soon enough to reflect on that status. With metta Joop 59377 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re : Creator? sarahprocter... Dear STEVen, --- Ng Boon Huat wrote: > I think I better sign off as STEVen from now on since > it always came up to be my real name... hahaha > > so STEVen it is.... from now on... > > Metta > STEVen ... S: Thanks for that. Please excuse us in advance if it ends up as Steven or Steven N, not to be confused with Steve from Queensland. Metta, Sarah ======== 59378 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 1:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Han), A little more to add to Han's good answers. --- indriyabala wrote: > Tep: Prior to 'shame and fear of doing wrong', new monks must have > saddha in the Buddha and determination to become a recluse(samana). .... S: I'd just like to point out that hiri and ottappa arise with all wholesome states, all sobhana cittas as does saddha. So they always arise together whenever there is dana, sila or bhavana. This is true for those with and without any saddha in the Buddha. Of course there are degrees and different kinds of hiri, ottappa and saddha. ... > Questions: How important is hiri-ottappa in comparison to > understanding? .... S: Right Understanding is a path factor, the leader in the development of vipassana. Hiri and ottappa are the 'guardians of the world' arising with all sobhana. When right understanding (of satipatthana) develops, so will all kinds of wholesome states with hiri and ottappa. .... >Is there an understanding that accompanies hiri-ottappa > in order to make it work without falling prey to lobha & self-view? ... S: Hiri and ottappa can never 'fall prey' to or arise with lobha & self-view. They have completely different conditions. But, it is only understanding which will know exactly when the cittas are kusala and when akusala through the development of direct awareness of these (and other dhammas). .... > Or, can we the worldlings begin our path of no-craving (alobha) and > not-self(anatta) with only "understanding" and NO hiri-ottappa? ... S: Impossible. I'll be glad if Han or yourself adds any further comments or corrections anytime to anything I write. After inserting a few Pali lines in a post yesterday, Han, it occurred to me that I could have asked you to point out any errors. Metta, Sarah p.s Thanks to both of you for your interest in this section of 'Cetasikas' ===== 59379 From: han tun Date: Tue May 16, 2006 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap hantun1 Dear Sarah (Tep, Fabrizio, Joop, and all), I cannot speak on behalf of my dear friend Tep, but as far as I am concerned, I agree completely with all you have written in this post. I also take this opportunity to thank you for pointing out to me Itivuttaka 42. I have this book (though by different translator) with me all the time, but I rarely read it. From now on, thanks to you, I will read it more often. For those who have not the book on Itivuttaka, I print below Itivuttaka 42. § 42. The Bright Protectors {Iti II.15; Iti 36} translated by John D. Ireland This was said by the Lord... "Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of other honored persons." Those in whom shame and fear of wrong Are not consistently found Have deviated from the bright root And are led back to birth and death. But those in whom shame and fear of wrong Are consistently ever present, Peaceful, mature in the holy life, They put an end to renewal of being. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Tep (& Han), > I'll be glad if Han or yourself adds any further > comments or corrections anytime to anything I write. > After inserting a few Pali lines in a post > yesterday, Han, it occurred to me that I could have > asked you to point out any errors. > Metta, > Sarah > p.s Thanks to both of you for your interest in this > section of 'Cetasikas' > ===== > 59380 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't ... sarahprocter... Oh, Dan! --- "Dan D." wrote: > Oh, Sarah! > > I say: "Certainly not! They don't accept Buddhist language." > > You say: "Certainly not! It doesn't have anything to do with > language." > ... > Are there people who have not heard a snippet of Buddha's teaching > nor read suttas but still have a degree of understanding about the > world? You say, "No, of course not." I say, "Don't be silly. Of > course there are." > > Ironically, I think we are virtually in full agreement... .... S: Interesting.... .... > > S: True. But then they wouldn't be said to really have heard the > Buddha vacana. > > So, you seem to be saying that people who have heard the Buddha > vacana but have understood it only at a conceptual level wouldn't be > said to really have heard the Buddha vacana. ... S: It depends whether there is any understanding at all (at any level) or whether it's just a kind of rote repetition or following of rituals. Some people in a Buddhist country, for example, may repeat all the right Pali words, but have their own cultural idea of the meaning of these terms, like 'patipatti', 'bhavana' etc .... >I wouldn't equate > hearing with understanding, ... S: Nor would I. When we read about 'suta maya panna' and 'cinta maya panna', this refers to hearing and considering with right understanding of what's heard and considered, but it's not the understanding of 'bhavana maya panna'. .... >but if we continue with your word game, > wouldn't we then say that people who have understood some aspect of > the world through teaching and observation in some non-Buddhist > tradition that they are the ones who have heard the Buddha vacana and > are inside the dispensation despite never having heard it? .... S: Not if they haven't ever heard it. ... >And the > Buddhists who have heard it and accepted it but not understood it are > the ones who haven't really heard it and are outside the dispensation? ... S: If there hasn't been any understanding of the meaning at all, they haven't really heard it. .... > > I really don't think it makes sense to think of "hearing Buddha > vacana" in that way, but it makes perfect sense to think > of "understanding Dhamma" in that way, i.e., someone who has a degree > of understanding but has not heard Buddha vacana can be said to have > a degree of "understanding Dhamma" .... S: We can say that they have a degree of understanding of dana, sila and maybe of samatha development. But, without any understanding at any level of namas and rupas, of anatta, of the meaning of dhamma - they can't be said to have any degree of 'understanding Dhamma'. .... >but someone who has heard, read, > and studied Buddha vacana but has no understanding cannot be said to > have really understood Dhamma. .... S: Right. Agreed as you said at the outset here:-). From the extract Connie gave from Pitaka Disclosure: "[If] this [hearing] is not conjoined with cognizing the Thread's {S: i.e on 4NTs] meaning (aim), then by following only the sound of the utterance without cognizing the meaning of another's utterance no one can arrive at any more-than-human idea worthy of a Noble One's knowing and seeing. Therefore meanings must be sought by one desirous of attaining extinction [of lust, hate, and delusion]." As you'll recall, there were many discussions on ‘ekayana’ or 'One Way'. From the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta: " "The only way" = The one way [Ekayanoti ekamaggo]. There are many words for "way". The word used for "way" here is "ayana" ("going" or road). Therefore, "This is the only way, O bhikkhus [ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo]" means here: "A single way ("going" or road), O bhikkhus, is this way; it is not of the nature of a double way [ekamaggo ayam bhikkhave maggo na dvedhapathabhuto]"." ..... And from an earlier post of yours which amounts to much the same, I think: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28696 "There can be no movement along the path unless the difference between path and not-path can be discerned.* That discernment will not take hold unless there is first a well- considered and correct understanding of samma-ditthi (Right view) and samma-vayama (Right effort). <...> * By "path", I am referring to the mundane path." .... And to repeat a quote I've given before (the one I meant to give the other day again), from the commentary to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta" " 'There a [true] renunciate (samana) is not found': it is meant that there a first ascetic, namely a stream-enterer, does not exist....'Others' doctrines are devoid of true renunciates': others' doctrines are vain, empty, devoid of the twelve renunciates, namely the four who undertake insight meditation (vipassanaa) for the sake of the four paths, the four who are on the paths, the four who have fruition......'If they live rightly': If a stream-enterer explains what he has attained to another person, and makes him attain stream-entry, then he is said to live rightly. The same thing applies to a once-returner and the rest. If one is on the path of stream-entry.....If one practises insight meditation for the sake of the path of stream-entry.....lives rightly....". ..... S: Are we still virtually in full agreement? Are we in agreement on the other post I sent (part2)? I'm also enjoying your discussions with Sukin and Ken H. I like the way you really consider all the points and aspects and put up your usual spirited defence:-). I find it very helpful. Metta, Sarah ======== 59381 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Charles D), --- indriyabala wrote: > > Hi Charles D. - > > I must say that your Dhamma understanding has now become more > advanced, since the last time we talked. Is that because you have > learned from the discussion with our friends here, or did you just > come back from a long vipassana retreat? [:-|) .... S: didn't you hear? He just came back for a long kung fu retreat in Hong Kong and had a couple of 'enlightening' sessions with Jon and I :-)), lol. If anyone else would like to do the same, please visit us in Hong Kong... Metta, Sarah ====== 59382 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 2:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, Hope you're well-recovered from your jet-lag and able to share your new kung-fu techniques with your students. --- Charles & Linda DaCosta wrote: > Hi Saarah and all, > > The following is a nice piece but it too idealistic. If bodhisattas are > all > that is mentioned then we would not need Buddhas, and they would be > enough. .... S: Bodhisattas are not enlightened. They therefore cannot show others the path to liberation in spite of having developed such incredible qualities over aeons and aeons of lifetimes. .... > > I was always under the impression that bodhisattas were still under > development and the range of levels could be quite vast. .... S: Well, yes. If we just take the lifetimes mentioned of the Gotama Buddha when he was a bodhisatta, we can read about all sorts of different attributes. lifestyles and so on. Many previous lives as an animal and even lifetimes in hell realms. Of course in his last lifetimes, the paramis were almost perfected. I seem to recall that in all these lifetimes as a bodhisatta, he could never tell a lie.....some 'givens' like that. Lots and lots in the Jatakas. (Here, I'm just talking about what we learn in the Theravada teachings). Metta, Sarah ======== > S: It was in the quote I gave that skilful means are part of the > conditions for the development of the paramis. This isn't an Abhidhamma > text. > > A lot more detail is given. For example, the paragraph above continues: > > "And their nature (bodhisattas)is such that they are able to promote the > welfare and happiness of beings even on occasions when they are merely > seen, heard of, or recollected, (since even the sight, report, or > thought > of them) inspires confidence. Through his wisdom the bodhisattva > perfects > within himself the character of a Buddha, through his compassion he > leads > others across. <...> 59383 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran sarahprocter... Dear Scott & all, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for those references. Good Dhamma. > > "K.Sujin always stresses the aspect of being a good friend rather than > trying to find good friends which I like a lot." .... S: Thank you. On the aspect of showing friendliness and being a good friend, this is the sutta I like so much which I had in mind (which Leo quoted before here): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-162.html Being a good friend, no matter whether the others we're with have any wisdom or not, are of good character or not, etc. I believe that 'association with the wise' can be in any situation, with any people if we've heard, reflected and appreciated the teachings. I know this'll make sense to you in your work. Metta, Sarah ======= 59384 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran ken_aitch Hi Sarah, ----------- KH: > > I'm sure there are good Abhidhamma explanations of how friendship is the whole of the Dhamma. I'm not ready to venture any though - especially as I have been driving half the day and my brain really is fuzzy." <. . .> > <. . .> S: > I think 'association with right view' is the key. I'm also too fuzzy to write more:-). ------------ No, Sarah, you are never fuzzy. You always hit the nail right on the head as you have done here. Of course 'association with right view' is the key! I didn't fully appreciate the wisdom of your words when I first read them, but looked under Superior Persons in UP, and it all came back to me. I can no more intentionally (formally) associate with wise persons than I can formally practise satipatthana! I can't formally avoid fools, either! When right view is present (when the Dhamma is known) then the admirable friend - the Buddha - is known (associated with). When wrong view is present, I have an evil companion. As Nina said way back in message 14683 --------- > <. . .> These are views not helpful for the growth of pa~n~naa. We do not associate with such views. Thus, the sentence: we should not associate with people of wrong view should be understood in the above sense. They do not imply a negative judgement of persons. The Buddha taught that we should have no conceit, we should have metta, compassion, gentleness. > --------- Excellent! Thank you Sarah (and Nina). Ken H 59385 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) sarahprocter... Hi Jon & all, --- jonoabb wrote: > I think the general concept just outlined can be found in the > suttas, but it may take me time to find references because I'm not > well organised in that regard. There comes to mind the sutta with > the analogy of the hen sitting on her eggs. Does anyone have a > reference? .... S: SN22:101 (The Adze Handle (or The Ship). Here's an old post of Nina's in which she quoted it with some commentary details: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/22295 >"Just as if, brethren, some eight or ten or dozen hen¹s eggs are not fully sat upon, not fully warmed, not fully brooded over by the hen. Then suppose that in that hen there arise such a wish as this: ²O that my chicks with foot and claw or mouth and beak might break through the eggshells and so be safely hatched.² Yet for all that those chicks are not made fit to break up the eggshells with foot and claw or mouth and beak, and so be safely hatched. What is the cause of that? It is because those eight or ten or dozen hen¹s eggs, brethren, have not been fully sat upon, fully warmed, fully brooded over by the hen. Even so, brethren, if in a brother who lives neglectful of self-training there should arise this wish: ³O that my heart were freed from the Åsavas without grasping², yet is his heart not freed thereby from them. What ithe s cause of that? It must be said: ³It is his lack of self-training.² Training in what? In the four Earnest Contemplations...in the Ariyan Eightfold Path...² " We then read that just as when the eggs are fully brooded and the chicks are safely hatched, the monk who is not neglectful in self-training reaches arahatship. The Commentary to this Sutta, the ³Såratthappakåsiní² elaborates on this simile: Just as the eggs do not rot, so does the bhikkhu¹s insight not decrease, because he has undertaken the threefold contemplation (of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå). Just as the moisture within the eggshell dries up, so the bhikkhu¹s attachment to the threefold existence (in the sensuous planes, fine material planes and immaterial planes) is abandoned. Just as the eggshells become thinner, so the shell of ignorance becomes thinner. Just as the chick¹s feet, nails and beak have become hard and sharp, so has the bhikkhu¹s insight becomes keen and pure, it is developed with courage. Just as for the chicks the moment of hatching comes, so for the bhikkhu when insight has been developed, the time of its maturity arrives. Just as the chicks, after they have split the eggshell with nails, beak and feet, merge safely, so for the bhikkhu insight knowledge matures, when he has acquired the right conditions of climate, food, people (he associates with), and listening to the Dhamma. By the gradual attainment of insight that is developed he penetrates the shell of ignorance and reaches safety by arahatship. This reminds us of the right conditions for the development of insight. Association with the right friend in Dhamma and listening are essential conditions for the development of right understanding that will lead to enlightenment.< ( .... Metta, Sarah ======= 59386 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Be Here Now sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > > S: Yes, I think it's worth reading again too:-) Phra > Dhammadharo/Alan > > Driver had a really good way of explanation. I look f/w to any > > quotes/extracts. > > Ph: Are there any recordings of his talks. I do like to listen? .... S: Thanks for the extract. We're just making a copy of another talk of his for you now as I write (the one we formatted for you, Sukin). It'll be in the mail with the edited India 05 tomorrow. Metta, Sarah ===== 59387 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 4:19am Subject: Re: Be Here Now philofillet Hi Sarah (ps to Betty) > We're just making a copy of another talk of his for you now as I write > (the one we formatted for you, Sukin). It'll be in the mail with the > edited India 05 tomorrow. Wow, excellent. A friend has offered to send me a set of tapes as well. I am really looking forward to hearing him. Thanks in advance for sending the India 05 talks. I have already downloaded and am listening to 6 or 7 segments. I can see that there is a stronger emphasis on nimitta than before - in one talk I half heard as I napped this afternoon you were asking A. Sujin about why there seems to be more talk of nimitta rather than the characteristics of dhammas. I think she suggested they were the same thing, which would be different than I have understood, but as I said I was half-asleep. I'm sure it is something I will be asking about/commenting on in the weeks/months to come. In the meantime, perhaps someone who was on the trip or who has listened to the talks (other than Sarah, she has her hand in so many threads now) could comment on the emphasis on nimitta. Thanks in advance. Phil p.s Betty, if you are reading this, thanks for asking my questions. I was glad that they seemed to spark some good discussion. 59388 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 4:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: Feelings and Dukkha: The Dart/Matheesha matheesha333 Hi Howard, H: It is not that conditions are "bad" or in themselves cause > suffering. It is that satisfaction just isn't to be found in them. Rather, > relinquishing our grasping of them is what satisfies. There are several reasons why > conditions aren't sources of satisfaction: One, of course, is that they don't > last. Another is that they lack essence, are impersonal, and are > uncontrollable (by will alone). M: Wonderful writing. I found the last bit quite inspiring. So there is this inherant unsatisfactoriness.. Is it the clinging to permanance that makes impermanant dhammas unsatisfactoy or is there some other quality of the (human) mind which rejects impermanance like water does oil? Do you think an arahath finds dhammas dukkha (since there is no attachment)? Does their impermenance/insubstantiality make an arahath think that they are unsatisfactory? Yes, he is detached from it all, and possibly might not even bother with the question... with metta Matheesha 59389 From: "Joop" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 4:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, > >> .... > > J: I like your optimism, Sarah. Till now I only read the introduction > > of BB, not the treatise itself. As soon as it give me ideas that > > maybe important for other reader, I will give them. > > It seems correct that it's a kind of missing link according the > > social dimension that not only is important in Mahayana but also in > > this Theravada-text. > > But I have more problems with Theravada-orthodoxy than only this > > dimension. > .... > S: We all have problems whilst lost in ignorance. > .... Hallo Sarah Of course I don't agree with this remark of you Although you did not ask which problems I have, a kind of an answer to this i my message #59376 Metta Joop 59390 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:06am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Hi Fabry - Talking about tactics and tricks in answering questions ... >Fabrizio: > That reminds me of a similiar unpleasing technique: that of >extending the scope of the speech of the adversary, attack that >extension and hope he will defend it... > Interesting ! I would call that as "creating an issue from a non-issue". It is also used by skillful (not in the kusala sense) debaters for setting a trap. But Han's intention is kusala. Tep {:>) ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" wrote: > > Hi Indriyabala, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friend Han - > > > > I like your trick in getting me interested in your good question > > (without completely answering my previous good question). Some parents > > do use the same trick with their children. But the trick may not work, > > if the kids are smart enough to know that their parents don't know the > > answer to their question. {:-|]. > 59391 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:19am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap indriyabala Hello Joop (Han, Fabry, ...) - You made a few good points about metta. >Joop: > a 'worldling' can radiate metta, his or her mind can be pure enough to do so during the moments of metta-meditation. > I don't agree with the idea that it's the opposite of something negative that had to be eradicted: it's something positive that had to be strengthened. ............. Tep: In short you say metta is a positive dhamma and it has a wide range. I agree. Han focused on the purest, most advanced metta that is called 'adosa' in the Anaagaami. His focus defines the context of the original "too personal" discussion. Thanks for the opinion. Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep, Han, Fabrizio, all > > To me the question of Han is an important one, although I don't > understand the context in which it started (Re: `Cetasikas' study > corner 445- Moral Shame & Fear of Blame/hiri & ottap) and although I > don't understand the too personal dimension between the participants > of the thread till now. > > So back to the question: > "Now, metta is opposite to dosa or vyaapada, and dosa or vyaapada is > eradicated only by anaagaami. > So, would you say that only anaagaami can radiate metta?" > (snipped) 59392 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 16, 2006 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The 3 kinds of Suffering ... !!! upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante (Bhikkhu Samahita) - In a message dated 5/16/06 3:45:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bhikkhu.samahita@... writes: > Dear friend Howard: > > The pali compounds of the 3 kinds of Suffering speaks clearly for > themselves IMHO: > > 1: Dukkha-dukkhata - = pain-pain i.e. suffering due to painful feeling... > 2: Sankhara-dukkhata - = construction-pain i.e. suffering due to falling > apart... > 3: Viparinama-dukkhata - = change-pain i.e. suffering due to > non-constancy... > > Often they overlap yes. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Bhante. This shows that the simple answer is often the best! :-) In my more long-winded way of expressing it, your point seems to be that what is put together or fabricated falls apart, and this impermanence of compounds, like the impermanence of more elementary dhammas, results in suffering that is a special case of vipannama-dukkhata. It does occur to me, though, that there might be something more pointed to by 'sankhara-dukkha'. Whatever is conditioned is not only impermanent, but, despite appearances to the contrary, is ungraspable, insubstantial, and without own-being. Perhaps there is intended an essential inadequacy in whatever is conditioned (all sankhata dhammas) by the very fact of its conditioned and dependent status - that is, by (dis)virtue of being conditioned, as compared to the unconditioned perfection of nibbana. That perspective would make sankhara-dukkhata a more fundamental, metaphysical imperfection than the others. Do you think I'm making too much of this, Bhante? -------------------------------------------- Seeing this lead to disgust and then mental > > release... > > Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. > > Friendship is the Greatest ... > Let there be Calm &Free Bliss !!! > ====================== 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) 59393 From: "Phil" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:30am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) philofillet Hi Jon and all Still thinking about the below: J > > As I understand the teaching, no dhammas are subject to mastery Now I am not so sure about this. As I wrote earlier, the balas involve mastery, don't they? > and, > > > > thus, cannot be made to arise (or to not arise) at a time of > one's > > > > choosing. Yes, I still agree with this, if "one" is taken to be self. But, when there are the balas (not for us) kusala does arise when ... ...hmm. Now I am not sure about all this. However, I am sure that the balas are a topic that can be discussed in theory by people in this group, but not experienced directly. Why am I sure of that? I shouldn't be, I suppose. So I take it back. I am not sure of that. How could I be? But certainly referring to a sutta in which the balas are referred to and using it to justify one's own approach to Dhamma is dubious. If one has the balas, great. If one doesn't, stop talking about them or quoting suttas which refer to them - they are irrelevant to the person in question. Phil p.s I don't know if what you and Herman were talking about has anything to do with balas - I am just thinking out loud as usual. Feel free to disregard entirely, anyone who reads this. 59394 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 5:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran egberdina Hi Scott, > H: "The body is a given for me. There is breathing, drinking, > eating, walking, moving, urinating, defecating and all the rest of it. > There are occasions and circumstances in which that falls away in > various degrees..." > > So far so good, although I'm not sure what "falls away in various > degrees" means; either if "falls away" or it doesn't, says Mr. > Black-and-White. When you are looking, sometimes you can see your nose, sometimes you don't see it (I suspect it's still there but seeing the nose has fallen away without seeing falling away altogether). When you are aware of processes connected with breathing, there may be awareness of breath at the nose, together with rising/falling of the abdomen. The awareness of breath at the nose may fall away, without the awareness of the rise/fall of the abdomen falling away. Is it your experience that things either fall away or they don't? "...but there is always a return to the body as locus of > experience...it is clear from the effects of impact brain injuries and > brain trauma like strokes, aneurism and anoxia that the mind is a > product of the brain (not the heart as suggested in scholastic texts, > or free floating as you seem to be allowing room for). I would be > very happy to be prompted to see it otherwise, and how that could be > maintained." > > We may have to agree to disagree on this: "the mind is a product of > the brain." I've come to see these as one seamless unity. However, > having given up dualism in this respect, I'm too fuzzy a thinker to > totally explain why. You seem to be referring to "experience," > though, and it would help if you could say more on how you see this. Well, all I can say is that causality is never experienced, and any notion of causality/conditionality is based on inference/thinking. So my putting the locus of mind in the brain, as opposed to the heart, or nowhere at all as you seem to do, is just some thinking. That's all. I see that you are able to see things as existing by degrees. A > massive enough insult to the brain and all experience in this body > ceases. I see that you also are capable of thinking about causality :-) > But this is not relevant, in my opinion, when one considers > that at each moment there is ceasing. I think you are getting caught > up in taking the gestalt of experience as real, in other words "self," > versus not taking the overall effect of conscious experience as > implying a unity that lasts or that is real. See Nyanaliloka below. I am happy for you to think that about me. H: "The formulation of the arising and falling of dhammas in > unproblematic. But the arising of discrete, ultimate components of > mind with knowable essence, with such knowledge leading to > enlightenment, is contrary to anything I understand the suttas to be > saying." > > Okay. > > H: "...the issue at hand is, is learning possible? Or more precisely, > is the unlearning of conditioned responses possible?" > > How do you define "learning?" Well, from the above context I would have thought there was a hint there. Learning of conditioned responses would be acquiring conditioned reponses, I guess. H: "The following is from Nyanatiloka's Dictionary on the aggregates; > > 'The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly > speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but > that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real > existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly > variable, can arise with any state of consciousness.' > > and > > 'Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five* > khandha*are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as > compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated > above, the groups never exist as such" > > I referred to "conditioned dhammas," and not the five khandhas. You wrote: -Do you mean aggregates as in ruupa, sa~n~na, vedana, sankhara, vi~n~naana?- I'm sorry I misread it. I > meant dhamma as in "lit. the 'bearer;' constitution (or nature of a > thing)...quality; thing; object of the mind...dhamma as object of the > mind may be anything past, present, or future, corporeal or mental, > conditioned or not...real or imaginary," (Nyanatiloka). > > I meant the five khandhas as classified by ruupa, cetasika, and citta > (these latter consisting of vedanaakhandha, sa~n~nakhandha, > sa.nkhaarakhandha, and vi~n~nanakhandha). The groups don't exist but > the constituents (the "paramattha dhammas") do. Here we might be at > an impasse since you see this differently. We may have to agree to > disagree. That's fine. One question though. If dhammas properly belong to a categories, what can be enlightening about Buddha's dhammas that is not enlightening about Plato and his universals? So, we seem to differ or at least have no consensus on "body/mind," on > the level of "reality" or some such, the place of the Abhidhamma, > learning, the nature of "falling away." I see you as arguing as if > the gestalt of perception (self?) has a validity beyond what is > classically considered illusion. Is this because you are a "dualist?" No, I'm not. You may safely call me a realist. I see the selective Abhidhamma commentary readings (you'll not read anything around here from the Puggalapaññatti, Kathavatthu or the Yamaka) * *that are popular with some around here as statements par excellence of solipsism. Are you a solipsist? I would like to ask you whether the death of your wife was a gestalt Kind Regards Herman 59395 From: "sukinder" Date: Wed May 17, 2006 0:41am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sukinderpal Hi Herman, ---------------------------------- > All streams flow into the sea, > yet the sea is never full. > To the place the streams come from, > there they return again. > > All things are wearisome, > more than one can say. > The eye never has enough of seeing, > nor the ear its fill of hearing. > > > Sukinder: > I'm quite weak in this area of interpreting verse, so please would you > give > a commentary on this? ;-) Herm: No, I would prefer not to do that. If the above doesn't ring a bell, I certainly don't want to force the issue. Suk: It is up to you of course. However, know that I only ask to know the reality (if any), the words are pointing to. There is no interest in any poetic effect. ------------------------ Keep in mind though, the common practice of inadvertently projecting one's > own understanding onto another's words. In this case, the interpretation > of > these words in terms of your own understanding got from reading Dhamma, > propelled by the belief that the Buddha's insights are *not* so unique. Herm: Are you suggesting that only Buddhists can be aware of suffering and the causes of it? And that a book like Ecclesiastes is actually an instance of plagiarism? Suk: No 'Buddhist'. The Buddha's Teachings is for anyone, anywhere to understand if they can. And this can be much or little, so I wouldn't know, nor need to label anyone Buddhist. Whether or not those of us who study the Dhamma *know* suffering, I think you have an idea already. However knowing it at the level I do, I don't think that outside the Buddha's Teachings, there are any descriptions of Suffering which coincide with Dukkha of the 4NT. The concept of Suffering outside of Dhamma does not lead to direct realization of Dukkha in any form. The 4 NTs are Ariyan Truths, whereas other religions are teachings of 'worldlings'. Plagiarism; didn't enter my mind at all. (And you forget that I even asked for an explanation of the quote you gave.) In any case it makes absolutely no difference if others took out ideas from, and tried to develop upon the Teachings. It is about "Right Understanding" and no amount of trying to copy or intellectual analyses even by a team of the best minds taking the best part out of it, can anything close to Dhamma come out. If indeed there has been any plagiarism, sooner or later contradictions will emerge. -------------------------- I remember that you once mentioned Hume as being one who understood Anatta. > Is it possible that this was because it coincided with your own yet vague > understanding of the concept at the time? Herm: Please tell me what the proper understanding of Anatta is. Suk: Me, I am just a beginner. However I think I have learnt something from my own struggles, and I present them for you to consider: Anatta being a characteristic of "realities" goes together with the other two of the three universal characteristics, namely, anicca and dukkha. It is not about coming to see the "impersonality" of conventional realities and standing back and making observations about the world, all the while oblivious to the fact that even this "thinking" is conditioned and anatta. Nor is it about coming to see the powerlessness of the non-existent 'self'. Neither is the realization that the idea of a self arises only with 'thought', enough. Also in the case of one who has heard the Dhamma, this understanding is not got from intellectually breaking down the concept of 'self' into component parts, such as, this is feeling, this is perception; this is form and so on. I think the understanding comes from the 'application' on to the experience, "NOW". That is when it begins to develop. If there is any idea about another place and time for 'observing', then it is not happening. And by the time we do make any observation, it will only be a story *about* impersonal phenomena and not about anatta and conditionality. I believe, that it is this kind of application which is the precursor to direct experience, even if this would then still be far from direct experience of the three characteristics, hence truly understanding anatta. -------------------------- Also I would like to mention at this point that even Sariputta, before he > heard the Dhamma from Ven. Assaji, no "right view" ever arose for him. In > fact for the Buddha himself, Right View arose only moments before His > enlightenment. Had He even had a brief 'idea' about conditionality, > anatta, > or the path of satipatthana, he would have become enlightened in less than > a > second. But His was the path of the Bodhisatta and not a Savaka. So do you > suppose that Jesus, Shankara, Lao Tzu etc, that anyone of these were even > close to being a Bodhisatta? Herm: Is there anything that you know about the Buddha that was directly experienced? Why do you think anything you have learnt is superior to what the manyfolk around the world have learned? Suk: Are you saying that since I understand all this only at the intellectual level, that I am not qualified to prove other religions wrong? Well, at the intellectual level, what others say just appear wrong to me. :-) And just because I haven't experienced directly the truth about conditionality and the tilakkhana, this does not mean that I should doubt myself. Doubt does arise, but in relation to the nature of the present moment experience itself, not when faced with other teachings. In the meantime, even this doubt can be known, and this itself proves to me the rightness and superiority of the Buddha's teachings. ========================== > Herman: > There are a few people, from any culture, at any time, who do come to > understand the reality of suffering, and the causes for it. And there are > vast multitudes, from those same cultures, at any time, who remain totally > oblivious to these realities. > > Sukinder: > You mean that they understand the 1st and 2nd NTs? Is this possible > without > understanding kamma/vipaka? And can the understanding of this issue in the > belief in a creator God, whether it be one which stands apart from or that > which is part of his creation? I think it is precisely because of not > understanding the 4NTs that from 'self view', other religions and > philosophies are formed. Herm: Do you understand kamma/vipaka? I suggest you think carefully before answering. Suk: Are you testing me? ;-) And no I haven't thought about it carefully, it is not in my nature to do so. :-( Like most of Dhamma, this I understand at a low intellectual level and involving much reasoning. It makes sense to me that out of all the experiences, the sense door experiences of seeing, hearing etc. and Birth and Death are *results* of something. And of all the possible candidates for the *cause* of these, "intention" is the one that stands out. This I believe, is another great discovery by the Buddha, and is far superior to the Hindu and Jain understanding of the same. Again, this points to the experience "now" and therefore any religion or philosophy which does not teach this, cannot be said to know anatta, conditionality or the 4 NT. -------------------------- > Herman: > You express enormous faith in the path of the Buddha, and claim some > vicarious kudos because of the enlightenment of the Buddha and some of his > contemporary followers. And rightly so, though there is no vicarious > benefit > in that fact. > > Sukinder: > I think rather, that this confidence comes from correct understanding, > even > if weak. And this is certainly better than 'wrong understanding', one > which > then sees or tries to see similarities with other religions and > philosophies. Herm: I would suggest that you study other religions and philosophies before you comment on them. Suk: I understand that you think that I am not qualified to judge other religions. And I am open to hearing about them. So if you want to Herman, you may represent them. Though I doubt that you will, since you did not even bother to explain to me the quote at the beginning of this post. I don't feel motivated to read other teachings. And I read very little of the Buddha's teachings, yet I am able to talk about it as much as I do. So why can't I talk about other religions without having to first extensively read them? What real difference is a little or lot reading going to make ultimately? In the end, it still has to go through the filter (of my views)? But just FYI, I was in fact introduced to religion (after having no religion from when I was in my teens), through a book by a Christian writer, and I remember liking C.S. Lewis and the little I read from the "Cloud of Unknowing" very much. I have also dabbled with other religions and western philosophy. In fact, one of the most impressive statements I read at the time (before reading anything Buddhist at all), was by a Greek (?) philosopher which went like: "We step and do not step into the same river". And for example, if I wanted, I can read this above as a statement not only about impermanence, but also the concept/reality distinction. But I am not going to do that. ;-) -------------------------- Herman: > But what is the track record of recent millenia? Who, standing > on the bedrock of the Abhidhamma, has come within a bull's roar of living > up to the promise of the Buddha? Given that, what has gone wrong? > > Sukinder: > Never mind about who and how many, track records are not going to change > anyone's views. One reason that I grow in confidence about the Abhidhamma > method is from hearing from those who don't value it, what I perceive to > be wrong interpretation of the Dhamma. ;-) Herm: If track records don't come into it, then you are simply blind in your faith. In that respect there is no difference between the "One Way Jesus" and the "One Way Buddha" crowd. Suk: You mean to say that if I was told that 23,472 people in the last hundred years got enlightened from studying the Abhidhamma, "saddha" would arise, and that I would then follow and begin to "understand" the Abhidhamma? Who is going to be giving out the figures and why should I believe it? Like everyone else, if I don't agree with the Abhidhamma perspective, no matter who says what, I will have my own reasons *not to believe*. And like some others, I will hide behind a preferred interpretation of the Suttas and claim to be having full confidence in the direct words of the Buddha and this alone. The "One Way of the Buddha" has a solid basis and I will champion it (unless I decide not to bother), with reason and not proclaim the fact with blind faith. --------------------------------- Herman: > You say there can be no path outside the Buddha's teachings. I say that > particular Abhidhamma based understandings of anatta render the notion of > path meaningless, and all that is left is to wander ainlessly. > > Sukinder: > :-) Herm: I think you might like the double predestination of Calvin. It basically says that God (conditionality) has ordained who shall be saved and who shall be damned. Suk: You still think the comparison stands? And in case you are implying this, I am grateful but never proud of being able to appreciate the Dhamma. I look down upon 'wrong view', but never the person who holds it. Cheers, Sukinder 59396 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > I see the selective Abhidhamma commentary readings (you'll not read > anything > around here from the Puggalapaññatti, Kathavatthu or the Yamaka) .... S: Objection! I've typed out pages and pages from the Kathavatthu (and its commentary) for a start. I remember Connie quoting extracts too. Just go to dhammastudygroup.org and key in 'kathavatthu' in the 'Atomz search' (the google one is playing up at the moment). Long discussions on it with Michael B. for a start. Not so much from Puggalapa~n~natti, but Nina and I have quoted from it. it's a slim book and much of it is in AN anyway. The commentary is not available in English. The Yamaka and its commentary are not translated into English. Even so, Nina has translated extracts for some posts, eg on the Anusayas in a translation of a series. I'll look forward to discussing any 'selective Abhidhamma commentary readings' with you anytime, Herman! You pick - even if it's a random page number and paragraph from any of the books available in English! Metta, Sarah ======= 59397 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:06am Subject: [dsg] A matter of method (was Re: More on Cooran) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Please don't worry about the speed of response! I've got two young children and a day job and all that so I'm prone to getting caught-up as well. Lets just quote sources as necessary and see how it goes. Sincerely, Scott. 59398 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 16, 2006 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Feelings and Dukkha: The Dart/Matheesha upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 5/16/06 7:50:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > H: It is not that conditions are "bad" or in themselves cause > >suffering. It is that satisfaction just isn't to be found in them. > Rather, > >relinquishing our grasping of them is what satisfies. There are > several reasons why > >conditions aren't sources of satisfaction: One, of course, is that > they don't > >last. Another is that they lack essence, are impersonal, and are > >uncontrollable (by will alone). > > M: Wonderful writing. I found the last bit quite inspiring. --------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) -------------------------------- > > So there is this inherant unsatisfactoriness.. Is it the clinging to > permanance that makes impermanant dhammas unsatisfactoy or is there > some other quality of the (human) mind which rejects impermanance > like water does oil? -------------------------------- Howard: I think mainly our dissatisfaction with conditions, to the extent that it comes "from us", is due to our clinging to permanence of what is liked but also of what is familiar. There is fear: fear of change, fear of loss of (apparent) control, fear of "loss of footing," fear of the unknown, unplanned, and unanticipated. This fear is largely a "control issue". So this is where anatta enters the picture. But even if we didn't cling to permanence, to the liked, and to the familiar, the unsatisfactoriness of conditions would be a fact. Satisfaction just isn't obtainable through them. Most generally, it is that despite all our thoughts to the contrary, conditions simply do not satisfy. That's just not their nature. They are like the waters of a mirage to a thirsty man in the desert. It is not in the nature of mirages to provide sustenence, and it is not in the nature of conditions to provide satisfaction. This is why, I think, that the Buddha pointed out tilakkhana, and not just dvi-lakkhana. That sabbe sankhara dukkha is not just a consequence of the other two conditions. It is a fundamental characteristic of its own, I believe. -------------------------------- > > Do you think an arahath finds dhammas dukkha (since there is no > attachment)? > -------------------------------- Howard: I think that an arahant is aware more than anyone of the unsatisfying nature of conditions, but he is not oppressed by conditions or their nature, as his/her satisfaction is perfect, being utterly and permanently independent of conditions. ------------------------------- Does their impermenance/insubstantiality make an arahath > > think that they are unsatisfactory? Yes, he is detached from it all, > and possibly might not even bother with the question... ------------------------------ Howard: I believe an arahant sees clearly the nature of all dhammas, and is free of them all, being utterly undisturbed. For an arahant, everything, with all its imperfection, is, paradoxically, perfect as it is, for it is what it is: Such. -------------------------------- > > with metta > > Matheesha ================= 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) 59399 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 16, 2006 6:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: More on Cooran scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the ongoing discourse. This will be pithy - duties impinge. "Is it your experience that things either fall away or they don't?" Its been my experience that things fall away. In my experience things do not persist. "Well, all I can say is that causality is never experienced, and any notion of causality/conditionality is based on inference/thinking. So my putting the locus of mind in the brain, as opposed to the heart, or nowhere at all as you seem to do, is just some thinking. That's all. I see that you also are capable of thinking about causality." Well, I see what you are saying. I don't mean to say something as ridiculous as that there is no experience, or that the locus of experience is nowhere. Mind, as well as the other five senses, experience. "Well, from the above context I would have thought there was a hint there. Learning of conditioned responses would be acquiring conditioned reponses, I guess." Okay, thanks. A bit circumscribed. "One question though. If dhammas properly belong to categories, what can be enlightening about Buddha's dhammas that is not enlightening about Plato and his universals?" I'm not a philosopher but as far as I understand, Plato's universals are soaked with eternalism and hence differ entirely from the view of a Buddha. How do you define "dhamma?" Plato did not speak of impermanence did he? A dhamma can be said to have its own characteristic function while also having as characteristic impermanence. "No, I'm not. You may safely call me a realist. [Are] you a solipsist?" No. "I would like to ask you whether the death of your wife was a gestalt" The death of my wife was, as far as this existence, an utter and complete falling away. The last breath is something to contemplate. A gestalt is a term from a school of psychology of perception, if I recall, and is like "aggregate." I think you may be misunderstanding the way in which I am referring to reality; perhaps we should clarify terms here. I hope I have not insulted you at some point. I fear I may have, since I did find that last question to be a bit harsh. You might have chosen a less sensitive subject with which to make your point, in my opinion. Nonetheless, what is the point you wish to make? Of course I experienced her death. You seem to be misunderstanding me to be saying that experience is not real. Please clarify if you would. Sincerely, Scott.