#63200 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Art TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/10/2006 2:46:59 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, daniell@... writes: Hi all, As far as I remember, monks are prohibited from music and art. Does it mean that for laymen it is also "more spiritual" to avoid music and art? Perhaps because they evoke very strong emotions? This is very very sad for me if so, because I like art very much, I like watching it, and even more, I like writing, doing small things though I don't do it much. It is a pity if that actually interferes with one's spiritual path. You know, I trust the Buddha to much so I wouldn't follow his advice...Even though people here told me that the attitude in Buddhism is different, frankly, I don't understand why. Isn't buddha enlightened, and therefore knows what is good for us better than ourselves? Yours, Daniel Hi Daniel Monks are (or should be) attempting to do a very specific thing ... attain enlightenment. For them, art in general would be a distraction and would inhibit their progress. For those of us who have not made that lofty a commitment, certain forms of art may indeed provide some inspiration and motivation for us to "see" beyond our normal day to day insight. Art has various qualities. Distinguish between art that is merely pleasurable distraction from art that is lofty inspiration. Understand the various values of artistic endeavor and realize that much of it is just killing time and delusional. With that in mind, I think you can indulge in art with mindfulness of its relative value. I wouldn't worry about enjoying art much unless one was already a monk. In such a case, perhaps one was not ready to become a monk. Sariputta and Mogallana were basically indulging in art when they said to each other that -- "this is a waste of time...let's do something more important with our lives." (paraphrasing) In my view, monks have already evolved to a higher form of art...I.E., the Buddha's teaching. TG #63201 From: "kanchaa" Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:29 pm Subject: Ten Parmitas! kanchuu2003 Hello All, Please help me understand about Parmita! And about 10 parimitta! And if anyone knows the meaning of "Pudgal" or "Padgal". Thanks. Kanchuu #63202 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------------ <. . .> KH: > > I think you are saying practice has meaning only when there is [the concept of] a being that practises. > > H: > You think incorrectly here. The meaning I have for 'practice' in this context is the dictionary meaning of "systematic exercise for proficiency." ------------ I see what you mean, and I agree with your definition. However, we still disagree on the practical examples. ---------------- H: > What I am using 'practice' for involves intentionally generating a series of conditions for a specific purpose. ---------------- Yes, and I am saying you are mistaken. According to my understanding, the practice of insight is the application of the Dhamma (that has been learnt) to the present moment. According to your understanding (or so it seems to me) the practice of insight is the setting up of conditions (other than insight) that will, supposedly, condition insight to arise in the future. -------------------------- H: > I am, of course, speaking conventionally. You do so all the time, Ken. It is not a "fair game" to speak conventionally except when coming to something the idea of which you don't like, and then suddenly switching in part to literal terminology so that the speech becomes odd. --------------------------- OK, let's not talk specifically about insight practice; let's take the conventional example of piano practice. You don't develop piano skills by (for example) swinging a golf club. You develop them by applying what you have learnt about piano playing. ------------------------------------------ H: > You know darn well what practice is. If you want to play a better tennis game, you may take some instruction, you practice your serve, you work on your forehand, you work on your backhand - and so on. ------------------------------------------- Exactly so! --------- H: > That is all, of course, conventional activity, the underlying reality of which has unfathomable complexity, but is strongly characterized by intention and purpose. --------- What if I am playing golf with the "strong intention and purpose" of becoming a better piano player? ---------------------- <. . .> H: > I don't know what formal practices are. If they are things that involve being aware of what is going on, and carrying them out intentionally rather than by mere habit or blind stumbling, I strongly favor them! --------------------- No, they are not that. Formal vipassana practices are anything done with belief in control over dhammas. As such, the only thing they develop is 'more belief in control over dhammas.' ---------------- <. . .> KH: > > Now it is not so clear that you are talking about cetana. Kusala cetana is never worthless. H: > The road to hell, Ken. (You know the rest of the statement!) ---------------- Yes, and I wholeheartedly disagree with it. The practice of good intentions develops better intentions. The practice of bad intentions develops worse intentions. To be fair to the Bible, the good intentions referred to are probably to be understood as bogus good intentions (procrastinations). Genuine good intentions definitely do not lead to hell! ----------------------- > H: > > > They are idle desire. > > > KH: > > You are not talking Abhidhamma at all, are you? :-) You are > describing a purely conventional view of the world in which good intentions, in the course of events, can turn out to be bad (and vice versa). > > H: > Oh, my! I'd better run into hiding, eh? Gosh - not talking Abhidhamma. ----------------------------------------- I am sorry if my words seemed offensive. I thought you would agree that, according to the Abhidhamma, kusala cetana is always beneficial. Only in the conventional world can good intentions "lead to hell." ------------- H: > I've got news for you, Ken - if you think you have other than a conventional view of the world you are sadly deluded. ------------- I don't entirely accept that. Whenever I am hearing, discussing or considering Dhamma, I habitually remind myself to see conditionality in all things. Sometimes I forget for a while and get caught up in thoughts of what I "as a Buddhist" should or should not be "doing." That's when I wander off the track and fall into wrong views. However, as a rule, my intellectual understanding of the world is of the non-conventional (paramattha) kind. ---------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > To me, actions (cetana cetasikas arising with javana cittas) are either wholesome or unwholesome. There is no grey area in which unwholesome dhammas are nonetheless worthwhile because they are "based on" wholesome intentions. > > H: > There are never shades of gray for doctinnaire believers, for people who won't see that there are degrees of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness. ------------------------------------------ I would agree that weak akusala is a better alternative to strong akusala. I simply don't believe that we can control which will arise. Only genuine understanding (of the dangers of akusala and the benefits of kusala (and of the conditioned nature of each)) will ultimately weaken akusala tendencies. ------------- <. . .> KH: > > Any activity performed with the intention of influencing (controlling) the flow of dhammas is a ritual activity. > > H: > I think that statement is utterly absurd, is outright false, and outright contradicts 45 years of teaching by the Buddha. What you are saying is that actions do not have consequences. It is wrong view! ------------- Some people (not many) understand that statement differently. It is not saying that kamma does not lead to vipaka. Nor is it saying that good intentions do not accumulate. It is saying that a mere intention, or sense of purpose, will never condition insight (or any other dhamma) to arise. In the Salayatana Sutta the Buddha said that when a huge rock has been cast into a deep pool there is no use in 'praising it with joined palms and saying: "Rise up good rock! Float ashore, good rock!"' Maybe that sutta was not specifically on this point. It was saying that no control could be exerted to make kusala rebirth citta arise when the conditions were for akusala rebirth citta to arise. But wouldn't the same apply to vipassana-citta and every other conditioned dhamma? ------------- KH: > > Belief that conventionally real activities somehow control the flow of dhammas is the same as belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual. It's the same wrong view. > > H: > Utter nonsense! The belief that the very conventional activity of driving one's car at 100 miles per hour straight into a brick wall will result in one's death is a valid belief. ------------- Is that what the Buddha taught? If so, how did his teaching differ from what everyone already knew (or thought they knew)? At all times (including when a car is being driven into a brick wall) there are really only dhammas. They arise, perform their functions and fall away in accordance with conditions. Ideas about anything more than dhammas are just that - ideas. Some ideas are conventionally valid (logically consistent) but, ultimately, they are all illusory. ------------ H: > The actions WILL result in the expected end, and if this were one's suicidal intention, it would not constitute belief in the efficacy of rite & ritual. Praying for death would be. Ken, you are using the phrase "rite and ritual" as a cudgel to beat down anything that makes you uneasy. It is an abuse of the Dhamma. ------------- In the conventionally real world, praying for death is a rite or ritual, while car driving is a reality. However, as Dhamma students, we have to learn about a world in which the two are equally illusory. ---------------- KH: > > Just understanding that point (that they are the factors for enlightenment) can be our right practice. > > H: > Just understanding it is just understanding it. Aversion, laziness, and a host of other defilements, unless overcome, can and usually do vitiate that understanding. --------------------------------------------- You are denying the efficacy of dhammas even though, ultimately, only dhammas have efficacy (perform functions). One of the functions of right understanding is to condition right effort to arise with it. ------------- <. . .> KH: > > If there is control over one thing there can be control over everything. Why stop at lifting a finger - why not perform an act of dana sila or bhavana? > > H: > What is your point? I DO exactly that. -------------- ! After this, our conversation got really silly! :-) I attach it without comment. Ken H > > > > > --------------- > > KH: >>We don't need a Buddha to tell us that being hit by a car has > > consequences. > > >> > > > > H: >You are contradicting yourself. You just said that concepts do > > NOT have consequences! > > --------------- > > > > They don't (ultimately), which is all the more reason why we don't > > need a Buddha to tell us that they do! :-) > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Argh! > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > -------------- > > H: >Now, the fact is that concepts do have consequences, but only > > figuratively speaking. > > --------------- > > > > Yes, and we don't need a Buddha to tell us the figuratively real > > workings of the figuratively real world, do we? > > > > ---------------------- > > H: >It is the actual conditions underlying a concept that actually > > have the consequences. Being hit by a car, will send us either to a > > hospital or the morgue. Both the cause and the effect are conventional > > events. Underlying each of these is a host of complexly interrelated, > > actual phenomena - namas and rupas. > > When one of the Buddha's monks followed his instructions and > > intentionally sat under a tree, with body erect, and attentive to his > > breath, and then entered the first jhana, that was all concept. But > > there were realities underlying all that. > > ------------------------ > > > > The Buddha would never have given those, or any other, conventional > > instructions. > > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > He gave them all the time! You are rewriting the suttas, Ken. > -------------------------------------- > He taught that there was no self. When there is no self, > > > there are only the presently arisen namas and rupas - there are no > > monks, no bodily postures, no trees . . . > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Read what the Buddha said to people, Ken. Read what he actually told > them. Literally no monks, but look how he began most of his teachings: "Monks, > ..."!! > --------------------------------------- > > > > > Certainly, the Buddha's words often seem the same as other teachers' > > words (instructions), but their meaning is always profoundly different. > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > You want to turn them into "Ken-speak". It doesn't fit. > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > Ken H > > > ====================== > With metta, > Howard > #63203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Art nilovg Dear Daniel, You know, music is part of my life. My husband and I have to play at a houseconcert in November. From the beginning I learnt: don't change your daily life, do all things naturally, but at the same time understanding of our daily life can be developed. I am almost leaving for my trip, so next week more, if you like. We are not monks, that is different. If we force ourselves we shall become cramped, and it will not help the development of understanding at all. Nina. Op 10-sep-2006, om 22:41 heeft Daniel het volgende geschreven: > This is very very sad for me if so, because I like art very much, I > like > watching it, and even more, I like writing, doing small things > though I don't > do it much. #63204 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/10/06 11:49:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ------------ > <. . .> > KH: >>I think you are saying practice has meaning only when there is > [the concept of] a being that practises. > >> > > H: >You think incorrectly here. The meaning I have for 'practice' in > this context is the dictionary meaning of "systematic exercise for > proficiency." > ------------ > > I see what you mean, and I agree with your definition. However, we > still disagree on the practical examples. > > > ---------------- > H: > What I am using 'practice' for involves intentionally generating > a series of conditions for a specific purpose. > ---------------- > > Yes, and I am saying you are mistaken. According to my understanding, > the practice of insight is the application of the Dhamma (that has > been learnt) to the present moment. > > According to your understanding (or so it seems to me) the practice of > insight is the setting up of conditions (other than insight) that > will, supposedly, condition insight to arise in the future. > > -------------------------- > H: >I am, of course, speaking conventionally. You do so all the > time, Ken. It is not a "fair game" to speak conventionally except when > coming to something the idea of which you don't like, and then > suddenly switching in part to literal terminology so that the speech > becomes odd. > --------------------------- > > OK, let's not talk specifically about insight practice; let's take the > conventional example of piano practice. You don't develop piano skills > by (for example) swinging a golf club. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Quite so. Actions must be appropriate to ends. Anything else is based on magical, ritualistic thinking. ----------------------------------------- You develop them by applying> > what you have learnt about piano playing. > > ------------------------------------------ > H: >You know darn well what practice is. If you want to play a better > tennis game, you may take some instruction, you practice your serve, > you work on your forehand, you work on your backhand - and so on. > ------------------------------------------- > > Exactly so! -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. But see also my comments in another recent post in which I disussed "supportive" activities (with martial arts training as an example). ------------------------------------------- > > --------- > H: >That is all, of course, conventional activity, the underlying > reality of which has unfathomable complexity, but is strongly > characterized by intention and purpose. > --------- > > What if I am playing golf with the "strong intention and purpose" of > becoming a better piano player? -------------------------------------------- Howard: I would suggest your getting psychological counseling in that case! LOL! And your point is what? I have never recommended taking inappropriate action. -------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------- > <. . .> > H: >I don't know what formal practices are. If they are things that > involve being aware of what is going on, and carrying them out > intentionally rather than by mere habit or blind stumbling, I strongly > favor them! > --------------------- > > No, they are not that. Formal vipassana practices are anything done > with belief in control over dhammas. As such, the only thing they > develop is 'more belief in control over dhammas.' --------------------------------------------- Howard: Kamma vipaka consists of dhammas, Ken! ---------------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>Now it is not so clear that you are talking about cetana. > Kusala cetana is never worthless. > > H: >The road to hell, Ken. (You know the rest of the statement!) > ---------------- > > Yes, and I wholeheartedly disagree with it. The practice of good > intentions develops better intentions. The practice of bad intentions > develops worse intentions. > > To be fair to the Bible, the good intentions referred to are probably > to be understood as bogus good intentions (procrastinations). Genuine > good intentions definitely do not lead to hell! ------------------------------------ Howard:: They can when acted upon inappropriately. Good intention requires intelligent and insightful impementation. And acting upon the best of intentions ignorantly can have disastrous consequences. ------------------------------------ > > ----------------------- > >H: >>>They are idle desire. > >>> > > KH: >>You are not talking Abhidhamma at all, are you? :-) You are > > describing a purely conventional view of the world in which good > intentions, in the course of events, can turn out to be bad (and vice > versa). > >> > > H: >Oh, my! I'd better run into hiding, eh? Gosh - not talking > Abhidhamma. > ----------------------------------------- > > I am sorry if my words seemed offensive. I thought you would agree > that, according to the Abhidhamma, kusala cetana is always beneficial. > Only in the conventional world can good intentions "lead to hell." -------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, as far as your actual knowledge and functioning are concerned, you don't live in a world of ultimate realities any more than a physicist lives in a world of quarks and strings. You may fantasize that you live in Abhidhamma Town, but you do not. Only in your dreams. ---------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > H: >I've got news for you, Ken - if you think you have other than a > conventional view of the world you are sadly deluded. > ------------- > > I don't entirely accept that. Whenever I am hearing, discussing or > considering Dhamma, I habitually remind myself to see conditionality > in all things. Sometimes I forget for a while and get caught up in > thoughts of what I "as a Buddhist" should or should not be "doing." > That's when I wander off the track and fall into wrong views. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I remind myself of the stories too. Sometimes I can actually fool myself into thinking that believing the stories constitutes seeing things as they are. But, fortunately, I always get over that delusion. Now, I have, on occasion, gotten a little peek at the way things really are, and for that I am grateful to the Buddha for his practice teachings, more even than for his generous pointing out the facts of the four noble truths, the tilakkhana, and dependent origination. ------------------------------------- However,> > as a rule, my intellectual understanding of the world is of the > non-conventional (paramattha) kind. > > > ---------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>To me, actions (cetana cetasikas arising with javana cittas) > are either wholesome or unwholesome. There is no grey area in which > unwholesome dhammas are nonetheless worthwhile because they are "based > on" wholesome intentions. > >> > > H: >There are never shades of gray for doctinnaire believers, for > people who won't see that there are degrees of wholesomeness and > unwholesomeness. > ------------------------------------------ > > I would agree that weak akusala is a better alternative to strong > akusala. I simply don't believe that we can control which will arise. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Kamma has consequences. Those consequences are dhammas. I don't know what *you* mean by "control". If you mean something other than kamma (intention) leading to the arising of dhammas, then we are not speaking about the same thing. I do not believe there is a "self" that determines anything. ------------------------------------------ > Only genuine understanding (of the dangers of akusala and the benefits > of kusala (and of the conditioned nature of each)) will ultimately > weaken akusala tendencies. > > ------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>Any activity performed with the intention of influencing > (controlling) the flow of dhammas is a ritual activity. > >> > > H: > I think that statement is utterly absurd, is outright false, > and outright contradicts 45 years of teaching by the Buddha. What you > are saying is that actions do not have consequences. It is wrong view! > ------------- > > Some people (not many) understand that statement differently. It is > not saying that kamma does not lead to vipaka. Nor is it saying that > good intentions do not accumulate. It is saying that a mere intention, > or sense of purpose, will never condition insight (or any other > dhamma) to arise. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Intention is one type of condition out of many. I *agree* that mere intention fails to create insight. I never claimed that it did. BTW, I would like to remind you at this point of our earlier (in this post) discussion of intention, and my saying that kusala intention by itself is inadequate, and that ill-considered action to implement good intention may even be harmful. (Remember "the road to hell"?) -------------------------------------------- > > In the Salayatana Sutta the Buddha said that when a huge rock has been > cast into a deep pool there is no use in 'praising it with joined > palms and saying: "Rise up good rock! Float ashore, good rock!"' ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, an excellent example of ritualistic thinking! An action attempted for a worthy cause that has no bearing in the slightest on the attaining of the goal. ------------------------------------------------ > > Maybe that sutta was not specifically on this point. It was saying > that no control could be exerted to make kusala rebirth citta arise > when the conditions were for akusala rebirth citta to arise. But > wouldn't the same apply to vipassana-citta and every other conditioned > dhamma? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Read the suttas, Ken. The Buddha urged specfic activities for the attaining of specific ends - activities that are appropriate to the ends, and are not mindless ritual. ------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------- > KH: >>Belief that conventionally real activities somehow control the > flow of dhammas is the same as belief in the efficacy of rite and > ritual. It's the same wrong view. > >> > > H: >Utter nonsense! The belief that the very conventional activity of > driving one's car at 100 miles per hour straight into a brick wall > will result in one's death is a valid belief. > ------------- > > Is that what the Buddha taught? If so, how did his teaching differ > from what everyone already knew (or thought they knew)? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Then if you not only agree with it, but also say that it is so emiently obvious that the Buudha had no need to teach, why were you so silly as to say that it is ritualistic thinking to believe that conventionally real activities can control the flow of dhammas. My example is a case in point. If what you are trying to say, albeit in a contorted way, is merely that all conventional phenomena that have any reality at all to them are appearance only, with the only realities involved being underlying dhammas, well, that would be a different story, and one with which I agree. -------------------------------------------------- > > At all times (including when a car is being driven into a brick wall) > there are really only dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Of course!! Dhamma 101, Ken! That's a given. -------------------------------------------------- They arise, perform their functions and> > fall away in accordance with conditions. Ideas about anything more > than dhammas are just that - ideas. Some ideas are conventionally > valid (logically consistent) but, ultimately, they are all illusory. > > ------------ > H: >The actions WILL result in the expected end, and if this were > one's suicidal intention, it would not constitute belief in the > efficacy of rite &ritual. Praying for death would be. Ken, you are > using the phrase "rite and ritual" as a cudgel to beat down anything > that makes you uneasy. It is an abuse of the Dhamma. > ------------- > > In the conventionally real world, praying for death is a rite or > ritual, while car driving is a reality. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Praying for death is a reality as well. It is not imagined. It just isn't quite what it seems. But, you know, even hardness isn't quite what it seems. Nor sights nor sounds nor tastes nor smells. ----------------------------------------- However, as Dhamma students,> > we have to learn about a world in which the two are equally illusory. > > > ---------------- > KH: >>Just understanding that point (that they are the factors for > enlightenment) can be our right practice. > >> > > H: >Just understanding it is just understanding it. Aversion, > laziness, and a host of other defilements, unless overcome, can and > usually do vitiate that understanding. > --------------------------------------------- > > You are denying the efficacy of dhammas even though, ultimately, only > dhammas have efficacy (perform functions). > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what in the world you are talking about! I haven't denied anything here. I have merely said that understanding, to be effective, requires supports and the absence of obstacles. I do believe you've heard of supporting conditions and the opposite? -------------------------------------------- One of the functions of> > right understanding is to condition right effort to arise with it. > > ------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>If there is control over one thing there can be control over > everything. Why stop at lifting a finger - why not perform an act of > dana sila or bhavana? > >> > > H: >What is your point? I DO exactly that. > -------------- > > ! > > After this, our conversation got really silly! :-) > > I attach it without comment. > > Ken H > > > > >> > >>--------------- > >>KH: >>We don't need a Buddha to tell us that being hit by a car has > >>consequences. > >>>> > >> > >>H: >You are contradicting yourself. You just said that concepts do > >>NOT have consequences! > >>--------------- > >> > >>They don't (ultimately), which is all the more reason why we don't > >>need a Buddha to tell us that they do! :-) > > > >----------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Argh! > >----------------------------------------- > > > >> > >>-------------- > >>H: >Now, the fact is that concepts do have consequences, but only > >>figuratively speaking. > >>--------------- > >> > >>Yes, and we don't need a Buddha to tell us the figuratively real > >>workings of the figuratively real world, do we? > >> > >>---------------------- > >>H: >It is the actual conditions underlying a concept that actually > >>have the consequences. Being hit by a car, will send us either to a > >>hospital or the morgue. Both the cause and the effect are conventional > >>events. Underlying each of these is a host of complexly interrelated, > >>actual phenomena - namas and rupas. > >> When one of the Buddha's monks followed his instructions and > >>intentionally sat under a tree, with body erect, and attentive to his > >>breath, and then entered the first jhana, that was all concept. But > >>there were realities underlying all that. > >>------------------------ > >> > >>The Buddha would never have given those, or any other, conventional > >>instructions. > >> > >------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > He gave them all the time! You are rewriting the suttas, Ken. > >-------------------------------------- > > He taught that there was no self. When there is no self, > > >>there are only the presently arisen namas and rupas - there are no > >>monks, no bodily postures, no trees . . . > > > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Read what the Buddha said to people, Ken. Read what he > actually told > >them. Literally no monks, but look how he began most of his > teachings: "Monks, > >..."!! > >--------------------------------------- > > > >> > >>Certainly, the Buddha's words often seem the same as other teachers' > >>words (instructions), but their meaning is always profoundly > different. > > > >----------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > You want to turn them into "Ken-speak". It doesn't fit. > >----------------------------------------- > > > >> > >>Ken H > >> > >====================== > >With metta, > >Howard > > > =============================== With metta, Howard #63205 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:21 pm Subject: Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------------- H: > One more brief point: You had written: > >If there is control over one thing there can be control over > >everything. Why stop at lifting a finger - why not perform an act of > >dana sila or bhavana? > to which I replied: > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What is your point? I DO exactly that. > ------------------------------------------- > ====================== I also take exception to your assertion "If there is control over one thing there can be control over everything." There is no basis for that conclusion in the slightest. Just saying it doesn't make it so. > ----------------- All rhetoric aside, I am genuinely puzzled. Are you saying there is control over some dhammas but not over others? Or perhaps that there is partial, but not complete, control over all dhammas? In the Anattalakkhana Sutta the Buddha said if any of the five khandhas was self then it would be 'possible to say, "Let [that khandha] be thus!" but they are not self, and so it is not possible.' I believe by "let it be thus" the Buddha specifically meant: "let it be nicca, not anicca: let it be sukha, not dukkha: and let it be atta, not anatta." But are you suggesting a lesser degree of control is possible? Is it possible, for example to say, "Let my citta be kusala, not akusala," or, "Let my kusala vedana be sukha not upekkha (etc)?" Ken H #63206 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:35 pm Subject: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (10 sarahprocter... Dear Nina & All, Thankyou for all your super posts in our absence and to everyone for running the list so smoothly in our long absence with limited internet access. It's been a joy to follow the various threads. We're just back from our trip after a wonderful last few days in Kaeng Krajan as Jon mentioned. We had lots of super dhamma discussion with K.Sujin and other dear friends and everyone was quite overwhelmed by our good friend, K.Duangduen's hospitality as usual.*** There was so much meaty discussion and so many wonderful reminders from K.Sujin, so my comments are just a few brief reflections that come to mind only: 1. The sessions on the first two days were started with K.Sujin expressing her interest in comparing the understanding in the old days of the Buddha with now. In the old days, people would hear about seeing and visible object (and other dhammas) and would immediately understand and be aware of such dhammas appearing at the time. For us, we read a lot of texts, think a lot about the teachings, even study various languages such as Sanskrit and Pali and yet there's no awareness of seeing or visible object as mere dhammas at this moment. We still think we see people and things all the time and the lurking idea of self is always there. 2. A friend mentioned some family problems and we discussed how there are no people, no family, no beings at all in this realm or any other one. We talk about people in our ordinary conversations, but when we are discussing dhamma, we can talk about how there really are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Appreciating that there is no self is the way to also help others, to also develop the brahma viharas, without any idea of 'my metta', 'my difficult family' and so on. 3. Nina, I asked a question about any special reflections at K.Charupan's cremation and K.Sujin replied 'just like now'. In other words, we always think about special occasions or circumstances, but the realities to be understood are just the same. 'K.Charupan has gone and we just have ideas about her now, that's all'. The dhamma is in daily life whether we're at a funeral or laughing in the garden. At breakfast-time, whilst eating and chatting with us, K.Sujin and her sister were also listening to another Thai dhamma teacher with different views talking on the radio. The reception was better for this programme and they like to listen. After a discussion in the evening, K.Sujin would often retire to watch some T.V like she does in India or at home. It's all so simple and natural when understanding develops -- no need to set any rules for particular activities or occasions at all in order for awareness to arise. Such awareness is not heavy at all, but light. 4. The topic of criticisms of K.Sujin came up. Other teachers think that what she says is 'theoretical'. She doesn't mind at all. Also, when some people visit the Foundation, they feel unhappy or that they are 'put on the spot'. If no one liked or agreed with her at all, she wouldn't mind in the slightest. Our concern should just be to act in a helpful and friendly way, not to mind about any adverse reactions. We're not responsible for others' accumulations at all. Following on from this, if we ourselves mind when people criticise what we write or her or the commentaries or Abhidhamma, it merely indicates our 'wanting to be the beloved one' at such times! To be contd. Metta, Sarah ***Jon and I will be visiting Kaeng Krajan again for a similar occasion (English dhamma discussion) in January, a few days before K.Sujin's 80th birthday on the 13th Jan. K.Duangduen has asked me to give her the names of others who would like to join us within the next month or so, but to limit this number to 10 people. If anyone is interested to join, pls let me know as soon as possible . The total cost will most likely be less than U.S $100. K. Sujin made a point of inviting anyone with different views to join us too! ================================== #63207 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:49 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 515- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (l) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas Another pair of the sobhana cetasikas is: pliancy of cetasikas, kåya-mudutå pliancy of citta, citta-mudutå According to the Dhammasangaùi (§ 44, 45) this pair of cetasikas consist in suavity, smoothness and absence of rigidity. The Atthasåliní ( I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 130) explains: * "They have the characteristic of suppressing the rigidity of mental factors and of consciousness; the function of crushing the same in both; the manifestation or effect of setting up no resistance; and have mental factors and consciousness as proximate cause. They are the opponents of the corruptions, such as opinionatedness (diììhi) and conceit which cause mental rigidity." The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 146) gives a similar definition. Pliancy of cetasikas and of citta are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. Wrong view causes rigidity and inflexibility. When someone, for example, is attached to wrong practice of the eightfold Path it shows that there is mental rigidity. He may stick to his old habits and way of thinking and then it is very difficult to eradicate wrong view. Someone may, for example, think that he should be at leisure or in a quiet place before he can develop right understanding. Even when we know in theory that this is not right it may happen that we still presume that there cannot be awareness when we are tired or in a hurry. Such presumptions are a hindrance to develop understanding of whatever reality appears in our daily life. When we have listened to the Dhamma and we consider it there can be a beginning of the development of insight. We should not expect understanding to be perfect at once, but at least we can begin to develop it now. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ======= #63208 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:22 pm Subject: Re: Jataka Stories buddhatrue Hi Lodewijk, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lodewijk van Gorkom wrote: > > L . You put me on the spot. I find your question difficult to answer. > I think, that the challenges faced by the bodhisatta were vipaka > caused by kamma, good or bad? I do not know, but the challenges were > certainly conditions for the bodhisatta to develop all the > Perfections. It is the same with the challenges in our life; we > should see and understand them as an exhortation , further to develop > the Perfections. Maybe, Nina will add some further remarks. > > With warm regards, Lodewijk I'm sorry to put you on the spot. I didn't mean to. I just thought that maybe you had given this matter more thought than myself. I was wondering how the Perfections work as a mechanism toward arahanthood and buddhahood. I am still a little fuzzy on the Perfections and if situations which arise to develop them could be considered positive or negative vipaka. Most articles on the Perfections, even those by K. Sujin, address the Perfections in one lifetime, not really over multiple lifetimes. I want to know how there can be the guarantee of development of the Perfections over multiple lifetimes without securing sotapanna. Any thoughts? Metta, James #63209 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, AndrewT, Phil, Azita & All, --- sarah abbott wrote: 5. A recurring theme related to our attachments to routines and 'sensitivities'. It started with our Swedish friend Knowing's sensitivity to electrical gadgets in general. Near the beginning of the first discussion in K.Duangduen's garden, he mentioned that he might have to leave the discussions because of his reaction to the microphone Jon was using for recording purposes. His heart began to thump and he experienced various bodily sensations. It turns out that he has a disability sick leave allowance because of this same condition. Over the course of the next couple of days, K.Sujin stressed a lot on the only realities being namas and rupas and how we become obsessed with the idea of 'my body', 'my disability', 'my routine' and so on. We think we need so many hours' sleep or need to follow particular habits or routines, but in truth, only dhammas arise and such dhammas are conditioned already. Our attachments to ourselves, to our routines, to particular ideas such as these actually harm the rupas. I also stressed that when we consider others more, we forget about our particular problems and pay less attention to them. (None of this is to say that we don't need sleep, special foods and so on). Knowing really appreciated all the strong 'medicine' as opposed to the usual sympathy. Incredibly the stress and fear that had been so noticable, gradually disappeared and he sat closer and closer to the microphone over the couple of days without feeling any more ill effects. This obvious example of the effect of cittas over rupas was a very good reminder for me as I think we all have our fixed ideas of our habits and routines. (Azita, our discussion about our other friend's dietary worries and concerns preventing him from hearing the dhamma also came to mind here). 6. I raised Andrew T's question on why pancadvaravajjana citta (sense-door adverting consciousness) was not vipaka. KS was familiar with the question. She stressed that while vipaka is kusala or akusala (i.e the result of kusala or akusala kamma),for pancadvaravajjana, it doesn't matter whether it's kusala or akusala because it experiences all objects through 5 doors. There is lots and lots of kamma which can bring results and it depends on other supporting conditions as to which one will bring its effect. Of course, pancadvaravajjana just knows the object, it doesn't see it etc. 7. A quote I jotted down of KS's "One reads all the Tipitaka with one's own imagination. When there is an understanding of realities, one knows what dhammas are." Metta, Sarah p.s possibly to be continued, depending on conditions.....:-) ================== #63210 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:50 pm Subject: Re: Rob's forum on jhana, no 4. buddhatrue Hi Math, Nina, and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > Thank you for giving all the reasons for not attaining jhana. I'm > sure the Buddha would completely agree that it is hopeless and > useless persuit. LOL! Yeah, I'm sure the Buddha would be quite pleased. Nothing like trying to discredit one eighth of the Noble Eightfold Path! (But I'm glad that the author of this nonsense decided not to follow his own advice about jhana and became a monk who regularly practices meditation!) > > I can only say that those who have enough good kamma to see the > light will, and others simply wont, because thousands of lay people > have attained jhana and benefited from it and thousands never will. I think that Kom's main point in this post is that DSG doesn't really speak against jhana, DSG is just being realistic that jhana can't be developed by householders. In other words, DSG is the bastion of realism against all those dreamers who dream of attaining jhana. However, this point ignores that the Buddha urged householders to attain jhana. In one sutta, the Buddha urged 500 householders to not be content with just offering requisites to monks, that they should also develop the jhanas. Secondly, where in the suttas does the Buddha encourage householders to understand anatta? How about dependent origination? How about the three characteristics of conditioned existence? DSG discusses many items which the Buddha never taught to householders, so Kom is making a moot point. DSG is not the bastion of realism, it just plays favorites. (BTW, DSG is not of one mind and voice, it has many minds and voices; when Kom describes DSG, what he is really describing is the KS camp withink DSG.) > > I have no time to answer your posts from Rob's forum point for point > even though I would love to. Perhaps it is better for my practice > simply to let go of the craving to do so. Good choice. Better not to argue Kom's tome point-by-point. Kom isn't even here to respond- he's at a monastery in Thailand developing the jhanas! ;-)) > > with metta > > Matheesha Metta, James #63211 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/11/06 1:26:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > I also take exception to your assertion "If there is control over one > thing there can be control over everything." There is no basis for > that conclusion in the slightest. Just saying it doesn't make it so. > > > > ----------------- > > > All rhetoric aside, I am genuinely puzzled. Are you saying there is > control over some dhammas but not over others? Or perhaps that there > is partial, but not complete, control over all dhammas? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I am somewhat saying the first of these, but I am saying more than that. Your statement (that I take exception to) was that control over one thing implies the possibility of control over all things. What I am aiming at is the illogic of that conditional statement. I say that the antecedent in no way implies the consequent. There is no basis for it. I'm saying that it is possible to control some things yet not control some other things, but, far more importantly, I'm saying that the concluding that all things could be controlled from the assumption that a single thing can is illogical, the deduction not being valid. Your statement was a conditional one: IF there is control over one thing [THEN] there can be control over everything. There is no logical basis for that inference, and there is no empirical evidence either. In fact, there is clear evidence to the contrary. -------------------------------------------- > > In the Anattalakkhana Sutta the Buddha said if any of the five > khandhas was self then it would be 'possible to say, "Let [that > khandha] be thus!" but they are not self, and so it is not possible.' > > I believe by "let it be thus" the Buddha specifically meant: "let it > be nicca, not anicca: let it be sukha, not dukkha: and let it be atta, > not anatta." > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Those are examples of things that cannot be controlled. What is anicca is anicca. And so on. I never claimed that we can cause-to-be anything that we wish-to-be, and *especially* not making something other than what it is! What I have taken exception to in this current matter is one simple thing: your illogical statement that control over one thing implies control over all. Actually, I don't at all believe in "control of dhammas" in the sense of changing the nature of a dhamma. I think such an idea is utter nonsense. What I do assert is that effective cetana can arise, willing that serves as one of many conditions that, together, have the effect of leading to a particular dhamma or sort of dhamma arising. That does not constitute changing the nature of a dhamma, but constitutes conditioning the arising of something new. I really don't think of that as control but as kammic conditionality. Informally, we may use the word 'control', but it is imprecise and freqently misleading. --------------------------------------- But are you suggesting a lesser degree of control is> > possible? Is it possible, for example to say, "Let my citta be kusala, > not akusala," or, "Let my kusala vedana be sukha not upekkha (etc)?" ---------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, you seem to be having a pleasant conversation with yourself. It has nothing to do, however, with anything that I have maintained or do maintain, and it takes no congnizance of the meaning of the assertion you made that I am saying is without foundation. There is nothing more that I can discuss on this point, as we are making no connection here in the slightest. --------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > > > > ====================== With metta, Howard P.S. I think this matter has now pretty much been beaten to death. I get no pleasure out of attempts at point-scoring, and I see nothing left in this conversation other than that. We are talking past each other instead of to each other, and there is so little of a common ground that I don't see anything further to be gained by either of us. So I am choosing to opt out at this point. #63212 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:48 pm Subject: Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) philofillet Hi Sarah > Knowing really appreciated all the strong 'medicine' as opposed to the > usual sympathy. Incredibly the stress and fear that had been so noticable, > gradually disappeared Maybe "in addition to" the usual sympathy? The latter without the former doesn't do much good, but when sympathy sits on a proper understanding that there is nothing going on but conditioned nama and rupa (and conceptualizing that spins off on it) that is helpful sympathy! BTW, what *did* you say to Betty. I give up. :) Since it was something that "Acharn Sujin would never say" I guess it wasn't the strong medicine? Phil #63213 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:21 pm Subject: Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) philofillet Hi again Sarah > > Knowing really appreciated all the strong 'medicine' > And I'd add that there were conditions for him to understand the strong medicine. Panna lets us know when it is to be dispensed or not. Trying to share it when the conditions are not there just leads to ridicule/frustration/cheapening of the Buddha's teaching. I know not everyone feels this way - dispense the strong medicine no matter what. But I have learned from experience that it is best not to when understanding is not there to receive it. Stinginess or wisdom? Probably both. Phil #63214 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:18 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 516- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (m) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== As we have read in the definition, pliancy of cetasikas and of citta are the opponents also of conceit. When there is conceit there is mental rigidity. We are inclined to compare ourselves time and again with others in a conceited way as regards health, appearance, gain, honour or intelligence. Conceit is extremely hard to eradicate, only the arahat has eradicated it completely. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63215 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) philofillet Hi again > I know not > everyone feels this way - dispense the strong medicine no matter what. > But I have learned from experience that it is best not to when > understanding is not there to receive it. Stinginess or wisdom? > Probably both. I take this back. Stinginess on my part - best to keep dispensing no matter what. :) Phil #63216 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life I. philofillet Hi all Always helpful to reflect on the following... > 'ŠSo in many hundred suttas there is only > mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, > not a person. Therefore, just as when the component > parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles... > are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the > mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate > sense, when each part is examined, there is no > chariot, ...so too,... there comes to be the mere > conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate > sense, when each component is examined, there is > no being as a basis for the assumption ' I am' or ' I ' ; > in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. > The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision.' Phil #63217 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi All, Howard is totally frustrated with the conversation I have been having with him and has decided to bow out. That is perfectly understandable, of course, but I was just getting warmed up! :-) So I will continue regardless. Anyone who would like to join in (especially, anyone who disagrees) will be very welcome. Our first unresolved topic was the appropriateness of certain "vipassana practices." I wrote: > > You don't develop piano skills by (for example) swinging a golf club. > > To which Howard replied: > Quite so. Actions must be appropriate to ends. Anything else is based on magical, ritualistic thinking. > He also mentioned the importance of intention and sense of purpose, and so I asked: > > What if I am playing golf with the "strong intention and purpose" of becoming a better piano player? > > Howard's reply was, in part: > And your point is what? I have never recommended taking inappropriate action. > But isn't that exactly the point of countless discussions on DSG? IMHO (and in others' less humble opinions), everyone who recommends meditation (or any other technique or form of "trying") for vipassana is effectively recommending inappropriate action. Another interesting topic was the paramattha verses the conventional way of talking about Dhamma: KH: > > Genuine good intentions definitely do not lead to hell! > > H: > They can when acted upon inappropriately. Good intention requires intelligent and insightful impementation. And acting upon the best of intentions ignorantly can have disastrous consequences. > Can anyone see my difficulty here? The conventional way of describing reality is so imprecise as to be counterproductive. It presents situations in which wholesome and unwholesome motivations seem to arise simultaneously. There was another point that Howard made on two or three occasions, but which I still haven't been able to understand: H: > Ken, as far as your actual knowledge and functioning are concerned, you don't live in a world of ultimate realities any more than a physicist lives in a world of quarks and strings. You may fantasize that you live in Abhidhamma Town, but you do not. Only in your dreams. > I would be grateful if anyone could elaborate on that for me. There was also an exchange in which (I think) Howard advocated personal experiences in preference to theoretical knowledge: H: > Sometimes I can actually fool myself into thinking that believing the stories constitutes seeing things as they are. But, fortunately, I always get over that delusion. Now, I have, on occasion, gotten a little peek at the way things really are, and for that I am grateful to the Buddha for his practice teachings, more even than for his generous pointing out the facts of the four noble truths, the tilakkhana, and dependent origination. > That is a mammoth topic that should be addressed at every available opportunity. I wouldn't begrudge anyone the right to reveal their personal 'road to Damascus' experiences if they feel so inclined. At the same time, however, I think most people who do so eventually regret it. They eventually see that there was another explanation. There are sane, rational people who honestly believe they have seen ghosts, UFO's, communicated with dead relatives, or had two-way conversations with God (and so on). Just a few years ago there was a spate of alien abductions (that included rides in spacecraft and strange "probing" experiments), and some of the abuctees interviewed on TV were nothing if not convincing in their sincerity. A few decades previously, astral travel commonly occurred to very ordinary, honest, people. I would put glimpses of Nibbana, jhana absorption and direct experiences of anatta (in that order) right at the top of the scale of extraordinariness. I am more inclined to believe alien abductions than any of those claims (sincere though they are). Another topic was 'control over paramattha dhammas.' What could be more important to discuss than this? In a recent conversation with Jon and Sarah, I asked them about their acquaintance with the renowned, widely respected, Bhikkhu Bodhi. We only discussed it very briefly, but apparently, he has for many years been aware of K Sujin's teachings and Nina's books etc. He has no disagreements on the technical side of things and he has only one objection - he can't agree there is no control. He thinks there must be some control in there somewhere. He has not been able (any more than Howard or other DSG members) to explain exactly what that control is or how it comes about, but he believes it exists nonetheless. We really must discuss these things! :-) Ken H #63218 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (10 gazita2002 hello Sarah, 4 mins left on computor, pls add my name to that Jan list. patience, courage and good cheer, azita. #63219 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited scottduncan2 Dear Ken H, I'd be happy to try to discuss this stuff with you. I've just started with the below, since this seemed relevant to me now: K: "Another topic was 'control over paramattha dhammas.' What could be more important to discuss than this? In a recent conversation with Jon and Sarah, I asked them about their acquaintance with the renowned, widely respected, Bhikkhu Bodhi. We only discussed it very briefly, but apparently, he has for many years been aware of K Sujin's teachings and Nina's books etc. He has no disagreements on the technical side of things and he has only one objection - he can't agree there is no control. He thinks there must be some control in there somewhere. He has not been able (any more than Howard or other DSG members) to explain exactly what that control is or how it comes about, but he believes it exists nonetheless." I don't know how much help I'll be on this. I'm afraid that I seem to have bypassed doubt about this 'no control' thing and simply accept it. It just seems correct. This might show me up to be naive or to be one who can't think for himself. I came to the Buddha's teachings less than two years ago (November 8, 2004 to be exact) and this was a completely and totally uncontrolled, highly conditioned arising. I was since able to navigate the thicket of views until I arrived here. I'm pleased that Bhikkhu Bodhi finds no grounds to criticise K. Sujin or Nina on technical grounds. I'm accepting the accuracy and studying as best I can but more to learn than to prove it right or wrong. Again, this might be subject to a critique but I simply feel no need. I don't begrudge Bhikkhu Bodhi his reservations. I learn a lot reading his translations. It is my opinion that this is his bit of self-belief. I have mine as well but I do see the belief in 'control' to be self-related. I'm not saying that I have more than an intellectual understanding of this, although I guess I am since I think that I do have something more than that - I just can't put it into words. I don't have the whole of the dhamma-picture in perspective by a long-shot but each bit I study and learn about seems to just fall into place in some way. Well, like I said, not much help but for what its worth... With loving kindness, Scott. #63220 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard, Here's another topic - "all or nothing" - that I can't let you have the last word on. :-) ------------------------ H: > Your statement (that I take exception to) was that control over one thing implies the possibility of control over all things. What I am aiming at is the illogic of that conditional statement. I say that the antecedent in no way implies the consequent. There is no basis for it. I'm saying that it is possible to control some things yet not control some other things, but, far more importantly, I'm saying that the concluding that all things could be controlled from the assumption that a single thing can is illogical, the deduction not being valid. Your statement was a conditional one: IF there is control over one thing [THEN] there can be control over everything. There is no logical basis for that inference, and there is no empirical evidence either. In fact, there is clear evidence to the contrary. ------------------------ You have baffled me with science, but I am still not convinced. A well-known saying (though perhaps not a very scientific one) is, "You can't be a little bit pregnant." Surely, some things are a matter of 'all or nothing.' (?) I think James was saying that some people (Kom in particular) have become disillusioned with the DSG-K.Sujin way of understanding the Dhamma, and have gone back to the popular, control-oriented way. Maybe that is true, I don't know (it will be interesting to hear from Kom), but I know it won't happen to me! My understanding of the Dhamma is such that, if one little exception could be allowed to the rule then the whole structure would fall down. The entire rationale of the Dhamma would be destroyed. If there was (ultimately) control over the slightest thing then there would be control over everything, there would be a self after all, and there would be no logical explanation for the universe. In other words, it is inconceivable - it just isn't possible!!! Ken H #63221 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > But isn't that exactly the point of countless discussions on DSG? > IMHO (and in others' less humble opinions), everyone who recommends > meditation (or any other technique or form of "trying") for vipassana > is effectively recommending inappropriate action. I will throw in my perspective, but, like Howard, I don't wish to get into an extended discussion. I don't think such a discussion would lead anywhere. As far as meditation being a rite and ritual, clearly it is not. Perhaps you have never been exposed to rites and rituals for you to know the difference? Let me give you an example, here in Taiwan last month was ghost month. Many people could be seen on the streets burning fake money and fake credit cards in large barrels. They also had piles of food on tables, with incense burning in front, on the streets. These people were offering these things to the ghosts who are supposed to come out of their graves during ghost month. They believe that by offering these things the ghosts will be satisfied and will leave them alone. Ken, this is clearly a rite and ritual. It is superstitious and has no basis whatsoever in reality. There isn't a causal link between the actions and the intended result. However, meditation isn't a rite and ritual, it is a practice of mental purification. By concentrating on a meditation object, over time, the defilements are suppressed. With the suppression of the defilements there arises calm and tranquility. With tranquility and concentration there arises insight into the true nature of reality. With insight there arises release. One thing leads to another and there is a causal link between the action and the intended result. Meditation, therefore, isn't a rite or ritual. Really, I can't make it any clearer than that. However, I know that you aren't going to agree, and that you will have no basis whatsoever for your disagreement. Like Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" You will scream, "Meditation is rite and ritual! Meditation is rite and ritual!" Perhaps you can burn some fake money to keep those meditation ghosts away?? ;-)) Metta, James #63222 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > I think James was saying that some people (Kom in particular) have > become disillusioned with the DSG-K.Sujin way of understanding the > Dhamma, and have gone back to the popular, control-oriented way. I said nothing of the sort. Meditation isn't about "controlling dhammas"- and I think that that subject is a very stupid subject to discuss. Any talk of "control" is pointless and leads nowhere because the concepts involved are ill-defined. Metta, James #63223 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:54 pm Subject: The Cause of Knowledge & Vision ??? bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What are the Causes of Knowledge & Vision? A Prince named Fearless once asked the Blessed Buddha: Venerable Sir, what are the conditioning causes of knowledge & vision? Here, prince, the Bhikkhu systematically develops the: Awareness Link to Awakening, Investigation of states Link to Awakening, Energy Link to Awakening, Joy Link to Awakening, Tranquillity Link to Awakening, Concentration Link to Awakening, Equanimity Link to Awakening, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, & maturing in release. When his mind is enhanced and enforced by these Links to Awakening, then he knows and sees all phenomena as they really are. This is indeed therefore a cause for knowledge and vision! It is in this very way that knowledge and vision are caused by these quite specific conditions !!! What is this Dhamma explanation called, Venerable Sir? These unique mental states are called the Links to Awakening, prince. Surely they are Links to Awakening. Blessed One! Surely they are Links to Awakening. Fortunate One! If any, who possesses even a single Link to Awakening, would know and see things as they really are, what then to say of one who possesses all these seven Links to Awakening... !!! See also the opposite core question: What are the causes of Ignorance? http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Causes_of_Ignorance.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Cause_of_Ignorance.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:127-8] section 46: The Links. 56: To Abhaya... Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. #63224 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Scott, Thanks for joining in - much appreciated! ------------------- S: > I don't know how much help I'll be on this. I'm afraid that I seem to have bypassed doubt about this 'no control' thing and simply accept it. It just seems correct. This might show me up to be naive or to be one who can't think for himself. -------------------- Not at all! I think you will find that Nina had an even smoother introduction to the Dhamma than you did. She began with the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, which is a wonderful advantage when you think about it. Better still, she began with the Abhidhamma and commentaries as explained by K Sujin! Most of us have had to do it the hard way - popular books on "Buddhism" loosely quoting the suttas where it suited the authors, and no idea at all about paramattha dhammas. ----------------------------------------- S: > I came to the Buddha's teachings less than two years ago (November 8, 2004 to be exact) and this was a completely and totally uncontrolled, highly conditioned arising. I was since able to navigate the thicket of views until I arrived here. I'm pleased that Bhikkhu Bodhi finds no grounds to criticise K. Sujin or Nina on technical grounds. I'm accepting the accuracy and studying as best I can but more to learn than to prove it right or wrong. Again, this might be subject to a critique but I simply feel no need. ----------------------------------------- As I understand B. Bodhi's personal views, he frankly accepts and admits that they go against the texts to some extent. He feels justified in this on the grounds that various parts of the Abhidhamma and commentaries are, according to various scientists, later additions. I think if, like you, he just wanted to learn then he would have no need for such contortions. ----------------------------- S: > I don't begrudge Bhikkhu Bodhi his reservations. I learn a lot reading his translations. It is my opinion that this is his bit of self-belief. I have mine as well but I do see the belief in 'control' to be self-related. I'm not saying that I have more than an intellectual understanding of this, although I guess I am since I think that I do have something more than that - I just can't put it into words. ------------------------------- All the more reason to put them into words, I suppose. But then who am I to give that advice? I only express my understanding when I am fairly sure it is consistent with the K.Sujin-DSG version. :-) What a chicken! ----------------------------------------------- S: > I don't have the whole of the dhamma-picture in perspective by a long-shot but each bit I study and learn about seems to just fall into place in some way. Well, like I said, not much help but for what its worth... ------------------------------------------------ It's been a pleasure - please continue when you feel so inclined. DSG conversations shouldn't have to be between people who disagree on something. Well, not all the time! :-) Ken H #63225 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi James, -------------- J: > I will throw in my perspective, but, like Howard, I don't wish to get into an extended discussion. I don't think such a discussion would lead anywhere. --------------- Understood. Let's keep it brief. ----------------- J: > As far as meditation being a rite and ritual, clearly it is not. Perhaps you have never been exposed to rites and rituals for you to know the difference? Let me give you an example, ------------------ I know the popularly accepted difference, thanks James. Howard and I discussed some commonly known rituals. The Buddha mentioned some in the suttas too (animal sacrifice and that sort of thing). What is not so widely recognised, however, is that wrong view can convert many daily life activities into religious rites and rituals. -------------------------------- <. . .> J: > However, meditation isn't a rite and ritual, it is a practice of mental purification. By concentrating on a meditation object, over time, the defilements are suppressed. ------------------- Amazing! So, by concentrating on a kasina (or whatever) evil sinners become magically pure! James, doesn't that sound unlikely to you? Can't you accept it might be a bit of superstitious misinformation? Evil is overcome by virtue (the highest of which is right view), not by concentration. Ken H #63226 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi James, I know you didn't use the words "control-oriented." That is a way I chose to describe popular Buddhism, which sees the Dhamma as a list of things to do. I prefer to see the Dhamma as a way of understanding the realities that are arising now. (No time or need to do anything.) Ken H > > > > I think James was saying that some people (Kom in particular) have > > become disillusioned with the DSG-K.Sujin way of understanding the > > Dhamma, and have gone back to the popular, control-oriented way. > > I said nothing of the sort. Meditation isn't about "controlling > dhammas"- and I think that that subject is a very stupid subject to > discuss. Any talk of "control" is pointless and leads nowhere because > the concepts involved are ill-defined. > > #63227 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Betty & all) Thx for adding your comment. --- Phil wrote: > Hi Sarah > > > Knowing really appreciated all the strong 'medicine' as opposed to the > > usual sympathy. Incredibly the stress and fear that had been so > noticable, > > gradually disappeared > > Maybe "in addition to" the usual sympathy? .... S: Well, yes. What I meant was 'as opposed to the usual sympathetic comments such as 'poor you', 'that's tough' or 'we'll turn off the recorder for you'. ... >The latter without the > former doesn't do much good, but when sympathy sits on a proper > understanding that there is nothing going on but conditioned nama and > rupa (and conceptualizing that spins off on it) that is helpful > sympathy! ... S: Yes, exactly. A sympathy expressed in very different language without any feelings of sorrow (the near enemy of compassion). .... > > BTW, what *did* you say to Betty. I give up. :) Since it was > something that "Acharn Sujin would never say" I guess it wasn't the > strong medicine? ... S: Ah, I knew you'd give up:-) It was similar to a comment that I also made to Knowing actually in the example above as well. I suggested that many people were experiencing all sorts of difficulties (including K.Sujin who had a cough), but that it can be a kind of respect and consideration for others to be patient and keep quiet, rather than causing disturbance. In particular, I believe I mentioned to Betty at the time that K.Sujin herself had helped to arrange the trip, chosen the tour operator and so knowing Betty's great gratitude and respect for all KS has done for us, it would be a way of showing this to have some restraint with regard to speaking out with dosa about the arrangements she didn't like! As Betty mentioned, she responded immediately and it was in her case a condition for some wise reflection. I was most impressed at how she listened to the dhamma the next day without showing any hint of any of her difficulties. Of course, I wouldn't have made the same comments to many other people:-) I think of it as being like the attending of a dinner or party one isn't enjoying. One doesn't go round bad-mouthing the arrangements with conceit about how it could be done better. Of course, one may still keep quiet with dosa or mana and in the end the only real medicine regardless is the right understanding of the various dhammas appearing at such times as now as Betty fully appreciated and had already reminded herself. When it seems that someone helps us with reminders, it's really just our own wise reflection and understanding that helps at such times of course. Now you know why KS wouldn't have said it - because it referred to showing respect for her:-). Metta, Sarah ======= #63228 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) sarahprocter... Hi Phil again, --- Phil wrote: > > I know not > > everyone feels this way - dispense the strong medicine no matter > what. > > But I have learned from experience that it is best not to when > > understanding is not there to receive it. Stinginess or wisdom? > > Probably both. > > I take this back. Stinginess on my part - best to keep dispensing no > matter what. :) ... S: :)And of course, only understanding will know whether there's stinginess, wisdom or whatever when we keep quiet....No rules... Metta, Sarah ========= #63229 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- Phil wrote: > > Hi again Sarah > > > > Knowing really appreciated all the strong 'medicine' > > > And I'd add that there were conditions for him to understand the > strong medicine. Panna lets us know when it is to be dispensed or not. > Trying to share it when the conditions are not there just leads to > ridicule/frustration/cheapening of the Buddha's teaching. I know not > everyone feels this way - dispense the strong medicine no matter what. > But I have learned from experience that it is best not to when > understanding is not there to receive it. Stinginess or wisdom? > Probably both. .... S: This touches on the other point of discussion I mentioned about when people get upset or react strongly to our efforts to help explain about dhammas, about namas and rupas. We're not responsible for others' accumulations or responses and so when we try to help with metta or kindness, we don't need to mind or have any expectations about the response at all. As KS said, she doesn't care in the least if people ridicule what she's saying, or the texts either. They may not respond in a friendly way, but we don't need to mind, we can just be friendly to anyone regardless. Otherwise it's the 'wanting to be the beloved' again. I'm always so impressed by how she doesn't compromise the truth regardless of how much of a 'cold shower' it might sound to the listener. 'It's the truth, it's the truth' as you always quote. We had some discussion of the impartiality which has to develop with metta. Partiality and expectations of our words having a certain effect hinder the development of metta. When we do our best to share our understanding with good-will and hear a strong adverse reaction, it's not 'a cheapening of the Buddha's teaching' at all. The truth always comes back to the dhammas appearing now, not the others' cittas and not something in the books. If we feel frustrated, it's merely an indication of the expectations that go along with our attachments instead of metta at such times. The good news is that we can then see how much it has to grow at such times:-). It's good to read these comments, Phil. I find them helpful. Metta, Sarah ======== #63230 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question about lethargy and indolence sarahprocter... Hi Dan. Good to see you around and hope you had a good summer. I know one or two others have replied on this, but just another brief comment:- --- "Dan D." wrote: > Wouldn't a focus on detachment naturally lead to apathy, indifference, > lethargy, and indolence? Aren't the most energetic, productive people > energetic and productive precisely because they are strongly attached > to realizing their goals? Is serious Buddhism incompatible with success > and excellence in worldly matters? .... S: Detachment is incompatible with the states you mention which are of course all arising with akusala cittas. People are so different by their inclinations and accumulations, so with a growth of wisdom and detachment, some will continue to be indolent and others will continue to excel in worldly goals. When we think of any incompatibility, it seems we're thinking of particular 'situations' again, rather than the understanding of whatever dhammas appear by such accumulations now. As Nina said to Daniel with regard to the topic of art and music, no need to change one's inclinations. If one does so with an idea of incompatibility with the understanding of dhammas, we go very wrong again. Serious Buddhism is not incompatible with any inclinations or the arising of any dhammas -- it's the understanding of them as being conditioned this way at this moment. What do you think? Metta, Sarah ======== #63231 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:43 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 517- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (n) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Pliancy of cetasikas and of citta assist the kusala citta so that there is no mental rigidity or intolerance, but open-mindedness to what is right. The Atthasåliní (I, Book I Part IV, Chapter II, 151) explains further on about mental pliancy that it is suavity, nonroughness and non-rigidity. When there is loving kindness there is suavity and gentleness. Mental pliancy or malleability is indispensable for each wholesome action. Pliancy is also necessary in order to listen to the Dhamma, to receive it with open-mindedness and to be mindful of the reality which appears in order to know it as it is. We read in the Gradual Sayings (IV, Book of the Eights, Chapter II, § 2, Síha the general) that Síha visited the Buddha and questioned him on different points. The Buddha knew that Síha had accumulated right understanding and that it was the right time for him to receive the Dhamma. He did not explain to Síha immediately the four Noble Truths, but he gave him a gradual discourse. We read: * "Then the Exalted One preached a graduated discourse to Síha, the general, that is to say: on almsgiving, the precepts and on heaven. He set forth the peril, the folly and the depravity of lusts and the blessedness of renunciation. And when the Exalted One knew that the heart of Síha, the general, was clear, malleable, free from hindrance, uplifted and lucid, then he revealed that teaching of Dhamma which Buddhas alone have won, that is to say: Dukkha, its coming to be, its ending and the Way. Just as a clean cloth, free of all stain, will take dye perfectly; even so in Síha, the general, seated there, there arose the spotless, stainless vision of Dhamma; that whatsoever be conditioned by coming to be, all that is subject to ending." * It was the right time for Síha to receive the Dhamma. He saw things as they are and attained enlightenment. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63232 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ten Parmitas! sarahprocter... Hi Kanchuu, --- kanchaa wrote: > Hello All, > > Please help me understand about Parmita! And about 10 parimitta! > > And if anyone knows the meaning of "Pudgal" or "Padgal". > > Thanks. > > Kanchuu ... S: Am I right in remembering you as Nitesh Kanchuu from Nepal? I think you were studying Abhidhamma on your own? How's it going? With regard to the 10 perfections (parami in Pali), try looking at the following: http://www.zolag.co.uk/Perfections.html Also, 'Useful Posts' in the files of DSG under 'Perfections' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ There is also much more there under each particular perfection, eg 'dana' or 'generosity' and so on. Please let us know what your particular questions on the Parami are, otherwise it's difficult to know where to start. If you start reading the e-book at the first link, you could quote any extracts you wish to discuss or raise any questions from it. Simply, the parami refer to 'goodness' developing along with the path of satipatthana. Metta, Sarah ======= #63233 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) sarahprocter... Dear All, A few more points of discussion. Pls add any comments! 1. Tom and Beverly raised some questions from a friend. One related to Buddhism and rebirth. He reads books such as Abhidhamma in D.Life, but also books such as Stephen Batchelor's suggesting there's no rebirth. We discussed how unless there's an understanding of dhammas arising and passing away, there cannot be any understanding of rebirth anyway, because it's always taken to be a 'self' of some kind continuing on. Even though we may have some confidence in rebirth, do we really understand what it means? 2. When we read about the conditions for developing right understanding such as 'right place', 'association with the wise' and so on, we can begin to appreciate that these refer to the place of having right understanding (which could be anywhere) and the association with right view and right thinking (which again could be anywhere). Actually, there are no places, no people and so on, so it always comes back to our own views and thinking and understanding. 3. Some discussion on over-eating! It's panna which sees the benefit of less attachment, but it depends what level of panna we're talking about. With the growth of satipatthana, there's more hiri and otappa (more seeing the shame of all kinds of akusala, such as greed). A sotapanna has greater hiri and otappa of course. When the Buddha taught about knowing suitability (i.e the 4 sampajannas), all levels of wisdom are included. 4. Degrees or levels of doubt no longer arise at different levels. For example, when there is firm sacca nana or understanding of the truth of the path at an intellectual level, certain doubts about the right path no longer arise. When we read that the culasotapanna (2nd stage of insight) has no more doubt, it refers to having no more doubt about the conditioned nature of dhammas. Other doubts pertaining to higher insights still arise. The sotapanna has eradicated all doubts when experiencing nibbana when any idea of self is eradicated. Metta, Sarah ========= #63234 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:21 am Subject: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - I'm following up mainly to say that though I see no virtue in extending our current conversations, this has no bearing in slightest on the good will I feel towards you, my friend. :-) I will add here, lest there be a misunderstanding, a repetition of one thing that I wrote to you to remind you of it and to clarify the record: In speaking of Bhikkhu Bodhi and the matter of what you called 'control of paramattha dhammas', you recently wrote "He has not been able (any more than Howard or other DSG members) to explain exactly what that control is or how it comes about, but he believes it exists nonetheless." I would just like to insert for the record my previous statement to you that I have some reticence with regard to the "control" terminology. I repeat here what I said just to make my position clear but not with the idea of extending our dialogue on this matter. What I wrote was the following: "Actually, I don't at all believe in "control of dhammas" in the sense of changing the nature of a dhamma. I think such an idea is utter nonsense. What I do assert is that effective cetana can arise, willing that serves as one of many conditions that, together, have the effect of leading to a particular dhamma or sort of dhamma arising. That does not constitute changing the nature of a dhamma, but constitutes conditioning the arising of something new. I really don't think of that as control but as kammic conditionality. Informally, we may use the word 'control', but it is imprecise and freqently misleading." With metta, Howard #63235 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited matheesha333 Hi Howard, >H: P.S. I think this matter has now pretty much been beaten to death. I get no > pleasure out of attempts at point-scoring, and I see nothing left in this > conversation other than that. We are talking past each other instead of to each > other, and there is so little of a common ground that I don't see anything > further to be gained by either of us. So I am choosing to opt out at this point. > M: Nice try Howard! LOLOLOLO!!! There is no dhamma comic relief qiuite like on DSG. :)) It's a bit like the road runner vs vile.e.coyote you take care now :) with metta, Matheesha #63236 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) matheesha333 Hi Sarah, > > 2. When we read about the conditions for developing right understanding > such as 'right place', 'association with the wise' and so on, we can begin > to appreciate that these refer to the place of having right understanding > (which could be anywhere) and the association with right view and right > thinking (which again could be anywhere). Actually, there are no places, > no people and so on, so it always comes back to our own views and thinking > and understanding. > M: I think you need to improve on your understanding of the extent of conditionality. If you do that you will see that we are not divorced from the envioronment that we live in. What happens around us affects us. A pleasurable object gives rise to craving. Simiarly if someone doesnt have prolonged day long mindfulness to guard the senses, staying in a proper enviornment can be helpful to avoid akusala. It is more than our thinking, views and understanding, as you mention. It is also our mindfulness. Without that all of the above is conceptual, theoretical and not applied. with metta Matheesha #63237 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:06 am Subject: LOL! philofillet Hi Howard, Matheesha, James and others who LOL! When you folks write LOL! should it be taken that you *actually* laugh out loud (like the kind of sudden laughing out loud that sputters coffee out one's nose) or can it sometimes be laughing out loud inside? Sometimes when I put :) I am not actually smiling at the moment, so I was wondering. Phil #63238 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:00 am Subject: Re: Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (2) philofillet Hi Sarah > It was similar to a comment that I also made to Knowing actually in the > example above as well. I suggested that many people were experiencing all > sorts of difficulties (including K.Sujin who had a cough), but that it can > be a kind of respect and consideration for others to be patient and keep > quiet, rather than causing disturbance. > Kind of related to this is a quotation from Rob K that I found in my notebook from last year: "The unpleasant feeling that arises is a good reminder that we are valuing self - then we can remember that there are only namas and rupas arising." As Betty says in the houseboat talk in question, the reminders, the remembering, usually don't arise when we're right in the middle of a lot of dosa. What can be done to make the remembering arise more often? Nothing - unless we have a little beeper around our neck that goes off every five minutes or something silly like that. Patience, and faith that understanding is accumulating/developing/being conditioned as we stay open to the Buddha's teaching, listening, reflecting.. ..thanks for the other posts too. Phil p.s that was great advice to Betty. I didn't get it. DAMN!!!! #63239 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] LOL! upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/12/06 9:13:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi Howard, Matheesha, James and others who LOL! > > When you folks write LOL! should it be taken that you *actually* > laugh out loud (like the kind of sudden laughing out loud that sputters > coffee out one's nose) or can it sometimes be laughing out loud inside? > > Sometimes when I put :) I am not actually smiling at the moment, so I > was wondering. > > Phil > ====================== Well, I haven't kept records, and my memory is far from the near-photographic one my older son has, but I would guess that 90% of the time "LOL" written by me signifies at the very least a broad smile! ;-)) With metta, Howard #63240 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] LOL! matheesha333 Hi Phil, > > > Hi Howard, Matheesha, James and others who LOL! > > > > When you folks write LOL! should it be taken that you *actually* > > laugh out loud (like the kind of sudden laughing out loud that sputters > > coffee out one's nose) or can it sometimes be laughing out loud inside? > > Well actually when I write LOL! I'm thinking that it is all paramatta dhammas and there is no self and everything is unsatisfactory. ;-) Matheesha ps- agree with Howard #63241 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] LOL! upasaka_howard Hi, Natheesha (and Phil) - In a message dated 9/12/06 9:50:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > Well actually when I write LOL! I'm thinking that it is all > paramatta dhammas and there is no self and everything is > unsatisfactory. > > > ;-) > ===================== LOLOLOL! ;-)) [And, yes, a very broad smile!!] With metta, Howard #63242 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:09 am Subject: Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position nidive Hi Howard, > "Actually, I don't at all believe in "control of dhammas" in the > sense of changing the nature of a dhamma. I think such an idea is > utter nonsense. What I do assert is that effective cetana can > arise, willing that serves as one of many conditions that, > together, have the effect of leading to a particular dhamma or > sort of dhamma arising. That does not constitute changing the > nature of a dhamma, but constitutes conditioning the arising of > something new. I really don't think of that as control but as > kammic conditionality. Informally, we may use the word 'control', > but it is imprecise and freqently misleading." I concur with you. If I am not incorrect, some (or most?) abhidhammists also demote the willing function of cetana to a passive one, because the idea of willing suggests there is control. But if one sees cetana as it really is, it is but a momentary "mental spark" that arises and dissolutes very quickly. Regards, Swee Boon #63243 From: "davco123" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:11 pm Subject: Question about citta and cetasika davco123 Dear members, After looking the list of cittas and cetasikas, several questions came to my mind and maybe you can help me clarify these points and point to where did I get the principles wrong or what am I missing here: a) We only experience one citta at a time and each citta influences â€" conditions â€" the next one. In this case, why is it possible to have a citta influenced by strong attachment just after an akusala citta? If we say that we have tendencies towards akusala cittas, where are these tendencies stored? b) Where is memory? If perception ‘puts a mark’ on objects, where are all those objects? c) Where is kamma? All these ‘seeds’ that will come to fruition in the future, where are they right now? So, after laughing at my questions, send me your answers :) With metta, David #63244 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] LOL! philofillet Hi Matheesha and Howard and all > Well actually when I write LOL! I'm thinking that it is all > paramatta dhammas and there is no self and everything is > unsatisfactory. A-ha! I knew you were just thinking!!!! I hardly every laugh out loud even when I think things are quite funny so I guess I should write QFBDNLOL! or maybe qfbdnlol since it is not such an exclamatory rising and falling away of laughter- related dhammas. Thank you. It has been a pleasure discussing the implications of LOL! with you. Phil #63245 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Question about citta and cetasika philofillet Hi David This and the other two are great questions. I think a lot of us here could take a stab at it, but the one who can answer best, Nina (author of Abhidhamma in Daily Life) is away on a trip for a few days. > a) We only experience one citta at a time and each citta influences â€" > conditions â€" the next one. In this case, why is it possible to have a > citta influenced by strong attachment just after an akusala citta? If > we say that we have tendencies towards akusala cittas, where are these > tendencies stored? Acharn Sujin and Nina used stored "in" the citta, which I have always had trouble understanding, since the citta falls away completely, with no "storehouse of citta" or something like that in the commentary. THere is "proximate" and "contingent" condition which condition one citta to condition the next, and "natural decisive support condition" which is a more comphrehensive condition that supports the arising of accumulated kusala and akusala sooner or later. Anyways, I'll step out now because this topic is way too difficult for me. Others will step in and Nina when she gets back. The moderators will point you towards the suitable topic in the "Useful Posts" section. Anyways, excellent questions. Phil #63246 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:08 pm Subject: Re: LOL! buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, Matheesha, James and others who LOL! > > When you folks write LOL! should it be taken that you *actually* > laugh out loud (like the kind of sudden laughing out loud that sputters > coffee out one's nose) or can it sometimes be laughing out loud inside? Sometimes I laugh out loud and sometimes I just laugh inside. Most of the time I actually laugh out loud. :-) Metta, James #63247 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:47 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 518- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (o) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Another pair of sobhana cetasikas is: wieldiness of cetasikas, kåya-kammaññatå wieldiness of citta, citta-kammaññatå Kammaññatå can be translated as wieldiness or workableness(1). The Atthasåliní (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 131) explains that they suppress unwieldiness in cetasikas and citta, and that they should be regarded as “bringing faith in objects of faith, and patient application in works of advantage, and are like purity of gold.”(2) When there is wieldiness, citta and cetasikas are like gold which has been made workable. The “Múla-Tíkå”(3) expresses this as follows: * Workableness signifies that specific or suitable degree of pliancy or softness which makes the gold, that is, the mind, workable. While the mind is in the flames of passion it is too soft to be workable, as molten gold is. If, on the contrary, the mind is too rigid then it is comparable to untempered gold." * Wieldiness is the opponent of the “hindrances”, such as sensuous desire (kåmacchanda) and anger or hate (vyåpåda), which cause mental unwieldiness. We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahåvagga, Book II, Chapter IV, § 3, Corruptions) about five corruptions of gold whereby gold is impure, brittle, not pliant or workable. It is the presence of other metals, of iron, copper, tin, lead and silver which makes it unwieldy. Even so the five hindrances make the mind unwieldy. We read: * "… Likewise, monks, there are those five defilements of the mind, owing to which the mind is not pliant, not workable, impure, brittle and is not perfectly composed for the extinction of the passions. Which are those five? Sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, agitation and worry, doubt— these are the defilements of the mind owing to which the mind is not pliant, not workable, impure, brittle and is not perfectly composed for the extinction of passions." *** 1) See Dhammasangaùi, §46, 47. 2) See also Visuddhimagga, XIV, 147. 3) See Abhidhamma Studies by Ven. Nyanaponika, Chapter IV, 10. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63248 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question about citta and cetasika sarahprocter... Dear David, (Matheesha & all*) I believe this is your first post here - so welcome! --- davco123 wrote: > After looking the list of cittas and cetasikas, several questions came > to my mind and maybe you can help me clarify these points and point to > where did I get the principles wrong or what am I missing here: .... S: Your good questions indicate you're getting the principles very right and I'm sure no one will be laughing:-). .... > a) We only experience one citta at a time and each citta influences â€" > conditions â€" the next one. In this case, why is it possible to have a > citta influenced by strong attachment just after an akusala citta? If > we say that we have tendencies towards akusala cittas, where are these > tendencies stored? .... S: Phil has already given some good comments. Of course, the citta influenced by attachment is also akusala. Perhaps you mean, how can attachment follow aversion, for example? Yes, as you suggest, we have tendencies for all kinds of akusala. These are referred to as the latent tendencies (anusaya) and they are accumulated with each citta. So even when there is kindness or generosity, still the latent tendency to akusala is lying dormant in such kusala cittas. After vipaka cittas such as seeing or hearing, it depends on many conditions as to whether kusala or akusala cittas will follow. Usually, of course, it's the latter. There is the experience of a pleasant visible object as a result of past good kamma and then attachment is likely to arise because of natural decisive support and other conditions. Then if an unpleasant sound is heard, for example, aversion may follow on. ..... > b) Where is memory? If perception ‘puts a mark’ on objects, where > are > all those objects? .... S: Memory is just an idea we have based on many different dhammas. As you rightly say, sanna (perception/memory) marks each object experienced and these marks are remembered and can be recalled later. They are never lost. I wouldn't say that the objects marked are anywhere. The remembering of them is again accumulated and can act as a condition (also by natural decisive support and other conditions) for further marking and experiencing of objects. For example, sanna may mark the taste of chocolate and mark the attachment to it. This is a condition for further tasting and liking of chocolate in future. But the rupas making up the chocolate tasted and marked before has long since fallen away. Only the idea of it is experienced. .... > c) Where is kamma? All these ‘seeds’ that will come to fruition in > the > future, where are they right now? .... S: The Buddha gave the simile of salt in water. We can't say it's there or it's not there. But if there's enough salt, it accumulates again and the effect is known. So all past kamma (cetana) and all other mental states are accumulated in each citta and depending on the complexity of conditions at any moment, results occur in the way of vipaka, for example. .... > > So, after laughing at my questions, send me your answers :) ... S: Let me know how this sounds. I'd like to follow it through as you're obviously considering these details carefully. As Phil said, these are just the kinds of questions Nina really enjoys answering too. As for 'Useful Posts' - go to files for DSG and try scrolling down to posts saved under 'Accumulations', 'Anusayas', 'Store' or 'Store-house', 'Kamma & Vipaka' for a few. If you feel inclined to do so, we'd be glad to hear where you live and any other details you care to share about your interest in Dhamma. Metta, Sarah *p.s Matheesha & all - I've been enjoying your threads. Do U.P.s under 'Kaccayanagotta Sutta', 'Samadhi Sutta' and 'Jhana' add any more? ============== #63249 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Amazing! So, by concentrating on a kasina (or whatever) evil sinners > become magically pure! James, doesn't that sound unlikely to you? > Can't you accept it might be a bit of superstitious misinformation? > Evil is overcome by virtue (the highest of which is right view), not > by concentration. Oh no, you misunderstand me, but you bring up an important point. When I spoke of the value of concentration on a kasina I also mean that the other factors of the Noble Eightfold Path must be in place. Remember that thing: The Noble Eightfold Path??? The followers of KS seem to completely forget about it. When I spoke with Jon in Hong Kong he told me that mindfulness (sati) is the entirety of the path. No, it is but one part. Ken, it also seems to me that you think sati is the entirety of the Buddha's path. I'm not sure why you would think so since the Buddha didn't teach that. That is a corruption of the Buddha's teaching. > > Ken H > Metta, James #63250 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited buddhatrue Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi James, > > I know you didn't use the words "control-oriented." That is a way I > chose to describe popular Buddhism, which sees the Dhamma as a list of > things to do. I'm not sure what you mean by "popular Buddhism". Buddhism comes in many shapes and sizes and there isn't a generally recognized form of "popular Buddhism". I think that you have created this category so that you can stand in opposition to it, as an elitist. I prefer to see the Dhamma as a way of understanding > the realities that are arising now. (No time or need to do anything.) Understanding the dhammas which are arising now is 'doing something'. People can either understand them or not understand them- it is a "doing". You aren't making much sense to me. > > Ken H Metta, James #63251 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha, Thanks for your helpful feedback. --- matheesha wrote: > > 2. When we read about the conditions for developing right > understanding > > such as 'right place', 'association with the wise' and so on, we > can begin > > to appreciate that these refer to the place of having right > understanding > > (which could be anywhere) and the association with right view and > right > > thinking (which again could be anywhere). Actually, there are no > places, > > no people and so on, so it always comes back to our own views and > thinking > > and understanding. > > > > M: I think you need to improve on your understanding of the extent > of conditionality. If you do that you will see that we are not > divorced from the envioronment that we live in. What happens around > us affects us. .... S: That's right. However, how it affects us will depend on our inclinations including any accumulated awareness and understanding. The point was that if there is such understanding of dhammas now, whether we're out in the surf, in the temple in Sri Lanka or on the London underground, then it's the 'right' place. Similarly, when there is wise reflection or understanding, there is at such a time 'association with the wise', association with the Buddha's wisdom. On the contrary, if we are in a Buddhist temple, listening to dhamma but distracted or overwhelmed by kilesa (defilements), there is no 'right place' or association at such times. It always comes back to the citta at this moment, don't you think? ..... >A pleasurable object gives rise to craving. Simiarly > if someone doesnt have prolonged day long mindfulness to guard the > senses, staying in a proper enviornment can be helpful to avoid > akusala. .... S: As I just wrote to David, akusala arises because of our deep inherent tendencies for akusala. If the way to eradicate akusala and have 'prolonged day long mindfulness' was just to stay 'in a proper environment', the Buddha wouldn't have taught about the development of satipatthana. Now, are we in 'proper' environments? And yet, there are various dhammas appearing now through the 6 worlds. If satipatthana develops now, it is 'proper', don't you think? .... > > It is more than our thinking, views and understanding, as you > mention. It is also our mindfulness. Without that all of the above > is conceptual, theoretical and not applied. > .... S: Yes, sati arises with all kinds of kusala including those kinds with understanding. So thank you for the prompt. When I refer to developing right understanding, this is always with right awareness/mindfulness. The association with right view and right thinking which I referred to above refers to both conceptual and direct understanding of dhammas. If there is no correct conceptual right understanding that the world only consists of namas and rupas (no people, no place, no self), then there will be no direct right understanding of such namas and rupas as I see it. I'll look forward to any further comments. Metta, Sarah p.s Do you live near London? Have I told you before that I come from Sussex and used to also visit various temples in London. ======== #63252 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Addiction to quietness? sarahprocter... Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > Dear fellow addicts, > > Nina: Remember the Meghiya sutta: Verses of Uplift, Udana, Ch IV: > Meghiya > wanted to retire to a quiet place, and he asked the Buddha permission > three times, but the Buddha asked him to wait. At the third time he was > > allowed and went there. He was assailed by defilements. <...> Connie: > The commentary on the Meghiya sutta is beautiful and addresses, i > think, > a lot of other recent threads as well, but arent the teachings all of > one > taste anyway? .... S: Sure are. Yes, I also like this commentary a lot. More in the 'Meghiya' section in U.P.... ... >(nina, sancrosankt must refer to dinosaurs and other > relics.) but excerpts from this long (and sarah will kill me for even > this much!) section of the venerable Dhammapaala's Paramatthadiipanii > naama Udaana.t.thakathaa on the Meghiyasutta.m as given by Masefield > (with, no doubt, connie's typos): ... S: No killing accumulations for now, but perhaps another time it could be divided into 2 parts, otherwise people may not get to your comment at the end!! Wow, did you type out all 6 pages? (#62528). ... > J: ... Did the Buddha ever teach his monks or laypeople to stay away > from > quiet surroundings because they were addictive? > > c: maybe not, but read about Meghiya's choice of retreat ;) ... S: Thanks as usual for your gems. Metta, Sarah ===== #63253 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position sarahprocter... Hi Howard & Swee Boon, I think your discussion with Ken H has touched on some important points. I appreciate your frustration over it, but I'm sure many of us have been glad to reflect on the topic of cetana, willing and control more. --- nidive wrote: > Hi Howard, > > > "Actually, I don't at all believe in "control of dhammas" in the > > sense of changing the nature of a dhamma. I think such an idea is > > utter nonsense. What I do assert is that effective cetana can > > arise, willing that serves as one of many conditions that, > > together, have the effect of leading to a particular dhamma or > > sort of dhamma arising. .... S: I think this is well put and we'd all agree. Of course, such 'effective cetana' is as conditioned as any other dhamma and other mental states also have the effect of conditioning other dhammas in their own ways too. .... >>That does not constitute changing the > > nature of a dhamma, but constitutes conditioning the arising of > > something new. I really don't think of that as control but as > > kammic conditionality. Informally, we may use the word 'control', > > but it is imprecise and freqently misleading." ... S: I also agree with this. When we refer to 'kammic conditionality', we are talking about cetana as you suggest. Dhammas have the effect of conditioning other dhammas, but they cannot be made to arise or be conditioned by any 'will' on our part. When we think of intention or will in conventional use, it is very different from the nature of cetana cetasika which arises with every citta, sometimes performing its 2nd function of 'willing' associated states. .... > SB:> I concur with you. > > If I am not incorrect, some (or most?) abhidhammists also demote the > willing function of cetana to a passive one, because the idea of > willing suggests there is control. ... S: (Glad to read all your recent messages, btw, Swee Boon). When cetana arises and performs this function, it's just as much conditioned as when sanna arises and marks its object or feeling arises and 'tastes' its object. Mere dhammas rolling on, conditioning other dhammas. If we say 'controlling' other dhammas, it may seem that only they are responsible for the effect on other dhammas. Even when cetana 'wills' and performs kamma patha which produces vipaka, it's not controlling the result in the sense that it needs the support of many other conditions too. .... > > But if one sees cetana as it really is, it is but a momentary "mental > spark" that arises and dissolutes very quickly. ... S: Yes, exactly - well put. And no self to have cetana at all by following particular activities or going to particular places. Metta, Sarah ========= #63254 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday discussion report (a) sarahprocter... Hi Kel, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > -sankharupekkha nana and savaka - the meanings. Sankharupekkha > nana - > > equanimity towards all conditioned dhammas. At this stage, > enlightenment > > seems assured because it's the very firm insight. <...> > Kel: I can't help but feel the conclusions you reached are cop > outs :/ .... S: Pls elaborate if you'd care to. When we're talking about higher insights and these fine details, I think there's a danger of getting losts in areas which are beyond our comprehension. I have really appreciated your input, however, and in conclusion I do think that what you quoted from the Dict of Pali Proper Names about there being 2 Jotipalas as bodhisattas was correct. I think this was new for our friends in Thailand inc. K.Sujin. I don't think it really affects the conclusions however that to my understanding, once vipassana nanas have been attained, one is a savaka of the Buddha from whom one heard the teachings. Gotama Buddha was not a savaka of a previous Buddha. I don't think we can reach any textual agreement on this matter, though. I was glad to read your posts and Vism extracts in our absence:-) Metta, Sarah ======== #63255 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Discussions at the Foundation contd (a) sarahprocter... Hi Kel (& Ven Dhammanando, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > -More on Kel's and my discussion on previous insights. KS made a > point > > about if higher insights are attained, the enlightenment in that > life (or > > if a sudden death) in the next is inevitable, once there is the > turning > > away from conditioned dhammas. > > Kel: Well I hope you or her have some sources for this. I wonder > what Ven Dhammando had to say about this since he graciously quoted > us the original materials? .... S: No, I don't have any more sources except the descriptions in the texts such as the Vism about the nature of such kinds of insight to suggest that when there is the complete turning away from conditioned dhammas, there is automatically the turning towards the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. There is no more interest in this world. I raised the topic again in front of Ven Dhammanando, but he didn't disagree with K.Sujin's explanation as I recall. .... > > > -Cula sotapannas as related to this. 'Niyaka' -Rebirth in hell > realms -if > > it's just one life, nothing special. > > Kel: This and next life guarantees are very special. What do > five heinous crimes guarantee? .... S: What I mean by 'nothing special' is that one life is just a drop in the ocean compared to all the lives in samsara we undergo. Not only cula sotapannas but many, many beings are not reborn in hell realms in their next life. ... > > > -Cula sotapanna - no more doubt about conditioned dhammas, but can > still > > be doubt about nibbana (not yet experienced)or other kinds. > > Kel: if there's any roots left, they can grow back again in other > forms. .... S: This is where we have a different idea. I think that once that degree of insight has been attained, even though it may not arise or be recalled in future lives, cetain kinds of akusala will not be performed and certain results will not be experienced. The wisdom is not 'lost', but having been accumulated, continues to have its effect, even when the teachings are not heard. This is how I read the texts, such as the ones we discussed on 'assured destiny', but I can't say for sure. Metta, Sarah ======== #63256 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: > This got me to wondering as to the claimed mechanism for this > reintroduction. What conditions are known that *guarantee* that there > will be future > Buddhas? What if, for example, no one should choose to take a bodhisatta > vow? > Why is it not possible that once the Dhamma dies out, it will fail to be > > reintroduced? .... S: I know you've already received some good replies and comments. I just forget if anyone drew your attention to DN 26, The Lion's Roar on the Turning of the Wheel? The Buddha elaborates on the 'mechanisms' for the various cycles in the past and future and how eventually there will be a time when people live for 80,000 years as a result of good kamma and the next Buddha Metteyya will arise and so on. There's also a detailed section on this 'mechanism' of life cycles and so on in the Vism. Let me know if you'd like further quotes. Also, lots of detail on past Buddhas in the commentary to the Buddhavamsa. In the end, of course, such details come down to how much confidence we have in the words and kamma in general. I don't think it will help us to really understand more about this moment:-) Metta, Sarah ======= #63257 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:12 am Subject: Re: Addiction to quietness? jwromeijn Hallo Connie, Sarah, all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > Dear fellow addicts, > >: ... Did the Buddha ever teach his monks or laypeople to stay away > from quiet surroundings because they were addictive? > > c: maybe not, but read about Meghiya's choice of retreat ;) > > p568 > Inspiring serenity (paasaadika.m): it was "inspring serenity" since > it brought serenity to those beholding it on account of the > non-sparseness of its trees and the glossiness of its leaves; > [218] "pleasing" (manu~n~na.m) > on account of its dense shade and on account of the pleasing nature > of that part of the world; "delightful" (rama.niiya.m) since it > delighted the hearts of those who had entered within it in the > sense of generating joy > and euphoria. Suitable (ala.m): sufficient, fitting also being the > meaning. In need of effort (padhaanatthikassa): in need of > cultivation by way of yoga.{13} You know that vipassana-meditation is not really about "serenity" What about this one (only the last part of the Sutta): Udana IV.5 Naga Sutta (The Bull Elephant) "Thus have I heard. ……. Then, while the Lord was in solitude and seclusion, this thought arose in his mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... and I was living in discomfort and not at ease. But now I live not hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... in comfort and at ease." And also this thought arose in that bull elephant's mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by elephants and she- elephants... and I was living in discomfort and not at ease, but now I live not hemmed in by elephants and she-elephants... I eat unbroken grass and (others) do not eat the branches which I break down. I drink clear water and on going down and coming out of the water I am not jostled by she-elephants, and I live in comfort and at ease." Then the Lord, on observing his own solitude, understood with his mind the thought in the mind of that bull elephant, and uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: This unites mind with mind, The perfected one and the bull elephant With tusks as long as chariot-poles: That each delights in being alone in the forest. " Buddha did not use any argument contra or pro being in solitude here Another point that interested me; the Buddha (and I think: any human being) could understand the mind of that bull elephant: my 'social citta' again. BTW Sarah, Next week I go to a retreat (dharma talks plus sitting- meditation) with Stephen Batchelor in Beatenberg, Switzerland. Not really orthodox Theravada but possibly still true. If you have some minutes left: I'm still interested in your reaction on my messages 62615 and 62631 Joop #63258 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice sarahprocter... Hi Joop, Thx for bringing these posts to my attention. As I've been away, I'd be glad if anyone else does the same if they'd like a reply. Also, I hope you have a worthwhile retreat with Batchelor. I think many people here would be interested in your report. I'm sure Howard would, for example. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > S: "When you say 'I had do DO', what do you mean by this "I"? > > J: There it is again. And as I said before: anatta is evident to me, > I think because I always had a weak ego, have hardly need for > fighting it (my problem is more anicca because I have a big > ontological need) > And as a answer: the "I" here was used conventional, as the Buddha > did many times. .... S: 2 brief points: a) anatta may seem evident to us in theory, but unless there's a very clear and direct understanding now of namas and rupas, I don't think it's really evident. For example, we can say that there is just the experiencing of visible object now or the hearing of sound, but don't we really think most the time that we see people and things? b) Yes the Buddha used "I" all the time, but I don't believe he ever said he or anyone else 'do' or 'does' DO (dependent origination). I have no idea what this means. DO is about the conditioned nature of dhammas in samsara, not about anything 'done' as I see it. .... > S: … I see the path of 'trying' and 'doing' by trying to will certain > states or practice along the path as hopeless. When there is > awareness/mindfulness of a dhamma appearing now, there is right > effort or viriya already without any special trying or expectation or > self getting in the way. > > J: I think you change viriya (effort) in something else than effort; > I don't have a english dictionary but 'effort' without trying in no > effort. .... S: I don't think a dictionary will help when it comes to the understanding of viriya. Yes, viriya 'drives' or 'uplifts' or 'stirs' other mental factors to perform their functions, but it arises with most cittas including all akusala ones as well. When there is awareness, it helps drive the other mental factors in a kusala way. When we are trying to have awareness or follow activities in order for wholesome states to arise, attachment is bound to be there, assisted by akusala viriya, driving the attachment along. .... > S: ....> I thought I also wrote several messages to indicate that accumulations > also refer to present dhammas now. Thinking now is an accumulation. > Likes > and dislikes now are accumulations now as well. They are all present > dhammas. > > J: No misunderstanding: I do believe that 'accumulations' exist: > without them there is no 'kamma' > But 'accumulations' exist longer than the present moment. .... S: Actually, no dhammas last longer than the present moment, including the accumulated attachment, kamma and so on. Of course, these are conditioned by past accumulations, but still, they fell away as soon as they arose. .... > So I think the relation between conventional and ultimate realities > is more complex than I assume you have. To quote Nagarjuna: > > "Without a foundation in the conventional truth > The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught > Without understanding the significance of the ultimate > Liberation is not achieved" > (The fundamental wisdom of the middle way, XXIV-10) ... S: And the ultimate dhammas which can be known are just those which are experienced as they arise and fall away at this very moment. .... > BTW > Good news for you and everybody who wanted to see a picture of me > This summer I was to a Abhidhamma study retreat with the Burmse > scholar-monk U Nandamala and somebody made pictures. > I uploaded one and it did give itself the title 8636 mannen ... S: I think I already replied and thanked you for this. You all look very distinguished:-) So now you can help encourage others without cameras or photo interest to share a pic somehow:-) Metta, Sarah ======== #63259 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice sarahprocter... Dear Joop, This is the second message you brought to my attention. I'll leave Connie to reply to the recent one....:-)) .... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Sarah > > One remark I forgot to make in my message 62615 > > S: > several messages to indicate that accumulations > > also refer to present dhammas now. Thinking now is an accumulation. > > Likes and dislikes now are accumulations now as well. > > They are all present dhammas. > > > > My remark is: what exactly is that 'refer' of you. > It's a vague expression. > Is it 'smells like'? Is it 'equals'? Is it 'touches'? > Is 'refer' an ultimate or a conventional word? .... S: When we talk now about accumulations we are using concepts. But these concepts represent ultimate realities. So, accumulations equal ultimate realities as I used the term. Attachment is accumulated at this moment, aversion, kindness, all mental states and cittas are accumulated now. If we talk about past accumulations, these refer to past paramattha dhammas. .... > > 'Accumulations' (are) 'present dhammas' is an contradictio in terminis. .... S: The present accumulations are the result of all past 'piling ups' in samsara. Even as present states arise, they are accumulating more of the same. They're never static, but add to the pile, rolling on and on. Each dhamma arising is a khandha, an aggregate, distinct from any other one, but conditioned in countless ways by other onese. I don't know if this clarifies at all? Thanks for asking and I'll look forward to your further comments. I like the way that you persist with topics. Again, have a wonderful trip to Switzerland. Metta, Sarah ======= #63260 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi James, --------- <. . .> J: > Oh no, you misunderstand me, but you bring up an important point. When I spoke of the value of concentration on a kasina I also mean that the other factors of the Noble Eightfold Path must be in place. ----------- That is refreshing to hear. There is a common misconception that the Path Factors can be developed one at a time (in isolation from each other). ------------------------ J: > Remember that thing: The Noble Eightfold Path??? The followers of KS seem to completely forget about it. ------------------------ What an astonishing thing to say! They talk about it incessantly! ------------------------------------- J: > When I spoke with Jon in Hong Kong he told me that mindfulness (sati) is the entirety of the path. --------------------------------------- Jon has never said that on DSG. ---------------------------------------------------- J: > No, it is but one part. Ken, it also seems to me that you think sati is the entirety of the Buddha's path. I'm not sure why you would think so since the Buddha didn't teach that. That is a corruption of the Buddha's teaching. ---------------------------------------------------- Are you getting your Pali terms mixed up? I (along with Jon and others) have often been accused of thinking panna (right understanding) is the entirety of the Path, but never sati (mindfulness). Ken H #63261 From: "matheesha" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) matheesha333 Hi Sarah, >S: > > 2. When we read about the conditions for developing right > > understanding > > > such as 'right place', 'association with the wise' and so on, we > > can begin > > > to appreciate that these refer to the place of having right > > understanding > > > (which could be anywhere) and the association with right view and > > right > > > thinking (which again could be anywhere). Actually, there are no > > places, > > > no people and so on, so it always comes back to our own views and > > thinking > > > and understanding. > > > > > > > M: I think you need to improve on your understanding of the extent > > of conditionality. If you do that you will see that we are not > > divorced from the envioronment that we live in. What happens around > > us affects us. > .... > S: That's right. However, how it affects us will depend on our > inclinations including any accumulated awareness and understanding. The > point was that if there is such understanding of dhammas now, whether > we're out in the surf, in the temple in Sri Lanka or on the London > underground, then it's the 'right' place. Similarly, when there is wise > reflection or understanding, there is at such a time 'association with the > wise', association with the Buddha's wisdom. On the contrary, if we are in > a Buddhist temple, listening to dhamma but distracted or overwhelmed by > kilesa (defilements), there is no 'right place' or association at such > times. It always comes back to the citta at this moment, don't you think? > ..... M: Distraction by kilesa is not an independant phenomena. It is dependant on input from the outside world. You see a beatiful figure --> kilesa arises. Now what are the chances of seeing a beautiful figure in a temple as opposed to a sprawling city? Would our minds be thinking more dhamma thoughts in a temple or in the city? Would we have more sadda in a temple or in the city? The envioronment does make a difference to the amount of kilesa which arises. Which in turns affects the amount on insight that can arise. I agree that the 'amount' of kilesa also play a part. But environment is important in that it triggers kilesa. This is why guarding the senses is such an important thing in the dhamma. ---------------- Quite apart from that, I would say it goes to heart of anatta. This idea of a boundary inbetween our self and the envioronment is illusory. What we consider self, is given rise to, by things in the enviornment. We are dependant on it. When it is there, we are given rise to. When it is not there, we do not arise. We are like a relfection of the sun on water. The water is in control of the reflection tossing it, distorting it, changing it. This body is given rise to by food. Without food the body does not arise. This body is given rise to by air. Without air the body does not arise. This body is given rise to by water. Without water the body does not arise. The mind is similar. We are given rise to.. the existence of self, is pitiful.. it is the slave while the inputs are the masters. ------------------------- > >A pleasurable object gives rise to craving. Simiarly > > if someone doesnt have prolonged day long mindfulness to guard the > > senses, staying in a proper enviornment can be helpful to avoid > > akusala. > .... > S: As I just wrote to David, akusala arises because of our deep inherent > tendencies for akusala. If the way to eradicate akusala and have > 'prolonged day long mindfulness' was just to stay 'in a proper > environment', the Buddha wouldn't have taught about the development of > satipatthana. M: I think from my previous answer it should be clear that satipattana has a better chance of happening in a quiet enviornment. The Buddha taught satipattana mainly to monks. They were lay people before, who were encouraged to ordain because lay life was 'dusty' and not conducive to practicing the holy life 'like a polished conch shell'. This is a change in envioronment for better practice. > > Now, are we in 'proper' environments? And yet, there are various dhammas > appearing now through the 6 worlds. If satipatthana develops now, it is > 'proper', don't you think? > .... M: Again the chance of satipattana developing now is remote. See my answers above. This might be irrlevant to some but I will say it anyway - my knowledge of dhamma is good as anybody's, and I can clearly say that the chance of insight arising now as I type this is miniscule compared to what it is when on retreat. I have been mindful of impermanance of every sight, sound, sensation and thoughts arising here and now for minutes if not hours at a stretch. That level on mindfulness is unthinkable in my busy life now. There just isnt the conditions for it. It is unlikely to happen. with metta Matheesha > p.s Do you live near London? Have I told you before that I come from > Sussex and used to also visit various temples in London. > ======== Really? I do live in london -in Catford. I work in Lewisham. I got the impression that you do not live in UK anymore? #63262 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:49 am Subject: Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position ken_aitch Hi Howard, I don't know if I should answer this - like someone who can't take a hint. :-) -------------------------- <. . .> H: > just to make my position clear but not with the idea of extending our dialogue on this matter. What I wrote was the following: "Actually, I don't at all believe in "control of dhammas" in the sense of changing the nature of a dhamma. I think such an idea is utter nonsense. --------------------- Yes, I know that is what you wrote. We had been talking about the Anattalakhana Sutta in which the Buddha explained that if dhammas were self it would be possible to say, "Let dhammas be thus," meaning, "Let them be nicca, sukha and atta." I would agree that the Buddha was not talking about changing (or wishing to change) an existent conditioned dhamma. I think he was talking about wishing that dhammas were not conditioned in the first place. It is the fact that dhammas are conditioned that makes them inevitably (beyond anyone's control) the way they are. Maybe I am still not making myself clear, but it comes back to my assertion that nothing - not so much as the lifting of a finger - is [ultimately] controlled. Any path or course of action aimed at controlling dhammas is a wrong path. So, for example, when someone goes to a vipassana-meditation retreat and follows the series of steps laid down by the instructor, he/she is missing the point of the Dhamma. -------------------------- H: > What I do assert is that effective cetana can arise, willing that serves as one of many conditions that, together, have the effect of leading to a particular dhamma or sort of dhamma arising. That does not constitute changing the nature of a dhamma, but constitutes conditioning the arising of something new. I really don't think of that as control but as kammic conditionality. Informally, we may use the word 'control', but it is imprecise and freqently misleading." ------------------------- I agree, of course, that kamma has its effects. I would not agree, however, that the effects can be predicted. If we think of the intention to lift a finger as kamma, I don't think any subsequent lifting of a finger could be called the vipaka of that kamma. That's not how I understand kamma and vipaka at all. Anyway, I'll leave it there. Ken H #63263 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question about citta and cetasika upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah, and David, Maheesha, and all - In a message dated 9/13/06 12:32:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Dear David, (Matheesha &all*) > > I believe this is your first post here - so welcome! ------------------------------------------ Howard: My welcome to you too, David. (From a long-time member of this superb list.) ----------------------------------------- > > --- davco123 wrote: > > >After looking the list of cittas and cetasikas, several questions came > >to my mind and maybe you can help me clarify these points and point to > >where did I get the principles wrong or what am I missing here: > .... > S: Your good questions indicate you're getting the principles very right > and I'm sure no one will be laughing:-). > .... > >a) We only experience one citta at a time and each citta influences â€" > >conditions â€" the next one. In this case, why is it possible to have a > >citta influenced by strong attachment just after an akusala citta? If > >we say that we have tendencies towards akusala cittas, where are these > >tendencies stored? > .... > S: Phil has already given some good comments. Of course, the citta > influenced by attachment is also akusala. Perhaps you mean, how can > attachment follow aversion, for example? > > Yes, as you suggest, we have tendencies for all kinds of akusala. These > are referred to as the latent tendencies (anusaya) and they are > accumulated with each citta. So even when there is kindness or generosity, > still the latent tendency to akusala is lying dormant in such kusala > cittas. > > After vipaka cittas such as seeing or hearing, it depends on many > conditions as to whether kusala or akusala cittas will follow. Usually, of > course, it's the latter. There is the experience of a pleasant visible > object as a result of past good kamma and then attachment is likely to > arise because of natural decisive support and other conditions. Then if an > unpleasant sound is heard, for example, aversion may follow on. > ..... > >b) Where is memory? If perception ‘puts a mark’ on objects, where > >are > >all those objects? > .... > S: Memory is just an idea we have based on many different dhammas. As you > rightly say, sanna (perception/memory) marks each object experienced and > these marks are remembered and can be recalled later. They are never lost. > I wouldn't say that the objects marked are anywhere. The remembering of > them is again accumulated and can act as a condition (also by natural > decisive support and other conditions) for further marking and > experiencing of objects. > > For example, sanna may mark the taste of chocolate and mark the attachment > to it. This is a condition for further tasting and liking of chocolate in > future. But the rupas making up the chocolate tasted and marked before has > long since fallen away. Only the idea of it is experienced. > .... > >c) Where is kamma? All these ‘seeds’ that will come to fruition in > >the > >future, where are they right now? > .... > S: The Buddha gave the simile of salt in water. We can't say it's there or > it's not there. But if there's enough salt, it accumulates again and the > effect is known. So all past kamma (cetana) and all other mental states > are accumulated in each citta and depending on the complexity of > conditions at any moment, results occur in the way of vipaka, for example. > .... > > > >So, after laughing at my questions, send me your answers :) > ... > S: Let me know how this sounds. I'd like to follow it through as you're > obviously considering these details carefully. As Phil said, these are > just the kinds of questions Nina really enjoys answering too. > > As for 'Useful Posts' - go to files for DSG and try scrolling down to > posts saved under 'Accumulations', 'Anusayas', 'Store' or 'Store-house', > 'Kamma &Vipaka' for a few. > > If you feel inclined to do so, we'd be glad to hear where you live and any > other details you care to share about your interest in Dhamma. > > Metta, > > Sarah > > *p.s Matheesha &all - I've been enjoying your threads. Do U.P.s under > 'Kaccayanagotta Sutta', 'Samadhi Sutta' and 'Jhana' add any more? > ========================== If I may note my perspective on the matter of "storage" and "accumulation": In my opinion, our experieice with phenomena at the macroscopic, conventional level, together with our tendency towards substantialism and eternalism, makes us grasp at the ideas of "storage" and "continuous connection". I believe that the reality of the matter, and consonant with the Buddha's teaching, and this applies to kamma and the fruits of kamma as well, and not just to memory, recognition, and "accumulated" tendencies, is that there is conditionality but there are no causal "powers" or substantive, underlying connections. When this is, that is. When this arises that arises. What arises now serves (right now!) as condition for what arises in the future. When A, B, C, and D are exactly the conditions needed for the arising for E, once it is a fact that all of A, B, C, and D have occurred, the die is cast, right then and there. As for sa~n~na, the so-called marking of a phenomenon is an event that at the very moment it occurs serves as condition for such a dhamma (or collecion of dhammas) to be recognized as such when it occurs in the future. The "marking" is a fundamental condition, right then and there at the time of its occurrence, for future recognition and recollection. The term 'marking' in this context is figurative - conventional. Likewise with kamma. An act of intention/volition is a promissory note that need only be written. There is no need for it to be stored in some kammic bank depository. The Mahayanists, misreading Vasubandhu in one of their substantialist lapses, felt the need to come up with the notion of "alaya vijnana" (storehouse consciousness) as a repository of kammic and other sorts of "seeds", not properly grasping the Buddha's unsubstantialist, anattic notion of conditionality. This has been a pitfall for some Theravadins as well, some believe, with the idea of "bhavanga-sota" being fntionally similar to that of "alaya vijnana," and with the subliminal stream of intervening bhavanga states serving to "carry along" the so called accumulations. But whether or not this last claim of similarity is correct, what does seem correct to me is that the Buddha's teachings on conditionality do not presuppose and do not require substantialist storage mechanisms and the "passing along" of data. Sometimes conditionality operates immediately, and sometimes it operates at a great (temporal) distance. In my opinion, mere conditionality, idappaccayata, and not substantialist causality and connection, is what the Buddha taught. With metta, Howard #63264 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:11 am Subject: Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited sukinderpal Hi Howard, > > H: >I don't know what formal practices are. If they are things that > > involve being aware of what is going on, and carrying them out > > intentionally rather than by mere habit or blind stumbling, I strongly > > favor them! > > --------------------- Ken H: > > No, they are not that. Formal vipassana practices are anything done > > with belief in control over dhammas. As such, the only thing they > > develop is 'more belief in control over dhammas.' > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Kamma vipaka consists of dhammas, Ken! > ---------------------------------------------- Sukin: I wanted to ask you about this each time that you made a reference to it. What understanding of kamma/vipaka do you have in mind when you refer to the `intention' to note the rise and fall of khandas? What is the mechanism involved? My understanding is that kamma which results in vipaka is kusala/akusala intention of certain strength. This may be purely mental or it can manifest as verbal or bodily action. Vipaka on the other hand, manifests as the five sense-door experiences. Surely if I hit someone so hard that I hurt my hand or he hits me back, this is not kamma/vipaka relationship, is it? So you wouldn't make this kind of connection between `intention to note' and any consequent `noting', would you? Perhaps you are referring to the accumulated effect of kusala/akusala cittas? But what indeed gets accumulated? I think it is the kusala/akusala tendencies, in which case if there is going to be panna for example, to grow in strength, there must be some level of panna at this moment to begin with. I don't pay much attention to `intention' for the reason that its quality is determined by these other dhammas. And any time there is `self reference', a concern about where one is at or will be, then likely it is avijja conditioning some cheating dhammas that is doing the talking. If any kusala/akusala dhammas are to be accumulated, they must arise. The fact that they arise by conditions beyond control and that they fall away immediately when they do, points to the futility of trying to `catch them'. You will say that one can create conditions for their arising/non arising and that it is here that `intention' comes in. But wouldn't the principle apply even at this stage, i.e. conditioned dhammas beyond control? The reason why you and I when hearing about seeing, visible object, lobha, ditthi, sati and other dhammas at best understand only intellectually, while the Ariyan will most probably have satipatthana, points not to `intention to note', but rather the accumulated panna and lack of. The ariyan does not `decide' to note rise and fall, but rather that by natural decisive condition, sati and panna of the appropriate level arises. For some of us even right intellectual understanding does not arise, worse, there may even be wrong view. And it is not so much that we act conventionally with `self'. We `do' things with either tanha, mana or ditthi. The first two is not much of an obstacle to the development of panna, unlike the last one. Ditthi understands wrongly and therefore whatever is then done in the name of Dhamma/development, will lead in the wrong direction and accumulate. And as you know, I believe that this idea of `intentional noting' is a consequence of such wrong view, one that denies at that moment, the fact of conditionality. This is the reason why correct intellectual understanding is so much stressed. It is not just stating the facts, i.e. realties, conditionality and the tilakkhana, but *understanding* better and better, these same concepts. The result of this is a growing confidence that indeed "this moment" is conditioned and beyond control, and that the dhammas arising here and now are no different from those there and then. Two persons may express the same words about Dhamma, but the difference is that one knows deeply enough not to think of another time and place, while the other still has doubts as to whether another time and place might not be more conducive to development of sati and panna. Howard, I know that we have had such a conversation before and you don't need to respond if you don't want to. But I hope that you might change your mind, in which case you should let me know, because it would make me very happy. ;-) Metta, Sukin #63265 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Swee Boon, and Ken) - In a message dated 9/13/06 2:18:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard &Swee Boon, > > I think your discussion with Ken H has touched on some important points. I > appreciate your frustration over it, but I'm sure many of us have been > glad to reflect on the topic of cetana, willing and control more. > > --- nidive wrote: > > >Hi Howard, > > > >>"Actually, I don't at all believe in "control of dhammas" in the > >>sense of changing the nature of a dhamma. I think such an idea is > >>utter nonsense. What I do assert is that effective cetana can > >>arise, willing that serves as one of many conditions that, > >>together, have the effect of leading to a particular dhamma or > >>sort of dhamma arising. > .... > S: I think this is well put and we'd all agree. Of course, such 'effective > cetana' is as conditioned as any other dhamma and other mental states also > have the effect of conditioning other dhammas in their own ways too. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly! --------------------------------------- > .... > >>That does not constitute changing the > >>nature of a dhamma, but constitutes conditioning the arising of > >>something new. I really don't think of that as control but as > >>kammic conditionality. Informally, we may use the word 'control', > >>but it is imprecise and freqently misleading." > ... > S: I also agree with this. When we refer to 'kammic conditionality', we > are talking about cetana as you suggest. Dhammas have the effect of > conditioning other dhammas, but they cannot be made to arise or be > conditioned by any 'will' on our part. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: That last clause seems to me like an attempt to eat your cake and have it too. Willing, in the sense of cetana or in the more conventional sense that lumps moments of cetana together with other mental operations, does indeed serve as an effective condition that does lead to the arising of dhammas. Willing is a condition for snapping ones fingers, for example. But merely wishing for a finger snap doesn't work. What would be missing is the "impulsion" aspect. That impulsion characterization of cetana in the Abhidhammic notion of javana cittas is a good and important one, in my estimation. --------------------------------------- When we think of intention or will> > in conventional use, it is very different from the nature of cetana > cetasika which arises with every citta, sometimes performing its 2nd > function of 'willing' associated states. --------------------------------------- Howard: Sarah, what do you think the Buddha had in mind when he said that kamma is intention? Do you think there is no relation between cetana, javana cittas, and conventional willing? I don't claim that conventional willing is the same as the others, but I do claim that it intimately involves them. --------------------------------------- > .... > > > SB:> I concur with you. > > > >If I am not incorrect, some (or most?) abhidhammists also demote the > >willing function of cetana to a passive one, because the idea of > >willing suggests there is control. > ... > S: (Glad to read all your recent messages, btw, Swee Boon). When cetana > arises and performs this function, it's just as much conditioned as when > sanna arises and marks its object or feeling arises and 'tastes' its > object. Mere dhammas rolling on, conditioning other dhammas. If we say > 'controlling' other dhammas, it may seem that only they are responsible > for the effect on other dhammas. Even when cetana 'wills' and performs > kamma patha which produces vipaka, it's not controlling the result in the > sense that it needs the support of many other conditions too. > .... > > > >But if one sees cetana as it really is, it is but a momentary "mental > >spark" that arises and dissolutes very quickly. > ... > S: Yes, exactly - well put. And no self to have cetana at all by following > particular activities or going to particular places. ------------------------------------------ Howard: And I agree entirely that there is no self that acts, no self that wills - no self, period. ----------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sarah > =================== With metta, Howard #63266 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas upasaka_howard H, Sarah - In a message dated 9/13/06 3:03:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard &all, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > > This got me to wondering as to the claimed mechanism for this > >reintroduction. What conditions are known that *guarantee* that there > >will be future > >Buddhas? What if, for example, no one should choose to take a bodhisatta > >vow? > >Why is it not possible that once the Dhamma dies out, it will fail to be > > > >reintroduced? > .... > S: I know you've already received some good replies and comments. > > I just forget if anyone drew your attention to DN 26, The Lion's Roar on > the Turning of the Wheel? The Buddha elaborates on the 'mechanisms' for > the various cycles in the past and future and how eventually there will be > a time when people live for 80,000 years as a result of good kamma and the > next Buddha Metteyya will arise and so on. There's also a detailed section > on this 'mechanism' of life cycles and so on in the Vism. Let me know if > you'd like further quotes. > > Also, lots of detail on past Buddhas in the commentary to the Buddhavamsa. > > In the end, of course, such details come down to how much confidence we > have in the words and kamma in general. I don't think it will help us to > really understand more about this moment:-) > > Metta, > > Sarah ========================= Thaks for this, Sarah.Out of curiosity, what's your attitude towards the 80,000-year lifetimes? ;-) I'll be frank - I dismiss it out of hand. I put it in the same figurative category as the oft-used and quite popular 84,000 usage for a variety of things. I also suspect that all such "stuff" as this is an add-on to the canon from outside sources,and not the Buddha's teaching. With metta, Howard #63267 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 9/13/06 10:31:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >>H: >I don't know what formal practices are. If they are things that > >>involve being aware of what is going on, and carrying them out > >>intentionally rather than by mere habit or blind stumbling, I strongly > >>favor them! > >>--------------------- > Ken H: > >>No, they are not that. Formal vipassana practices are anything done > >>with belief in control over dhammas. As such, the only thing they > >>develop is 'more belief in control over dhammas.' > >--------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Kamma vipaka consists of dhammas, Ken! > >---------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I wanted to ask you about this each time that you made a reference to > it. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Each time I make reference to what? There is nothing but dhammas. What is unusual in saying that kamma vipaka consists of dhammas? -------------------------------------------------- What understanding of kamma/vipaka do you have in mind when you > > refer to the `intention' to note the rise and fall of khandas? What is the > mechanism involved? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see my recent post to Sarah (and David) on conditionality. --------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding is that kamma which results in vipaka is > kusala/akusala intention of certain strength. This may be purely mental > or it can manifest as verbal or bodily action. Vipaka on the other hand, > manifests as the five sense-door experiences. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Are you saying there is no namic vipaka? Perhaps that goes under another name than 'vipaka'? -------------------------------------------------- > > Surely if I hit someone so hard that I hurt my hand or he hits me back, > this is not kamma/vipaka relationship, is it? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is an event (i.e.,series of dhammas) clearly conditioned in part by akusala intention. The "connection" is clear. That is a fact. Whether that conditionality is called "vipaka" or not holds little interest for me. ---------------------------------------------- So you wouldn't make this > > kind of connection between `intention to note' and any > consequent `noting', would you? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: WHAT "kind of connection"? Certainly there is a connection between intention to note and noting. ---------------------------------------- Perhaps you are referring to the > > accumulated effect of kusala/akusala cittas? ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't get what you are after here. --------------------------------------- > > But what indeed gets accumulated? I think it is the kusala/akusala > tendencies, in which case if there is going to be panna for example, to > grow in strength, there must be some level of panna at this moment to > begin with. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I think that, literally, nothing gets accumulated. I consider "accumulation" in the Dhammic context to be a figure of speech. ---------------------------------------- I don't pay much attention to `intention' for the reason that > > its quality is determined by these other dhammas. And any time there > is `self reference', a concern about where one is at or will be, then likely > > it is avijja conditioning some cheating dhammas that is doing the > talking. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think it is very important to pay great attention to intention and to what motivates it. ----------------------------------------- > > If any kusala/akusala dhammas are to be accumulated, they must arise. > The fact that they arise by conditions beyond control and that they fall > away immediately when they do, points to the futility of trying to `catch > them'. You will say that one can create conditions for their arising/non > arising and that it is here that `intention' comes in. But wouldn't the > principle apply even at this stage, i.e. conditioned dhammas beyond > control? ----------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not going to say anything further on "control". If I haven't made myself clear on it yet, then I never will. (Hey! That reminds me of Ken's reasoning "If one thing can be controlled then it is possible to control everything" LOLOL!) ------------------------------------------- > > The reason why you and I when hearing about seeing, visible object, > lobha, ditthi, sati and other dhammas at best understand only > intellectually, while the Ariyan will most probably have satipatthana, > points not to `intention to note', but rather the accumulated panna and > lack of. The ariyan does not `decide' to note rise and fall, but rather that > > by natural decisive condition, sati and panna of the appropriate level > arises. > > For some of us even right intellectual understanding does not arise, > worse, there may even be wrong view. And it is not so much that we > act conventionally with `self'. We `do' things with either tanha, mana or > ditthi. The first two is not much of an obstacle to the development of > panna, unlike the last one. Ditthi understands wrongly and therefore > whatever is then done in the name of Dhamma/development, will lead > in the wrong direction and accumulate. And as you know, I believe that > this idea of `intentional noting' is a consequence of such wrong view, > one that denies at that moment, the fact of conditionality. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, we can pay attention or not. The more we pay attention, the better we get at it. (Restated in DSG-speak: The more that attention is present, the more frequently and intensely it tends to arise.) It is important to pay attention. Doing so needs, itself, to be kept in mind. When no effort is made to do so, the ability will wane. It is a skill, Sukin, and it calls for cultivation. --------------------------------------------- > > This is the reason why correct intellectual understanding is so much > stressed. It is not just stating the facts, i.e. realties, conditionality > and > the tilakkhana, but *understanding* better and better, these same > concepts. The result of this is a growing confidence that indeed "this > moment" is conditioned and beyond control, and that the dhammas > arising here and now are no different from those there and then. Two > persons may express the same words about Dhamma, but the > difference is that one knows deeply enough not to think of another time > and place, while the other still has doubts as to whether another time > and place might not be more conducive to development of sati and > panna. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Some conditions are more suitable for certain ends than others. That is a universal truth. But it is also true that every time and every place is the time and place for cultivation. ----------------------------------------- > > Howard, I know that we have had such a conversation before and you > don't need to respond if you don't want to. But I hope that you might > change your mind, in which case you should let me know, because it > would make me very happy. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukin > > ====================== With metta, Howard #63268 From: "nidive" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:18 am Subject: Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position nidive Hi Sarah, > > But if one sees cetana as it really is, it is but a momentary > > "mental spark" that arises and dissolutes very quickly. > ... > S: Yes, exactly - well put. And no self to have cetana at all by > following particular activities or going to particular places. Am I right in saying that you always feel a sense of your "self" whenever you were doing "deliberate meditation" in the past? It's not that I don't understand what you mean. Because you were super conscious of your self while doling deliberate meditation, you deemed that to be the wrong thing to do. K. Sujin's brand of abhidhamma came along and offers an attractive escape. By "conditioning" your thinking in terms of conditionality and no control, that self which kept pestering you like a shadow simply start to vanish away bit by bit. But this is just an illusion of the mind. You are only keeping that monster called Self at bay in your mind's backyard. If you were to restart deliberate meditation, that monster will rear its ugly head at you once again. Do you seriously think this is the path that will free you permanently from the clutches of this monster? Exquisite arahants who want to attain the Cessation of Perception & Feeling always do so with much deliberation. Yet they never suffer attacks from this monster. I propose a solution. When doing breathing meditation, do not assume that it is "I" or "my self" who is doing breathing meditation. When doing breathing meditation, just do breathing meditation. If the thought "It is I who is doing breathing meditation" or "It is my self who is doing breathing meditation" occurs to you, you should note that as a fabrication of the mind born out of ignorance and craving; that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated and dependently co-arisen. Repeat the same for walking meditation, etc. Confront self, not walk away from it! You don't destroy your enemies by escaping from them. Regards, Swee Boon #63269 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Sarah) - I applaud what you say in the following, Swee Boon! Sadhu x 3!! IMO, what you say is correct, useful, and motivated by metta. (One "sadhu" for each of these! ;-) With metta, Howard P.S. Your post follows without further comment. In a message dated 9/13/06 11:31:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: {;c see 63268 #63270 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:43 am Subject: Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > >. > > But if one sees cetana as it really is, it is but a momentary "mental > spark" that arises and dissolutes very quickly. > > Regards, > Swee Boon ________ Dear Swee Boon Yes, this is true. I have quoted this before: The Burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his preface to the DhatuKathu (PTS) xxvii "Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence.But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions" (endquote Thein Nyun) Robert #63271 From: "davco123" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:54 pm Subject: Re: Question about citta and cetasika davco123 Phil, Thanks for your input. You mentioned that: "THere is "proximate" and "contingent" condition which condition one citta to condition the next, and "natural decisive support condition" which is a more comphrehensive condition that supports the arising of accumulated kusala and akusala sooner or later." I think this is one point I was missing: the conditions. I'll stop my speculations (but only briefly) till I read and think more about them. David Cohen #63272 From: "davco123" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question about citta and cetasika davco123 Hi Howard (and all), You raise a lot of interesting points that I am not sure I can fully understand. Anyway, I struggled a lot with the ideas of eternalism when trying to understand the concept of dhammas and I am not sure that these concepts are not still influencing my thoughts. You mentioned that (and I put it in my words): - Under certain conditions, a certain citta arises - no causal link between them. - The 'time' can be now or in the future. I don't like too much speculation, but this position is that our perception of a linear time and causality does not find place in the working of citta and cetasikas. So, the tendencies are not 'transferred' from citta to citta (as Sara mentioned, or at least as I understood it) but they create conditions that are in a different sphere than our time perception. Thanks for your answers. I confess I'll have to think more deeply about the points you mentioned. David Cohen #63273 From: "davco123" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question about citta and cetasika davco123 Sara, Thanks for your input. I like the example of the water and salt. The conclusion is that citta is not something 'simple' or 'pure', but it is composed of different components even if our insight is not good enough to distinguish all its parts. Our tendencies are part of each citta and get 'transferred' from citta to citta. Did I get it right? I'll definetely go to the files posted during the weekend, when I have (I hope) more time. With metta, David Cohen --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: <...> > S: The Buddha gave the simile of salt in water. We can't say it's there or > it's not there. But if there's enough salt, it accumulates again and the > effect is known. So all past kamma (cetana) and all other mental states > are accumulated in each citta and depending on the complexity of > conditions at any moment, results occur in the way of vipaka, for example. > .... #63274 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question about citta and cetasika upasaka_howard Hi, Dave - In a message dated 9/13/06 6:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, davco123@... writes: > Hi Howard (and all), > > You raise a lot of interesting points that I am not sure I can fully > understand. Anyway, I struggled a lot with the ideas of eternalism > when trying to understand the concept of dhammas and I am not sure > that these concepts are not still influencing my thoughts. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm sure they are, and you are not novel in that regard. We all struggle with eternalism and substantialism, and the opposites of annihilationism and nihilism. They are part and parcel of the chains that bind us! -------------------------------------------- > > You mentioned that (and I put it in my words): > - Under certain conditions, a certain citta arises - no causal link > between them. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, I'm not so sure.That depends on exactly what you mean, Your formulation "suggests" a randomness of arising. That wasn't my implication. That is an opposite extreme to the view of substantial connection and causal force. The truth is neither of the extremes, according to the Dhamma. ------------------------------------------- > - The 'time' can be now or in the future. > > I don't like too much speculation, but this position is that our > perception of a linear time and causality does not find place in the > working of citta and cetasikas. So, the tendencies are not > 'transferred' from citta to citta (as Sara mentioned, or at least as I > understood it) but they create conditions that are in a different > sphere than our time perception. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Talk of a "different sphere" that is a carrier of causality is still a search for occult forces and substantial connection. Buddhist conditionality, not unlike modern quantum mechanics (in my opinion), goes in a different direction. In any case, conditionality *does* find its place in the working of citta and cetasikas, but not quite as we are inclined to see it. ---------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for your answers. I confess I'll have to think more deeply > about the points you mentioned. > > David Cohen > > ====================== With metta, Howard #63275 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi James, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > wrote: > > > > Hi James, > > > > I know you didn't use the words "control-oriented." That is a way I > > chose to describe popular Buddhism, which sees the Dhamma as a > list of > > things to do. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "popular Buddhism". Buddhism comes in > many shapes and sizes and there isn't a generally recognized form > of "popular Buddhism". I think that you have created this category > so that you can stand in opposition to it, as an elitist. > > > I prefer to see the Dhamma as a way of understanding > > the realities that are arising now. (No time or need to do > > anything.) > > Understanding the dhammas which are arising now is 'doing > something'. People can either understand them or not understand > them- it is a "doing". You aren't making much sense to me. > The ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) that are arising in the present moment last for approximately one trillionth of a second. In that time, they arise, perform their functions and fall away. Their functions (of which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the only ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe. They are not the 'doing something' that you and I, with our conventional understanding of the universe, are all too familiar with. The two kinds of 'doing something' are poles apart. Ken H #63276 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Saturday discussion report (a) rjkjp1 -Dear Sarah and Kel Have you brought up this quote by Ledi sayadaw? http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL08.html "Cula-sotapanna or the Virtuous One To understand Dependent Origination or to gain Knowledge in comprehending the Law of Causality enables one to discard the three aforesaid Wrong Views of No-cause, Unjustified Cause of Creation, and misleading belief in past-kamma alone. In fact this Knowledge equips one to be a virtuous one, ever freed from the ignoble destinies of the Four Lower Worlds, a Cula-sotapanna, a future- stream-winner' - so the Commentaries say. Hence a goal well worth striving for. " Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Kel, > > --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > > -sankharupekkha nana and savaka - the meanings. Sankharupekkha > > nana - > > > equanimity towards all conditioned dhammas. At this stage, > > enlightenment > > > seems assured because it's the very firm insight. > <...> > > Kel: I can't help but feel the conclusions you reached are cop > > outs :/ > .... > S: Pls elaborate if you'd care to. When we're talking about higher > insights and these fine details, I think there's a danger of getting losts > in areas which are beyond our comprehension. > > I have really appreciated your input, however, and in conclusion I do > think that what you quoted from the Dict of Pali Proper Names about there > being 2 Jotipalas as bodhisattas was correct. I think this was new for our > friends in Thailand inc. K.Sujin. I don't think it really affects the > conclusions however that to my understanding, once vipassana nanas have > been attained, one is a savaka of the Buddha from whom one heard the > teachings. Gotama Buddha was not a savaka of a previous Buddha. > > I don't think we can reach any textual agreement on this matter, though. > > I was glad to read your posts and Vism extracts in our absence:-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > #63277 From: connie Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Addiction to quietness? nichiconn Dear Joop, Joop: You know that vipassana-meditation is not really about "serenity" connie: it certainly doesn't require that kind of external environment, but are quiet surrounds addictive? lobha and misunderstanding are two monkeys on our backs. it's just that meghiya had always been sucked in at that 'retreat'. it is at the tail end of #62528 if you like, but no matter: when does it stop being the mahaabhuutas and become a garden anyway? or the puppets' two-and-thirty component parts. where's the thresh-hold of belief? Joop: What about this one (only the last part of the Sutta): Udana IV.5 Naga Sutta (The Bull Elephant) "Thus have I heard. ……. Then, while the Lord was in solitude and seclusion, this thought arose in his mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... and I was living in discomfort and not at ease. But now I live not hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... in comfort and at ease." connie: How about that elephant rubbing kindling together and heating up rocks for the bath and such? I like that. The commentary talks about the elephant: <> and about the Buddha: <> anyway, connie #63278 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James) - Though the thread title is the same, I'm not addressing a "control" issue in my reply. In a message dated 9/13/06 11:02:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > The ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) that are arising in the > present moment last for approximately one trillionth of a second. In > that time, they arise, perform their functions and fall away. Their > functions (of which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the only > ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe. ======================== They "are the only ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe", and you say that we have no direct knowledge of them. What, then, exactly, *are* we aware of? Do we not experience sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily sensations, and mental states and operations? When you see are you not experiencing a paramattha dhamma? When you hear, taste, smell, feel hardness and cold and itches, and when you feel anger and joy? Quite likely most of us are unable to detect precise starts and ends of dhammas, if there are such precise boundaries, but we do experience the dhammas, do we not?. If not, then what is it we do experience, and why do we? With metta, Howard #63279 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:08 pm Subject: Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position buddhatrue Hi Swee Boon, EXCELLENT POST!! Excellent indeed. Metta, James #63280 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited buddhatrue Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > The ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) that are arising in the > present moment last for approximately one trillionth of a second. In > that time, they arise, perform their functions and fall away. Their > functions (of which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the only > ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe. They are not the > 'doing something' that you and I, with our conventional understanding > of the universe, are all too familiar with. The two kinds of 'doing > something' are poles apart. I am unsure of what you mean here because you are mixing ultimate and conventional reality. When you write, "Their functions (of which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the only ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe." it sounds almost as if you believe their is a "self" who is unaware of dhammas. I'm sure that this isn't what you mean, but you are mixing up your terms. Ken, what applies at the ultimate level doesn't apply in the same way to the conventional level. Yes, dhammas arise and fall very rapidly, but my body and your body (as a whole) doesn't arise and fall very rapidly. Yes, dhammas cannot be controlled at will, but at the conventional level I can control what I eat, where I live, who I post to, etc. It is not proper to apply ultimate reality to conventional reality and expect them to be or behave the same. To understand anatta doesn't mean to reject conventional reality (see recent post by Swee Boon), it means to embrace both conventional and ultimate reality. Metta, James #63281 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:26 pm Subject: The Fearless Skeleton ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to Cool the slavery of Desire & Craving? At Savatthi, the Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, when the perception of a human skeleton or a worm-infested, bleeding or pus festering corpse, or a livid bluish black & rotting corpse, or a cut up, gnawed and hacked corpse, or a bloated, inflated & swollen corpse, is developed and cultivated, then it is of great fruit and benefit! It leads to great good, it leads to great security from bondage, it leads to a great sense of urgency, it leads to living in fearless ease & comfort! How, Bhikkhus, is the perception of a skeleton developed & cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit? Here, the Bhikkhu systematically develops the: Awareness Link to Awakening, joined with the experience of a skeleton. Investigation of states Link to Awakening, while examining a cadaver. Energy Link to Awakening, perceiving a worm-infested & rotting corpse. Joy Link to Awakening, while laughing over a gnawed & hacked corpse. Tranquillity Link to Awakening, accompanied by seeing a livid corpse. Concentration Link to Awakening, focused on a bloated & swollen corpse. Equanimity Link to Awakening, indifferent even near a hacked carcass. which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, & maturing in release... It is in this way that the perception of a skeleton or a disgusting corpse is developed & cultivated so that it is of great advantage, and benefit... Bhikkhus, when the perception of a skeleton is developed and cultivated in this way fused and enhanced by the seven Links to Awakening, one of two fruits is to be expected: either final knowledge in this very life or, if there is a remaining residue of clinging, the state of non-returning... Comments: Meditating on disgusting signs is the 1! thing that can quell greed & lust! For inspiration regarding such corpse-meditation see the corpse pics at: http://asia.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/clever_disgust/album?.dir=/f672 Viewable only by adults signed in with Yahoo ID. Obs: Strong Warning!!! For details on Meditation on the Body as a mere form = KayagataSati: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm This eliminates fear of loosing body. Not afraid of loosing body means no fear of even Death! When not afraid of Death, then one does not fear anything at all in this world! Then one is relaxed by the gladness of ease! When Death comes one says: Come on in! Have a cup of tea before we go? Hihihi! ;-) Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:129-32] section 46: The Links. 57-61: The Skeleton... Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. #63282 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] LOL! jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: > Hi Matheesha and Howard and all > > > >>Well actually when I write LOL! I'm thinking that it is all >>paramatta dhammas and there is no self and everything is >>unsatisfactory. >> >> > > > A-ha! I knew you were just thinking!!!! > > I hardly every laugh out loud even when I think things are quite >funny so I guess I should write QFBDNLOL! or maybe qfbdnlol since it >is not such an exclamatory rising and falling away of laughter- >related dhammas. > > I'm desparate to know whether I've got it. Is it 'quite funny but (I) did not (actually) LOL'? Could be abbreviated to QFB (or LOL, for that matter). Jon #63283 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard, Thanks for the questions. -------------------------- <. . .> H: > They "are the only ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe", and you say that we have no direct knowledge of them. ---------------------------- That's right. The tiny minority of non-ariyan beings who are Dhamma-students have indirect (theoretical) knowledge, while the rest of the world has no knowledge of dhammas at all. -------------------------- H: > What, then, exactly, *are* we aware of? ------------------------- As I understand it, we experience dhammas millions of times every second. (That is, in every sense-door citta-process and in many mind-door citta-processes.) Namas experience other namas and rupas; they react to them, and they condition other namas and rupas to arise in their place. They are very busy interacting and performing their functions, but they do so, almost always, without understanding. On the worst of those occasions (at moments of wrong understanding) we uninstructed worldlings can experience a conditioned dhamma while actually denying it is conditioned. On less reprehensible occasions we are simply ignorant of the nature of the dhamma we are experiencing (unmindfully looking for a concept to recognise instead). At best (in our wholesome moments), our citta, along with sati, can be mindful of a dhamma but still without understanding what it really is. ----------------------------------------------- H: > Do we not experience sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily sensations, and mental states and operations? When you see are you not experiencing a paramattha dhamma? When you hear, taste, smell, feel hardness and cold and itches, and when you feel anger and joy? ------------------------------------------------ Yes, but no more and no less than is the case with animals and with people who have never heard of paramattha dhammas. -------------------------------------------------------------- H: > Quite likely most of us are unable to detect precise starts and ends of dhammas, if there are such precise boundaries, --------------------------------------------------------------- There definitely are such boundaries - at least, there are according to the Theravadin texts. I think Nagarjuna and the Mahayanists deny them, which means that some of us (one side or the other) are on a wrong path. -------------------------------------------------- H: > but we do experience the dhammas, do we not?. If not, then what is it we do experience, and why do we? --------------------------------------------------- In reality there are only dhammas. (In the thinking mind, there are also concepts.) Without the Buddha's teaching, a wise person can directly know when a dhamma is wholesome and when it is unwholesome, and he can confidently infer that dhammas are very short-lived. But that is as far as anyone can hope to get without hearing a Buddha's teaching. Corrections welcome. Ken H #63284 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:12 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 519- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (p) 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;-) =============================================== wieldiness of cetasikas, kåya-kammaññatå wieldiness of citta, citta-kammaññatå As we have seen, according to the Atthasåliní, wieldiness brings faith (saddhå) in objects of faith and patient application in kusala. Wieldiness is necessary for each kind of kusala, for generosity (dåna), for morality (síla), for the development of calm and for the development of insight. Wieldiness makes the mind workable so that one can apply oneself to kusala with confidence and with patience. When someone, for example, wants to develop calm with loving kindness as meditation subject , he cannot be successful when there is no mental wieldiness. When there is ill-will there is rigidity instead of wieldiness. In order to have loving kindness for all beings, not only for dear friends, but also for people one does not know or even for one’s enemies, there has to be wieldiness. Without wieldiness one cannot succeed in becoming calm with any meditation subject. Wieldiness of cetasikas and of citta also perform their functions in the development of insight; they are conditions for patience in the development of right understanding of nåma and rúpa. When there is right understanding of a nåma or a rúpa as only a conditioned reality, not self, there is wieldiness of mind. The development of insight leads to the eradication of the hindrances. The person who has eradicated them has no more unwieldiness but perfect wieldiness. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63285 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha & all, --- matheesha wrote: >>S:.....Similarly, when there is > wise > > reflection or understanding, there is at such a time 'association > with the > > wise', association with the Buddha's wisdom. On the contrary, if > we are in > > a Buddhist temple, listening to dhamma but distracted or > overwhelmed by > > kilesa (defilements), there is no 'right place' or association at > such > > times. It always comes back to the citta at this moment, don't you > think? > > ..... > > > M: Distraction by kilesa is not an independant phenomena. It is > dependant on input from the outside world. You see a beatiful > figure --> kilesa arises. Now what are the chances of seeing a > beautiful figure in a temple as opposed to a sprawling city? Would > our minds be thinking more dhamma thoughts in a temple or in the > city? Would we have more sadda in a temple or in the city? .... S: Whether in a temple or in the city, seeing only sees visible object and the beautiful figure, sprawling city and temple are only concepts and ideas we have about what is seen. Whether kusala or akusala thoughts arise at any time depends on our accumulations for such. The sprawling city and beautiful figure (or what we take for such) are not responsible for our kilesa. As awareness and right understanding develop by understanding more than only namas and rupas ever exist, there is, I believe, less and less inclination to think in terms of special dhamma places. ..... > > The envioronment does make a difference to the amount of kilesa > which arises. Which in turns affects the amount on insight that can > arise. .... S: If there are conditions now for kilesa (defilements) to arise, then these too can be the object of insight. Insight has to develop with detachment from the outset. This is the characteristic of panna -- to be detached from what arises. If we are thinking about situations for less kilesa and more wholesome states for awareness to be aware of, it seems like an indication of attachment to such, rather than detachment from what has arisen already. .... > > I agree that the 'amount' of kilesa also play a part. But > environment is important in that it triggers kilesa. This is why > guarding the senses is such an important thing in the dhamma. .... S: I believe the aim is not to find an environment to have less kilesa, but to accept, understand and be aware of what has arisen already. Otherwise, again we're dreaming of the future, dreaming of a place with less kilesa, rather than being aware of seeing, visible object, touching, hardness, attachment or whatever is conditioned to appear now. .... > > ---------------- > > Quite apart from that, I would say it goes to heart of anatta. This > idea of a boundary inbetween our self and the envioronment is > illusory. What we consider self, is given rise to, by things in the > enviornment. ... S: I'd sau that what we consider self is given rise to by wrong view which has been accumulated for aeons of lifetimes. All our ideas about the environment as being real are just more wrong ideas. In truth, only 7 rupas appear through the 5 sense-doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense. All our ideas about good and bad environments are merely ideas. .... >We are dependant on it. When it is there, we are given > rise to. When it is not there, we do not arise. We are like a > relfection of the sun on water. The water is in control of the > reflection tossing it, distorting it, changing it. > This body is given rise to by food. Without food the body does not > arise. This body is given rise to by air. Without air the body does > not arise. This body is given rise to by water. Without water the > body does not arise. ... S: OK ... >The mind is similar. We are given rise to.. the > existence of self, is pitiful.. it is the slave while the inputs are > the masters. .... S: The conditions for wrong views are not food and so which condition the rupas of the body. The conditions for wrong view are unwise attention conditioned by previous accumulations of such, i.e by previous ignorance and attachment. Even in the arupa brahma realm, there is wrong view of self accumulated. .... > > S: As I just wrote to David, akusala arises because of our deep > inherent > > tendencies for akusala. If the way to eradicate akusala and have > > 'prolonged day long mindfulness' was just to stay 'in a proper > > environment', the Buddha wouldn't have taught about the > development of > > satipatthana. > > M: I think from my previous answer it should be clear that > satipattana has a better chance of happening in a quiet enviornment. ... S: For whom and why? ... > > The Buddha taught satipattana mainly to monks. They were lay people > before, who were encouraged to ordain because lay life was 'dusty' > and not conducive to practicing the holy life 'like a polished conch > shell'. This is a change in envioronment for better practice. .... S: There were very large numbers of lay people who listened to the Buddha, became enlightened and were never encouraged to ordain. Only those who were suited to ordaining and living the 'life of an arahant' were encouraged to ordain. .... > > Now, are we in 'proper' environments? And yet, there are various > dhammas > > appearing now through the 6 worlds. If satipatthana develops now, > it is > > 'proper', don't you think? > > .... > > M: Again the chance of satipattana developing now is remote. See my > answers above. .... S: Sometimes friends suggest that what some of us write about developing satipatthana in our ordinary lives in depressing or discouraging. Doesn't your comment seem more discouraging? If we are living a city life-style but always hankering after a temple-lifestyle, thinking that would be more suitable for the development of satipatthana, it seems that this view in itself would be a condition not to develop any awareness or understanding of present dhammas. .... > This might be irrlevant to some but I will say it anyway - my > knowledge of dhamma is good as anybody's, and I can clearly say that > the chance of insight arising now as I type this is miniscule > compared to what it is when on retreat. I have been mindful of > impermanance of every sight, sound, sensation and thoughts arising > here and now for minutes if not hours at a stretch. That level on > mindfulness is unthinkable in my busy life now. There just isnt the > conditions for it. It is unlikely to happen. .... S: If it seemed that there was such direct mindfulness of the arising and falling away of every dhamma you mention for long periods and that now it's unthinkable, perhaps what was taken for constant mindfulness before wasn't any such thing. I seriously doubt that anyone but a Buddha could be aware of every dhamma as you describe. That's why he alone could explain the Abhidhamma in detail in the first place. In any case, it's gone, all gone. Now, seeing is conditioned, hearing, thinking and other dhammas. Is there any awareness or is there a hankering for another experience or environment? Good talking to you, Matheesha. Metta, Sarah ======= > Really? I do live in london -in Catford. I work in Lewisham. I got > the impression that you do not live in UK anymore? ... S: Yes, I haven't lived in UK or London for a long time now (30 years ago approx!). I also worked near Lewisham once in a psychiatric centre. A tough environment and not at all quiet, but just as good for sati as the temple in Sri Lanka! #63286 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > Thaks for this, Sarah.Out of curiosity, what's your attitude > towards > the 80,000-year lifetimes? ;-) ... S: ;-) It's not something I dwell on and I'm not a mathematician, so the numbers probably don't mean as much to me as you, but I don't dismiss it. Compared to the lifespans given for various devas, this would seem relatively short:-). .... > I'll be frank - I dismiss it out of hand. I put it in the same > figurative category as the oft-used and quite popular 84,000 usage for a > variety of > things. I also suspect that all such "stuff" as this is an add-on to the > canon > from outside sources,and not the Buddha's teaching. ... S: Ooh, I was careful to give you a Digha Nikaya reference only. Once you start suggesting even these suttas are tampered with, there'll be no stopping the suggested tampers:-)lol! (this one's not audible, Phil, but they sometimes are...) I definitely accept the 84,000 usage for the detail in the Tipitaka given because the way it's calculated makes a lot of sense to me and I have no reason to dispute it. Anyway, whether life is 80,000 or only 10 years (when there's lots of akusala kamma having effect), there's still only ever one present citta and one dhamma appearing that can be known. And samsara rolls on endlessly in one life-form or other whilst insight isn't developed. Metta, Sarah ========= #63287 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon (& Howard), --- nidive wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > But if one sees cetana as it really is, it is but a momentary > > > "mental spark" that arises and dissolutes very quickly. > > ... > > S: Yes, exactly - well put. And no self to have cetana at all by > > following particular activities or going to particular places. > > Am I right in saying that you always feel a sense of your "self" > whenever you were doing "deliberate meditation" in the past? .... S: Ooh, so long ago, but I'd say quite the contrary. When our actions are motivated by a (wrong) self view, there is definitely no sense of self at such times. It all seems very wholesome. It's only when right view arises, that it's apparent that special activities pursued in order to have awareness are a kind of silabbata paramasa. This doesn't just refer to 'deliberate meditation', but even to 'deliberate book study', 'deliberate memorisation', 'deliberate chanting' or any other activity subtly or not-so-subtly motivated by an idea of self-control. .... > > It's not that I don't understand what you mean. Because you were super > conscious of your self while doling deliberate meditation, you deemed > that to be the wrong thing to do. .... S: I don't think so. .... > > K. Sujin's brand of abhidhamma came along and offers an attractive > escape. By "conditioning" your thinking in terms of conditionality and > no control, that self which kept pestering you like a shadow simply > start to vanish away bit by bit. .... S: Interesting:-) I think it was the clearer understanding that there really are only namas and rupas and it is the present understanding of such, not the efforts to focus on particular dhammas in particular environments that is important. Also, the appreciating at a beginner level that we really do live in a dream world with long fantasies about what is seen, heard and so on, but it's really all just thinking. Now, only visible object or sound appears. That's it, the world to be known now. What a great relief when there's nothing to be done....just understanding the present dhamma! .... > > But this is just an illusion of the mind. You are only keeping that > monster called Self at bay in your mind's backyard. If you were to > restart deliberate meditation, that monster will rear its ugly head at > you once again. Do you seriously think this is the path that will free > you permanently from the clutches of this monster? .... S: I have no doubt at all that it is the understanding at the present moment and not any deliberate meditation practice that is the path which leads to freedom from the monster clutches:-) How could it be any other way? .... > > Exquisite arahants who want to attain the Cessation of Perception & > Feeling always do so with much deliberation. Yet they never suffer > attacks from this monster. ... S: I think 'exquistie arahants' are well beyond any wanting to attain anything. Their work is done. .... > > I propose a solution. When doing breathing meditation, do not assume > that it is "I" or "my self" who is doing breathing meditation. When > doing breathing meditation, just do breathing meditation. > > If the thought "It is I who is doing breathing meditation" or "It is > my self who is doing breathing meditation" occurs to you, you should > note that as a fabrication of the mind born out of ignorance and > craving; that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated and dependently > co-arisen. > > Repeat the same for walking meditation, etc. > > Confront self, not walk away from it! You don't destroy your enemies > by escaping from them. .... S: If I had any interest in what you propose, I'd follow your guidance, but I don't. I like to walk quickly, so what is the purpose of walking slowly, focussing on the movements or sensations? It's not the path of satipatthana, it's the path of wrong view as I see it. Like Howard, I appreciate your metta and good-will and concern for my welfare, Swee Boon. I assure you that I walk a lot and even focus on my breath a lot in my yoga and Tai chi practices, oh and while I'm swim too. But I have no illusion that any of these exercises have any significance at all when it comes to the Path or that sati is more or less likely to arise at such times. In fact, following on from what I just wrote to Matheesha, I don't compartmentalise my day or life or even trips to Thailand at all in terms of those parts/activities conducive to sati and those which are now. I don't think about it like that at all. I'd like to continue this discussion, but I don't know if there's anything either of you can pick out to pursue further. I rather think it's more useful to discuss dhammas than personal past or present experiences. I'm always glad to follow your deep reflections & questions, Swee Boon. Metta, Sarah ========= #63288 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi sutta SN 35.99 jonoabb Hi Howard I'm finally managing to catch up with some posts that came in while we were away. upasaka@... wrote: >>I agree with this. What I was trying to draw attention to was the >>particular emphasis you seem to place on just one of the many factors >>mentioned. Why do you not accord equal importance to the other factors -- >>Virtuous ways of conduct, Non-remorse, Gladness, Joy, Serenity and >>Happiness -- and assert the need for their (separate) development also? >> > >--------------------------------------------- >Howard: > I favor all of them, Jon. I'm a groupie for the whole band! ;-) If I >emphasize concentation that is a reaction to folks dearly wanting to give it >short shrift even though right concentration is no ignored step child of the >Buddha's. >---------------------------------------------- > I'm glad you've clarified this ;-)). For some reason there are many folk who like to emphasise samadhi (concentration), and I think that is because they take it to mean samatha (calm, tranquility) and especially jhana, whereas the two are quite different. Samadhi is a mental factor (i.e., not a mental state) that plays an important role in both samatha and vipassana, and also in the development of worldly (i.e., non-kusala) skills. Samatha is a purely kusala mental state (i.e., not a mental factor) the development of which was praised and encouraged by the Buddha. >>I think the wording of the sutta does not preclude a co-arising, although >>I am not saying that is necessarily what is meant here (I'd be guided by >>what the commentary has to say about it). >> >>But even a sequential arising would not be a 'bad news' story because, as >>I see it, it is not a matter of each factor needing a separate 'practice' >>of some kind for its development. >> > >--------------------------------------- >Howard: > I agree with that. At least I haven't seen a full menu of specific >practices for specific factors provided directly by the Buddha. Buddhaghosa, of >course, provides much in the way of practices for the cultivation of >concentration. >---------------------------------------- > > As a general rule, we do not find in the teachings practices for the development of specific mental factors. What we do find are teachings that emphasise the importance of particular mental factors, and descriptions of how these mental factors manifest in developed form. Jon #63289 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: >Hi Jon, > >Perhaps I came across a little too strongly in this post. Sorry, I >was in one of my "crusade" (to borrow from Bhikkhu Samahita) >moods. :-)) > > No problem ;-)) >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > ... > >James: Well, you haven't really spoken in favor of the development >of jhana either- at least not for householders; and since this is a >group predominately of householders, in essence you have spoken >against jhana. I don't think that this is some sort of legal issue >where loopholes are permissible, this is the dhamma and the speech >should be straight. > > Yes, there is reference in the suttas to the development of jhanas by laypeople, but did the Buddha say anything about the development of jhana for laypeople generally? >>It's true I don't share your own particular view on matters >>such as what the development of jhana involves, >> > >James: There are no "views" on what the development of jhana >involves. It is a very black and white issue. Jhana involves >mental absorption into a meditation object. That's it. How could >my views on this subject be different from your views? > > I appreciate your confidence in the rightness of my views on this matter ;-)). But you have given a sort of definition of jhana, rather than a description of what it development involves. On that latter I am sure we will manage to find some disagreement, if we discuss ;-)) >>or the significance of passages in certain suttas, >>but that does not make my view an 'anti-jhana' one, >>surely?? ; >> >> > >James: I'm afraid it does. Again, Jon, this is not a legal issue >and leading questions don't answer or point to the truth. If all >you can stand on is leading questions than your ground is not very >stable. > > Since the subject of leading questions comes up often in your posts to me, could you say what the significance of this is to the discussions here (so that I can try to comply with your 'rules' when writing to you ;-))? >James: That may be you interpretation of events but that isn't the >way I saw it. Yes, Phil was approaching metta meditation in the >wrong way because he was doing it simply as an 'escapism' from his >daily problems and pressures. However, rather than being pointed in >the right direction and explained the purpose of metta meditation, >he was lead to believe that everyone who performs metta meditation >does so for selfish, 'akusala' reasons. > > He would not have read that on DSG, I feel sure. >James: There is a big difference between "difficult" and "virtually >impossible". The quoted material by you-know-who made anapanasati >seem "virtually impossible", while the true message of the text is >that anapanasati is difficult but the meditator shouldn't quit >prematurely when it becomes difficult. > Anapanasati is the only one of the 38 or 40 'kammatthana' that is said to be the object of samatha of Buddhas and Buddhas' sons, so I think it must require especially great wisdom for its development. Jon #63290 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma teacher jonoabb Hi Mateesha matheesha wrote: >Hi Jon, > > > >>Thanks for coming in on this thread, and for the sutta >>quote. Would you mind saying a few words about the >>relevance of the quote? As I see it, it is saying that >>a person who has attained jhana but not seek instruction >>(from an enlightened person) in the development of >>enlightenment would insight. Thanks. >> >> > >M: Yes it is. I got the impression from what you said that you felt >that one needed to place oneself under a teacher only if he was >developing samatha/jhana. Hence the quote to show that regardless of >it being development of samatha or vipassana, a (skilful) teacher is >helpful. > > Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for not appreciating the relevance of the reference initially. I think I said that the passage in question from the Vism should be read in the context of the development of samatha. As regards vipassana bhavana, the crucial thing is association with the good friend, and the good friend can be anyone from whom we learn bout the teachings; I do not read the texts as saying that we should seek out a particular person to place oneself under in a formal 'teacher-pupil' relationship. Jon #63291 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma teacher jonoabb Hi Kel kelvin_lwin wrote: >Hi Jon, > > I thought you would look it up, oops, here's the next section. > > Yes, I did see this passage (it was in one of the extracts you had posted), but I'm afraid I don't see what it shows. Please spell out the point in black and white for this feeble brain ;-)). Jon > 55. The Elder Abhaya was then, it seems, a stream-enterer. When >the Elder Abhaya had given his teacher a meditation subject, he >returned to Anuradhapura. Later, while he was expounding the Dhamma >in the Brazen Palace, he heard that the elder had attained nibbana. >On hearing this, he said, 'Bring me [my] robe, friends'. Then he >put on the robe and said, 'The Arahant path befits our teacher, >friends. Our teacher was a true throughbred, he sat down on a mat >before his own Dhamma pupil and said "Explain a meditation subject >to me". The Arahant path befits our teacher, friends'. > >- Kel > > > >>You I think are saying that when it mentions an enlightened >>person in that context it means any enlightened person and >>not just an enlightened person who is a teacher of samatha. >> >>Do the passages you quote in your message refer to this point? >>If yes, perhaps you could spell out the connection for me, please. >>Sorry if I'm being slow – I'm in holiday mode now ;-)) >> >>Thanks. >> >>Jon >> >> #63292 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Ken) - In a message dated 9/14/06 2:23:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Ken, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > wrote: > > >The ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) that are arising in the > >present moment last for approximately one trillionth of a second. > In > >that time, they arise, perform their functions and fall away. Their > >functions (of which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the > only > >ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe. They are not > the > >'doing something' that you and I, with our conventional > understanding > >of the universe, are all too familiar with. The two kinds of 'doing > >something' are poles apart. > > I am unsure of what you mean here because you are mixing ultimate > and conventional reality. When you write, "Their functions (of > which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the only ultimately > real functions (doings) in the universe." it sounds almost as if you > believe their is a "self" who is unaware of dhammas. I'm sure that > this isn't what you mean, but you are mixing up your terms. > ========================== I was about to write Ken on this point as well. I'll just add on a couple lines here. When there is speaking of paramattha dhammas taking but a trillionth of a second, too fast for there to be direct knowledge of them, there are several problems with that word-picture. I suppose it is the cittas, Ken, that you are referring to with regard to that time-scale. Not all paramattha dhammas have the same duration. Rupas, it is said, last longer for example. In any case, what seems to be pictured here is a parade of cittas marching in line, like individual soldiers marching in a filmed parade that "we" are sitting back watching, but the film is so fast that we can't see the individual soldiers, and it looks like a blur to us. But the problem is that there is no screen, and there is no "we" - no watcher standing on the sidelines observing the parade. The cittas themselves are the knowing. There is no knowing apart from the cittas, which, BTW, are only artificially individuated in theory, as there are no gaps in the knowing. When there is "a citta with visual object" that is the direct knowing of a sight. When there is "a citta with ear-door object" that is direct knowing of a sound. Sometimes when there is knowing of object content, the energy level is high, the clarity strong, the attention sharp, and that mome nt of knowing has greater effect, in terms of future recollection for example, than other "weaker" moments. But there is no knowing but knowing! (Sounds Islamic, huh? ;-) With metta, Howard #63293 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:27 am Subject: Re: LOL! philofillet Hi Jon <> I'm desparate to know whether I've got it. Is it 'quite funny but (I) > did not (actually) LOL'? YGI!!!!! Actually, I was happy about that exchange with people who write LOL! To tell the truth, I have some aversion to LOL!!! because it is used to mock people at the baseball discussion groups I belong to but in this case I brought it up in a friendly way. I am feeling much friendlier about DSG for some reason these days. (Probably because I have got a bit of a collar on my internet addiction) You can never tell. I could be full of hatred again tomorrow and I surely will be full of hatred here again at some point. It's all helpful for coming to understand one's accumualations better. Phil #63294 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:50 am Subject: Ditthi (Jon) philofillet Hi Jon I've heard you having a lot of interesting talks with Acharn Sujin about ditthi, wrong view, self view, that of thing. I haven't really begun to understand ditthi or begun to sort out what the difference is between wrong view and self view and this view and that. But I thought I'd launch a bit of an ongoing discussion with you on the topic if you don't mind. Tonight I was listening to Tamara asking about how there can be ditthi at the first javana cittas in the sense door process. Like her, I have trouble understanding how the dhamma that is translated as "wrong view" (right?) could arise in a sense door process. I useally thing of wrong view means wrong views about ways of practice etc. Acharn sujin answered "do you think rupa is yours" or something like that, and of course Tamara answered yes, honetly. "So there is ditthi" said Acharan Sujin. But thinking about whether rupa is self or not is all mind door. I didn't see what that had to do with ditthi at the sense door process. Do you have any thoughts on this, just to get us started? Is there ditthi immediately, with moments of seeing/hearing etc the way there is lobha immediately? Phil p.s no hurry. Maybe we could write once a week or something like that. #63295 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma teacher matheesha333 Hi Jon M: As you wish. Hope you are well, with metta Matheesha #63296 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:56 am Subject: Re: Question about citta and cetasika philofillet Hi david Conditions are what it's all about, I feel. Here's a link to a great book Nina wrote on the topic. http://www.dhammastudy.com/Conditions.html Enjoy! Phil > I think this is one point I was missing: the conditions. I'll stop my > speculations (but only briefly) till I read and think more about them. > #63297 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi James, --------------------- <. . .> J: > I am unsure of what you mean here because you are mixing ultimate and conventional reality. When you write, "Their functions (of which you and I have no direct knowledge) are the only ultimately real functions (doings) in the universe." it sounds almost as if you believe their is a "self" who is unaware of dhammas. I'm sure that this isn't what you mean, but you are mixing up your terms. ---------------------- Yes, it does sound that way. I tried to put it 'Abhidammically' but I suppose I could have tried harder. But, no matter careful any of us is in phrasing what we say, there will always be an atta-belief ring to it. As listeners, we will just have to make allowances. Often, the connotations of atta-belief will be in the minds of the listeners more than in the minds of the speakers. In those cases, no amount of careful wording will solve the problem. ------------------------------------- J: > Ken, what applies at the ultimate level doesn't apply in the same way to the conventional level. Yes, dhammas arise and fall very rapidly, but my body and your body (as a whole) doesn't arise and fall very rapidly. Yes, dhammas cannot be controlled at will, but at the conventional level I can control what I eat, where I live, who I post to, etc. It is not proper to apply ultimate reality to conventional reality and expect them to be or behave the same. -------------------------------------- Excellent! That is what I believe too. (Now, if we could only agree on some more things!) :-) At the latest discussion meeting held at Andrew's house, I was seen thumping on an old, out-door table saying, "Is this table anicca? Is it fleeting, transitory, bubble-like . . ? No! For all intents and purposes it is permanent. It has been here for twenty years and will probably be here for another twenty years. There is no use in meditating on this table hoping to observe anicca, dukkha and anatta!" (This reminds me of some personal advice my brother-in-law recently gave me. He said, "It is one thing to be right, Ken, but you really need to say things in a nicer manner.") :-) ------------------------ J: > To understand anatta doesn't mean to reject conventional reality (see recent post by Swee Boon), it means to embrace both conventional and ultimate reality. ------------------------- I agree; there is no need to reject conventional reality. So I am not going to say, for example, "Why should I get out of the way of that car when it is not ultimately real?" As for embracing conventional reality as a way of understanding anatta: you and Swee Boon (and the old, out-door table) have not convinced me yet. :-) Ken H #63298 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > .... > S: There were very large numbers of lay people who listened to the Buddha, > became enlightened and were never encouraged to ordain. Only those who > were suited to ordaining and living the 'life of an arahant' were > encouraged to ordain. Where do you get this information? From my understanding, if a lay person becomes enlightened he must become ordained or pass into paranibbana. Lay life is incompatible with arahanthood. Metta, James #63299 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yes, there is reference in the suttas to the development of jhanas by > laypeople, but did the Buddha say anything about the development of > jhana for laypeople generally? Do you mean the general population? No, the Buddha didn't encourage jhana for the general population because not all of them are Buddhist. The Buddha had encouraged jhana for those who had taken refuge in the Triple Gem. > > >>It's true I don't share your own particular view on matters > >>such as what the development of jhana involves, > >> > > > >James: There are no "views" on what the development of jhana > >involves. It is a very black and white issue. Jhana involves > >mental absorption into a meditation object. That's it. How could > >my views on this subject be different from your views? > > > > > > I appreciate your confidence in the rightness of my views on this matter > ;-)). But you have given a sort of definition of jhana, rather than a > description of what it development involves. On that latter I am sure > we will manage to find some disagreement, if we discuss ;-)) Probably the only disagreement we would run into is your belief that a person's accumulations is of paramount importance in the development of jhana, and my belief that it is of minor importance. > > >>or the significance of passages in certain suttas, > >>but that does not make my view an 'anti-jhana' one, > >>surely?? ; > >> > >> > > > >James: I'm afraid it does. Again, Jon, this is not a legal issue > >and leading questions don't answer or point to the truth. If all > >you can stand on is leading questions than your ground is not very > >stable. > > > > > > Since the subject of leading questions comes up often in your posts to > me, could you say what the significance of this is to the discussions > here (so that I can try to comply with your 'rules' when writing to you > ;-))? ;-)) I don't have any 'rules'. If you want to ask me leading questions, ask away. But, of course, I will call you on it. Jon, you are an attorney so you know what leading questions are. I shouldn't have to define them for you. The significance of leading questions is that the questioner has a specific answer in mind. It isn't a genuine question where the questioner is seeking information. I believe it is best for dialogue between equals to avoid leading questions because they can become rather pedantic. (After all, you are not Socrates and I am not your student. ;-)) > > >James: That may be you interpretation of events but that isn't the > >way I saw it. Yes, Phil was approaching metta meditation in the > >wrong way because he was doing it simply as an 'escapism' from his > >daily problems and pressures. However, rather than being pointed in > >the right direction and explained the purpose of metta meditation, > >he was lead to believe that everyone who performs metta meditation > >does so for selfish, 'akusala' reasons. > > > > > > He would not have read that on DSG, I feel sure. Perhaps I have been reading a different DSG. ;-)) > > >James: There is a big difference between "difficult" and "virtually > >impossible". The quoted material by you-know-who made anapanasati > >seem "virtually impossible", while the true message of the text is > >that anapanasati is difficult but the meditator shouldn't quit > >prematurely when it becomes difficult. > > > > Anapanasati is the only one of the 38 or 40 'kammatthana' that is said > to be the object of samatha of Buddhas and Buddhas' sons, so I think it > must require especially great wisdom for its development. It doesn't 'require' great wisdom, it can develop great wisdom. > > Jon > Metta, James #63300 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:14 pm Subject: Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna philofillet Hi James, (and Jon and all) > > >James: That may be you interpretation of events but that isn't > the > > >way I saw it. Yes, Phil was approaching metta meditation in the > > >wrong way because he was doing it simply as an 'escapism' from > his > > >daily problems and pressures. However, rather than being pointed > in > > >the right direction and explained the purpose of metta > meditation, > > >he was lead to believe that everyone who performs metta > meditation > > >does so for selfish, 'akusala' reasons. Not that it matters, but to clarify I saw the shortcomings in the way I was approaching mettta meditation (and the way it is taught in modern Buddhism) before I came to DSG. And as I have said elsewhere, I don't think it is a bad thing to try to project metta with cittas rooted in lobha - it makes us less harmful, it makes us happier - and that is good. But in the Buddha's teaching, if I understand correctly, metta meditation is related to deep absorption of some kind and is not about sitting on a cushion in one's living room and wishing this person to be well, that person to be well. That's what it has become in the West. Again, not a bad thing - just not the Buddha's way. For example, James, the thing you do on your exercise bike. (No, not *that* thing!!!) I have done it too. It is so effective for emotional cleansing. But not truly metta meditation, I feel. If you don't do a metta-related thing on your exercise bike, please disgregard - am probably thinking of someone else. These days I am feeling that it is worthwhile to discuss Dhamma with you - for a good long while I thought it was best for people who are bound to disagree to gently (or not so gently) let each other be. Avoid the "banging heads against the wall" thing that you yourself pointed out. But these days I am more relaxed. Who knows how long that will last? Phil #63301 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:42 pm Subject: Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna philofillet Hi again James and all >But in the Buddha's teaching, if I understand > correctly, metta meditation is related to deep absorption of some > kind I add a question re the metta sutta - the opening "those skilled in goodness" - what exactly does that mean? Pali please, someone, or commentarial material. Thanks in advance. Phil #63302 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------------------- <. . .> H: > When there is speaking of paramattha dhammas taking but a trillionth of a second, too fast for there to be direct knowledge of them, there are several problems with that word-picture. I suppose it is the cittas, Ken, that you are referring to with regard to that time-scale. Not all paramattha dhammas have the same duration. Rupas, it is said, last longer for example. --------------------- Yes, but that is not one of the problems you are referring to, is it? If nama lasts one trillionth of a second then rupa lasts seventeen trillionths. In either case, it's an absolutely brief moment. ----------------------------- H: > In any case, what seems to be pictured here is a parade of cittas marching in line, like individual soldiers marching in a filmed parade that "we" are sitting back watching, but the film is so fast that we can't see the individual soldiers, and it looks like a blur to us. ----------------------------- I'll interrupt you there to say that is not the way I understand the problem. Dhammas are not too fast for other dhammas to see - so there's no problem there. Moreover, if we remember that there are ultimately no sentient beings (no us) then it can't ultimately be a problem that dhammas are too fast for sentient beings to see either. I don't believe that we [illusory] sentient beings see a blur of dhammas. In the world in which we are said to exist, we see trees and tables and people. Neither conventionally nor ultimately is there ever a blur of dhammas. ------------------------------------------- H: > But the problem is that there is no screen, and there is no "we" - no watcher standing on the sidelines observing the parade. ------------------------------------------- Yes, exactly! (Maybe I didn't need to interrupt.) :-) --------------------------------------------------------- H: > The cittas themselves are the knowing. There is no knowing apart from the cittas, --------------------------------------------------------- Yes. ------------------------------------- H: > which, BTW, are only artificially individuated in theory, as there are no gaps in the knowing. -------------------------------------- I'll leave that dangerous, Mahayana propaganda aside for now. :-) ------------------------------------------------ H: > When there is "a citta with visual object" that is the direct knowing of a sight. ------------------------------------------------ Yes, although it is actually the direct "experiencing" of a sight. "Knowing" is a term we should save for describing how panna experiences an object. ----------------------------- H: > When there is "a citta with ear-door object" that is direct knowing of a sound. Sometimes when there is knowing of object content, ------------------------------ Argh! There's that Nagarjuna influence again! The knowing (experiencing) (citta and cetasikas) and the object being experienced (arammana) are separate entities. There is no experiential flux, of which the citta and the arammana are mere aspects or contents. Sorry for the interruption - please continue. :-) --------------------------- < Sometimes when there is knowing of object content,> H: > the energy level is high, the clarity strong, the attention sharp, and that moment of knowing has greater effect, in terms of future recollection for example, than other "weaker" moments. But there is no knowing but knowing! (Sounds Islamic, huh? ;-) ---------------------------- I agree there is no knowing but knowing. Ultimately, there are only dhammas - even though the thinking mind would have us believe otherwise. As for your theory on different energy levels, I am not so sure. I haven't read anything about that sort of thing. I was watching a television documentary last night; apparently, the autistic savant on whom the film Rainman was based reads books in one-twentieth the time it takes the average reader. He opens a book out and reads the left-hand page with the left eye and the right-hand page with the right eye, and he remembers 98% of what he has read. It wasn't a Dhamma documentary, of course, but it would seem to support the Dhamma notion that sanna marks *everything* it experiences. Ken H #63303 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:42 pm Subject: Re: Thinking muddles sarahprocter... Hi Andrew T, Ken O (& U.P.fans*), I hope you're feeling better. When we met, I had meant to pick up on this question too, but forgot. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hello everyone > > One of my areas of confusion is with the use of the English > word "thinking" in relation to the cetasikas vitakka and vicara. Not > even a visit to U.P. seems to help! .... S: Oh my goodness!! .... > In English, "thinking" has a broad meaning of "mind exercising" and a > narrower but far more prevalent meaning of "having ideas in the > mind". I can see that vitakka and vicara fit ok in the broad meaning > as they are both namas and not present at a moment of sense-door > consciousness. But they don't seem to fit in with the common English > usage of "ideas" thinking. .... S: I liked all the detailed quotes Ken O gave and other responses from Ken H and Larry, if I recall. When we use 'thinking' in everyday language, aren't we referring to a conglomeration of all the mind-door cittas in hundreds/thousands of mind-door processes plus various mental factors, notably vitakka and vicara, but also sanna and other key ingedients as well as the concpets thought about? This big mixture is then taken for a whole as being 'my thinking' or 'my thoughts?'. I won't add more, because you may have had your question clarified and you may be too sick to think more about it for now:-) If not, please pursue the thread as I have a thought that there's an important question behind it which is useful for others too. I assume you looked at posts under 'thinking' in U.P.? (*Btw, for those who like to quote from U.P.s or other archived DSG posts on other lists, pls be sure to give the name and the link for reference and also get the permission of the writer, if there's any doubt about this). Metta, Sarah ========= #63304 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:00 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 520- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (q) 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;-) =============================================== wieldiness of cetasikas, kåya-kammaññatå wieldiness of citta, citta-kammaññatå As we have seen, according to the Atthasåliní, wieldiness brings faith (saddhå) in objects of faith and patient application in kusala. Wieldiness is necessary for each kind of kusala, for generosity (dåna), for morality (síla), for the development of calm and for the development of insight. Wieldiness makes the mind workable so that one can apply oneself to kusala with confidence and with patience. When someone, for example, wants to develop calm with loving kindness as meditation subject , he cannot be successful when there is no mental wieldiness. When there is ill-will there is rigidity instead of wieldiness. In order to have loving kindness for all beings, not only for dear friends, but also for people one does not know or even for one’s enemies, there has to be wieldiness. Without wieldiness one cannot succeed in becoming calm with any meditation subject. Wieldiness of cetasikas and of citta also perform their functions in the development of insight; they are conditions for patience in the development of right understanding of nåma and rúpa. When there is right understanding of a nåma or a rúpa as only a conditioned reality, not self, there is wieldiness of mind. The development of insight leads to the eradication of the hindrances. The person who has eradicated them has no more unwieldiness but perfect wieldiness. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63305 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/14/06 10:46:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > ----------------------------- > H: >In any case, what seems to be pictured here is a parade of cittas > marching in line, like individual soldiers marching in a filmed parade > that "we" are sitting back watching, but the film is so fast that we > can't see the individual soldiers, and it looks like a blur to us. > ----------------------------- > > I'll interrupt you there to say that is not the way I understand the > problem. Dhammas are not too fast for other dhammas to see - so > there's no problem there. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that is so. That is why there is indeed no problem with direct seeing of dhammas. It DOES occur, and all the the time. It is the rule, not the exception.Recalling what was observed, being able to characterize it and properly think about it is another story. ---------------------------------------- Moreover, if we remember that there are> > ultimately no sentient beings (no us) then it can't ultimately be a > problem that dhammas are too fast for sentient beings to see either. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well of course. That was my point that there is no observer in the stands watching the parade go by! The cittas constitute the knowing. ------------------------------------------- > > I don't believe that we [illusory] sentient beings see a blur of > dhammas. In the world in which we are said to exist, we see trees and > tables and people. Neither conventionally nor ultimately is there ever > a blur of dhammas. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Good. What are ever actually observed are dhammas, and not a blur of dhammas. So, in fact, dhammas are observed, and quite directly. -------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------- > H: >But the problem is that there is no screen, and there is no "we" > - no watcher standing on the sidelines observing the parade. > ------------------------------------------- > > Yes, exactly! (Maybe I didn't need to interrupt.) :-) > > --------------------------------------------------------- > H: >The cittas themselves are the knowing. There is no knowing apart > from the cittas, > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes. > > ------------------------------------- > H: >which, BTW, are only artificially individuated in theory, as > there are no gaps in the knowing. > -------------------------------------- > > I'll leave that dangerous, Mahayana propaganda aside for now. > :-) > > ------------------------------------------------ > H: >When there is "a citta with visual object" that is the > direct knowing of a sight. > ------------------------------------------------ > > Yes, although it is actually the direct "experiencing" of a sight. > "Knowing" is a term we should save for describing how panna > experiences an object. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would use a different word for pa~n~na. Vi~n~nana knows. That's what it is - mere knowing of the object. ------------------------------------------------ > > ----------------------------- > H: >When there is "a citta with ear-door object" that is > direct knowing of a sound. Sometimes when there is knowing of object > content, > ------------------------------ > > Argh! There's that Nagarjuna influence again! The knowing > (experiencing) (citta and cetasikas) and the object being experienced > (arammana) are separate entities. There is no experiential flux, of > which the citta and the arammana are mere aspects or contents. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Nagarjuna has no bearing on this. If anyone, it is Vasubandhu! In any case, the knowing and the known are interdependent. ------------------------------------------- > > Sorry for the interruption - please continue. :-) > > --------------------------- > > H: >the energy level is high, the clarity strong, the attention > sharp, and that moment of knowing has greater effect, in terms of > future recollection for example, than other "weaker" moments. But > there is no knowing but knowing! (Sounds Islamic, huh? ;-) > ---------------------------- > > I agree there is no knowing but knowing. Ultimately, there are only > dhammas - even though the thinking mind would have us believe otherwise. ------------------------------------------ Howard: We agree on this, and it turns out that there were several prior points of agreement. I still don't get what you were driving at with regard to not directly being aware of dhammas, but you say you did not mean to imply an observer sitting back trying to watch the cittas go by but unable to because of their speed, and I take you at your word on that. ------------------------------------------ > > As for your theory on different energy levels, I am not so sure. I > haven't read anything about that sort of thing. ------------------------------------------ Howard: There are degrees of viriya and degrees of attention and degrees of one-pointedness. Is that a matter of debate? ------------------------------------------- > > I was watching a television documentary last night; apparently, the > autistic savant on whom the film Rainman was based reads books in > one-twentieth the time it takes the average reader. He opens a book > out and reads the left-hand page with the left eye and the right-hand > page with the right eye, and he remembers 98% of what he has read. > > It wasn't a Dhamma documentary, of course, but it would seem to > support the Dhamma notion that sanna marks *everything* it experiences. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't doubt that. But not all marking is equally strong in general, and surely it differs from person to person in strength. That person, of course, is unusual. ----------------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > ======================= With metta, Howard #63306 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] too distracted sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Matheesha (Howard, James & all), I think the detailed quote you gave from the Udana commentary (#62643) is rather relevant to my discussion with Matheesha with regard to the environment. I'll look forward to any further comments from him or anyone else. As it was a long passage, I'll just re-quote some particularly relevant parts: --- connie wrote: Masefield's translation of Dhammapaala's Commentary on that Exalted Utterance: p598 2. Distracted <...> C: quote: : the hut had been constructed at the place covered with trees and bushes not far from that row of saalas, with reference to which "Were staying in the forest hut" was said. Those monks were, however, those in whom calm assessment was absent, those who spurned energy, those dwelling negligently, for which reason "Distracted" and so on was said. Herein: They were "distracted" due to their minds being uncalm on account of an abundance of distraction. Conceit, since it is like a reed (na.la) due to its being void, is na.la; they were "hollow" (unna.laa) since they were those with a puffed up (uggato) na.la, with conceit so called, meaning they were those of puffed up, void conceit. >They were "fussy" on account of their being endowed with fussiness as regards ornamentation of bowl and robe and so on, or alternatively on account of their finickiness. The were "raucous" (mukharaa) since they were by mouth (mukhena) grating (kharaa) on account of their being of harsh speech. They were "of scattered speech" (viki.n.navaacaa) since they were those of scattered (viki.n.na), confounded, speech (vaacaa) on account of an abundance of temporal talk. >They were "of vapid mindfulness" since for them mindfulness was vapid, had perished, meaning they were those in whom mindfulness was wanting, those dwelling in (a state of negligence). They were "inattentive" on account of the absence of attentiveness in every way possible. [239] They were "unconcentrated" since they were not concentrated on account of the absence of any concentrating of the mind even for the mere time taken during one pull at the cow's udder. >They were "with their minds careering about" due to their resembling a careering deer on account of their own nature being that of cupidity. There were "of conspicuous faculties" through being those whose faculties were uncontrolled on account of their failing to restrain the faculties that have mind as their sixth.< .... S: I like the part about their minds 'careering about' like a 'careering deer'. Point made - a quiet abode does not mean an undistracted mind or necessarily any calm. More detail is given about the senses being unguarded and then: ... C: >As a result of being slain by wrong view (micchaadi.t.thihatena): as a result of being polluted through adherence to that which is false such as eternalism and so on. As a result of being overcome by sloth and torpor (thiinamiddhaabhibhuutena): as a result of being engulfed by sloth whose charcteristic mark is that of indisposition on the part of the mind and by torpor whose characteristic mark is that of indisposition on the part of the body, the connecting being with that kaayena (as a result of body), or alternatively with that cittena (as a result of mind). >One goes under Maara's sway (vasa.m Maarassa gacchati): one enters upon the sway of all the Maara, beginning with the Defilement-Maara and so on, (that is to say,) the obligation to act in accordance with his desires, meaning one does not get beyond their range. For the Lord, having by means of this verse indicated the cycle opening with his reproach of those monks dwelling in (a state of) negligence, viz. "Those whose minds are wholly unguarded through the absence of the guard that is mindfulness, being those who are held in the grip of the inversions by way of 'It is permanent' and so on as a result of unmethodical understanding due to the absence of insight that constitutes the root-cause of paying methodical attention, to the absence of the initiation of energy where the performance of that which is skilled is concerned, do not raise their heads from the cycle that is sa.msaara",...< .... S: So we come back to the cause of such unguardedness -- not the environment, but the lack of wise attention, the lack of the development of insight or satipatthana. .... C:>...next utters the second verse commencing "Therefore one should become one whose mind is guarded" so as to indicate the absence of that cycle. Herein: Therefore one should become one whose mind is guarded (tasmaa rakkhitacitt' assa): since the one whose mind is not guarded, as one who is obliged to act in accordance with Maara's desires, is still within sa.msaara, therefore one should become one whose mind is guarded by way of guarding, by way of blocking, the faculties that have mind as their sixth, with the restraint that is mindfulness. For when the mind is quarded [240] the faculties of eye and so on are themselves guarded. One whose pasturage is right deliberation (sammaasa"nkappagocaro): since the one whose pasturage is wrong deliberation, in seizing divers wrong viewpoints upon unmethodically deliberating in this way and that, becomes one who is obliged to act in accordance with Maara's desires due to his mind having been slain by wrong view,...< .... S: Again, the necessary conditions are the development of satipatthana, the guarding of the faculties in this way and the development of right view. Otherwise, regardless of the so-called tranquillity of the surroundings, we remain in Mara's net. .... <...> C: >The one who has set to the fore right view (sammaadi.t.tipurekkhaaro): the one whose wrong viewpoint has been shake off due to his pasturage being that of right deliberation, having come to know rise and fall, having attained knowledge of rise and fall after investigating arising and cessation with respect to the five upaadaanakkhandhas in their in all fifty modes, as he comprehends the formations after initiating vipassanaa as one previously intent on morality and concentration in the same manner stated after setting to the fore, after giving precedence to, quite before anything else, right view whose characteristic mark is that of (knowledge that) one's deed are one's own, and whose characteristic mark, due to which same, is that of knowledge of things as they really are, thereafter eagerly practicing vipassanaa by way of contemplation of dissolution and so on < <...> .... S: Again, the bhikkhus were not told to do anything with regard to their environment, but were encouraged to develop right view and the other 8fold path factors in order to understand dhammas as they are, to understand the arising and falling away of dhammas and so on. This is the only way that leads to liberation. Adjusting the environment can never lead to such understanding, to such 'guarding' of the faculties through the development of vipassana. Thanks for all your quotes, Connie. Any comments? Metta, Sarah ========= #63307 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question about citta and cetasika sarahprocter... Hi David, --- davco123 wrote: > Sara, > > Thanks for your input. > I like the example of the water and salt. ... S: Yes, the salt is there, but we can't see it. If there's enough, it has an effect. ... >The conclusion is that citta > is not something 'simple' or 'pure', .... S: Actually, citta is said to be 'pure' (pandara), but it is affected by the accompanying cetasikas and these have been affected by all previous cittas and cetasikas (and by rupas too). .... >but it is composed of different > components even if our insight is not good enough to distinguish all > its parts. ... S: I'd say it's accompanied by different components. Seeing consciousness is accompanied by the universal cetasikas only. Citta with dosa is accompanied by a set of akusala cetasikas and so on. As you say, our insight is not enough to distinguish the parts, but the Buddha's was and he taught the way for such insight to develop. .... >Our tendencies are part of each citta and get 'transferred' > from citta to citta. > Did I get it right? ... S: The tendencies are lying dormant in each citta which conditions the next one and so on. Not literally 'transferred' as the previous citta has completely fallen away. More like dominoes:-). There are 3 levels of such tendencies - Put simply, the dormant asaya-anusaya (tendencies), the arising mental states and the mental states arising to the strength of kamma-patha. .... > I'll definetely go to the files posted during the weekend, when I have > (I hope) more time. .... S: Please let us know what you find of interest. I'm glad to see your keen interest. I hope you also continue your discussions with Phil and Howard too. Metta, Sarah ======== #63308 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard, ----------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > Yes, that is so. That is why there is indeed no problem with direct seeing of dhammas. It DOES occur, and all the time. It is the rule, not the exception. Recalling what was observed, being able to characterize it and properly think about it is another story. ---------------------------------------- There is another related point, which I tried to make two posts back: When we (or citta) react to the dhammas we are experiencing we do so without knowing that they are, in fact, dhammas. Only someone who has heard and learnt the Buddha's teaching, and has become highly proficient in it, can directly know a dhamma as a dhamma. ------------------------------------------------------- KH: > > Moreover, if we remember that there are ultimately no sentient beings (no us) then it can't ultimately be a problem that dhammas are too fast for sentient beings to see either. > > H: > Well of course. That was my point that there is no observer in the stands watching the parade go by! The cittas constitute the knowing. --------------------------------------------------------- Another point I would emphasise here is that dhammas are not the kinds of thing that can be caught. Acrobats and sportsman can have lightning fast reflexes and reaction times. With practice they can, for example, catch a cricket ball as it flies straight off a bat. But that kind of ability has no bearing whatsoever when it comes to paramattha dhammas. The uninstructed worldling is unable to directly know a dhamma, not because his reflexes are too slow, or because he is not trying hard enough, but because he has not understood the Buddha's teaching. ------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > Good. What are ever actually observed are dhammas, and not a blur of dhammas. So, in fact, dhammas are observed, and quite directly. -------------------------------------------- Yes, by other dhammas (namas). ------------------------------------------------------------ <. . .> KH: > > it is actually the direct "experiencing" of a sight. "Knowing" is a term we should save for describing how panna experiences an object. > > H: > I would use a different word for pa~n~na. Vi~n~nana knows. That's what it is - mere knowing of the object. ----------------------------------------------------------- I can't argue because the texts do agree that, to some extent, citta knows (understands) its object. Sanna is also said to know its object. But panna knows it in an infinitely more useful way. The texts compare them to a child, a villager and a moneychanger knowing the value of a coin. Even so, I will continue to say "knowing" and "understanding" when I am referring to panna, and "experiencing" when I am referring to other namas. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------ <. . .> H: > We agree on this, and it turns out that there were several prior points of agreement. I still don't get what you were driving at with regard to not directly being aware of dhammas, but you say you did not mean to imply an observer sitting back trying to watch the cittas go by but unable to because of their speed, and I take you at your word on that. ------------------------------------------------------------- I said to James that we, being mere beginners in this training and still uninstructed worldlings, do not directly know paramattha dhammas. That's all I was getting at. We experience dhammas all the time but, as I said to you (I think), so too do animals and people who have never even heard of paramattha dhammas. Maybe the confusion was simply over our different use of the words, experiencing and knowing. (?) ------------------------------------------ <. . .> KH: > > As for your theory on different energy levels, I am not so sure. I haven't read anything about that sort of thing. > > H: > There are degrees of viriya and degrees of attention and degrees of one-pointedness. Is that a matter of debate? ------------------------------------------- I would be a good thread on its own. I will steer clear of it for the time being, however, in case it involves "control." :-) Ken H #63309 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > > S: I also agree with this. When we refer to 'kammic conditionality', > we > > are talking about cetana as you suggest. Dhammas have the effect of > > conditioning other dhammas, but they cannot be made to arise or be > > conditioned by any 'will' on our part. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > That last clause seems to me like an attempt to eat your cake and > have > it too. ... S: I don't think so. Dhammas perform their functions, but this is without the assistance of any self's willing. Mere dhammas rolling on, each as conditioned as the next one. .... > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sarah, what do you think the Buddha had in mind when he said that > > kamma is intention? Do you think there is no relation between cetana, > javana > cittas, and conventional willing? I don't claim that conventional > willing is the > same as the others, but I do claim that it intimately involves them. > --------------------------------------- .... S: I think that conventional willing usually involves a lot of ignorance and a deep-seated idea that a self can perform actions. Of course, if there were not the various cittas and mental factors such as cetana, vitakka, viriya, manasikara, ekaggata, sanna, adhimokkha, lobha and so on performing their various functions, no such actions would occur and no such wrong views would arise either. Btw, I liked the comments you wrote to David, Matheesha and myself on David's questions (#63263). I thought you expressed yourself very clearly. Of course, not only dhammas, but concepts too are recognized. Also, bhavanga cittas are a bit of a 'bug-bear' to you, I know. I wouldn't describe them as 'subliminal', but they arise and fall away like other cittas. In their case, as Nina explained, they arise outside the sense and mind-door processes and in between these. Also in deep, dreamless sleep, I think they account well for how life continues. I agreed and liked all your other comments. Thanks for the kind assistance. Metta, Sarah p.s I think your threads with Sukin and Ken H are useful for many people to follow and reflect further. ======= #63310 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:48 am Subject: Pakatupanissaya scottduncan2 I'm swimming in the ocean of natural strong-dependence condition and just want to note that it is beautiful. Scott. #63311 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ven. Cunda's Advice jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Dear Joop, > Dear Sarah Thanks for your reactions. A short message, because there is a repetition of arguments and I leave in three days. S: "I don't think a dictionary will help when it comes to the understanding of viriya. Yes, viriya 'drives' or 'uplifts' or 'stirs' other mental factors to perform their functions, but it arises with most cittas including all akusala ones as well. When there is awareness, it helps drive the other mental factors in a kusala way. When we are TRYING to have awareness or follow activities in order for wholesome states to arise, attachment is bound to be there, assisted by akusala viriya, driving the attachment along." (capitals me, Joop) J: What surprises me is that you state that one can überhaupt TRY something, even if it's akusala or have akusala results. Or a human being has the build in possibility to try something or not. About about accumulations. Now you are using another metaphore with the term 'piling up'. This gives a new problem: piling up in what medium etc. About 'anatta'. I can understand that you think 'anatta' cannot be evident for a wordling like me. But my main point was and is: for me 'anicca' is more important than 'anatta' Metta Joop #63312 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:12 am Subject: Re: Addiction to quietness? jwromeijn Dear Connie I know you want to please me, so I'm sorry to say: I have problems in reading and understanding the most commentaries about the elephant meeting the Buddha. A positive function of a commentary to me can be: it explains, it gives background-information (for example about the social life of elephants, of similes hidden in a text). And at the same time a commenary must not decrease the inspiration a Sutta can give; I'm afraid this one does (and, I said it before, the language makes it difficult to understand) Connie: "… but are quiet surrounds addictive? Joop: Yes, it can be addictive; like being near other people can be addictive, like participating in DSG can be addictive. Connie: "lobha and misunderstanding are two monkeys on our backs. it's just that meghiya had always been sucked in at that 'retreat'. it is at the tail end of #62528 if you like, but no matter …" Joop: I tried to read it. I reminds me of some years ago when I treid to read (the english translation of) the Visuddhimagga. Very funny: there were 18 or 19 negative criteria for evaluating a monastery to abide; a big part of them was that woman could be seen or heard, another one was that the teacher was a famous one, another that's was near a frontier. What's the lesson about this? Anything goes as long as there is sati. I'm going to a Batchelor retreat next week, there are woman too, I'm afraid With metta Joop #63313 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi sutta SN 35.99 jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >-------------------------------------------- >Howard: > I'm speaking of a mind that typically tends to be peaceful and >undistracted. So, you can choose your favorite Pali words for 'these. ;-)) >------------------------------------------- > But how does a mind that 'typically tends to be peaceful and undistracted' come to be so? It must be because of the development of samatha (tranquility) or vipassana (insight) (the only other forms of kusala are dana and sila). So if we are looking for an answer to the question, what is the samadhi that conditions insight, I think you are saying that it is the samadhi that is associated with the development of samatha or insight. >>In a recent post to Mateesha I summarised the contents of a sutta from AN >>that sets out the 4 kinds of samadhi development. These include both the >>samadhi of samatha and the samadhi of vipassana. So I would say that the >>samadhi of vipassana refers to something other than samatha. >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/62117 >> >> >------------------------------------------------ >Howard: > From my perspective, samadhi is, generally, nondistractedness. When it >is generated by akusala interest it is not a path factor. When it is a kusala >state, it is. As to the two types of samadhi you mention, in my practice, I >don't separate samatha bhavana from vipassana bhavana. My practice is an >in-tandem one. >------------------------------------------------ > I agree that samadhi can accompany either kusala or akusala mindstate. There is nothing intrinsically wholesome about samadhi. That is why if kusala samadhi is to be developed the mind must be kusala by virtue of the other accompanying mental factors. In the sutta referenced above it is explained that the samadhi of samatha is developed by the development of samatha, and the samadhi of vipassana by the development of vipassana. >>Thanks for mentioning the sutta AN 4.170 (called by some translators the >>Yuganaddha Sutta). >> >>This sutta sets out the ways by which insight can be attained when >>reckoned according to the development of tranquillity (samatha) (note: >>samatha, not samadhi). Those ways include not only the way described as >>'in tandem' (samatha and vipassana),but also the way where enlightenment >>is attained before jhana has been attained. >> > >-------------------------------------------- >Howard: > Calm and concentration are mutually related. And concentration is a >very important condition. What is it about concentration that worries you, Jon? >You always seem wary with regard to it. >------------------------------------------- > Not wary, just particular ;-)). Because one often sees samadhi confused with samatha, as in your statement that the Yuganaddha Sutta discusses several forms of concentration one of which is in-tandem (what is discussed in that sutta is insight and samatha). >------------------------------------------- >Howard: > Actually, I agree with that. Nyanatiloka renders 'anupassana' as >'contemplation', but I thought it basically meant "insight" or "insightful >investigation'. >------------------------------------------ > > I agree that 'anupassana' refers essentially to panna (which is what insight is), so that the contemplation in question is the seeing with wisdom. But that is a far cry from 'remaining focussed' in the sense of paying deliberate attention to. Jon #63314 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta Revisited jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: >>To my way of thinking, a person who is consciously trying to >>have more metta (which is what I understand by 'doing metta >>meditation') would be more likely to take non-metta for metta >>than would someone who was not consciously making that effort. >> > >James: Well, I suppose you can think this if you want, but it is in >direct contradiction with what the Buddha taught. How can you know >the texts so well and yet not know this simple issue? (How's that >for a leading question?? LOL!) > > (A leading question. Ouch!! Actually, it seems more a rhetorical one to me ;-)) OK, so just what did the Buddha teach that I am directly contradicting (in your view). >>Perhaps you see a 'busy and hectic' life as meaning >>that dhammas cannot be seen as they are. I don't >>think that need be the case. Of course, if we hold >>to that view it would certainly be an obstacle to any >>level of awareness arising during our daily life. >> > >James: Well, I wouldn't say it is an obstacle to "any level of >awareness" arising during our daily householder life, but it is >decidedly more difficult. > > So a busy and hectic life is 'decidedly more difficult', but not exactly an obstacle. This is a fine distinction you are making here ;-)) But I was actually referring to the *idea* that awareness or insight is unlikely to arise in the midst of a busy and hectic life; the very holding of such an idea would make the arising of awareness or insight in those circumstances most unlikely if not impossible. >Remember, the Buddha described the >householder life as a dusty path. You may believe that you have >taken a hoover to yours, but I doubt it. ;-)) > And you may think that a householder can overcome or escape the dust by undertaking sa particular form of practice, but I doubt it! Jon #63315 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] too distracted upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and all) - In a message dated 9/15/06 3:51:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Hi Connie, Matheesha (Howard, James &all), > > I think the detailed quote you gave from the Udana commentary (#62643) is > rather relevant to my discussion with Matheesha with regard to the > environment. I'll look forward to any further comments from him or anyone > else. > > > .... > S: Again, the bhikkhus were not told to do anything with regard to their > environment, but were encouraged to develop right view and the other 8fold > path factors in order to understand dhammas as they are, to understand the > arising and falling away of dhammas and so on. This is the only way that > leads to liberation. Adjusting the environment can never lead to such > understanding, to such 'guarding' of the faculties through the development > of vipassana. > > Thanks for all your quotes, Connie. > > Any comments? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= ============================ The Buddha didn't say everything everywhere. There were many, many times he instructed his monks and nuns to find secluded places for practice. That is helpful into turning the mind inwards, and it is essential for cultivating jhana, which the Buddha repeatedly urged not only as a peaceful abiding for the time being but as a way of generally calming the mind so that so many of the internal distractions detailed in your post could be be moderated. When the mind is calmed it is a more suitable, malleable instrument for guarding the senses, ongoing mindfulness, and investigation of dhammas under all conditions, external as well as internal. With metta, Howard #63316 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James) - In a message dated 9/15/06 6:12:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ----------------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > Yes, that is so. That is why there is indeed no problem with > direct seeing of dhammas. It DOES occur, and all the time. It is the > rule, not the exception. Recalling what was observed, being able to > characterize it and properly think about it is another story. > ---------------------------------------- > > There is another related point, which I tried to make two posts back: > When we (or citta) react to the dhammas we are experiencing we do so > without knowing that they are, in fact, dhammas. Only someone who has > heard and learnt the Buddha's teaching, and has become highly > proficient in it, can directly know a dhamma as a dhamma. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > KH: >> Moreover, if we remember that there are ultimately no > sentient beings (no us) then it can't ultimately be a problem that > dhammas are too fast for sentient beings to see either. > >> > > H: > Well of course. That was my point that there is no > observer in the stands watching the parade go by! The cittas > constitute the knowing. > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Another point I would emphasise here is that dhammas are not the kinds > of thing that can be caught. Acrobats and sportsman can have lightning > fast reflexes and reaction times. With practice they can, for example, > catch a cricket ball as it flies straight off a bat. But that kind of > ability has no bearing whatsoever when it comes to paramattha dhammas. > The uninstructed worldling is unable to directly know a dhamma, not > because his reflexes are too slow, or because he is not trying hard > enough, but because he has not understood the Buddha's teaching. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Here again, Ken, you are doing the conventional-ultimate language mixing that James pointed to. Who is this worldling unable to directly know a dhamma? There *is* the direct knowing of dhammas, and the knowing of a dhamma is called a "citta" by the Abhidhamma enthusiasts. There is no one to catch anything at all. What you are pointing towards, and I don't think that what you have in mind is without basis, really amounts to certain mental functions, I believe, conditioned by ignorance, but not in reality involving the attempting to do anything by anyone. -------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > Good. What are ever actually observed are dhammas, and > not a blur of dhammas. So, in fact, dhammas are observed, and quite > directly. > -------------------------------------------- > > Yes, by other dhammas (namas). > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > <. . .> > KH: >>it is actually the direct "experiencing" of a sight. "Knowing" > is a term we should save for describing how panna experiences an > object. >> > > H: > I would use a different word for pa~n~na. Vi~n~nana knows. > That's what it is - mere knowing of the object. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I can't argue because the texts do agree that, to some extent, citta > knows (understands) its object. Sanna is also said to know its object. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Vi~n~nana is mere "awareness of". Sa~n~na is "recognizing of" (and the preparation in advance for recognizing). Pa~n~na is "understanding of". ---------------------------------------------- > But panna knows it in an infinitely more useful way. The texts compare > them to a child, a villager and a moneychanger knowing the value of a > coin. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Those similes aren't so good today, at least not for me. They are time and culture dependent. ---------------------------------------------- > > Even so, I will continue to say "knowing" and "understanding" when I > am referring to panna, and "experiencing" when I am referring to other > namas. :-) > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > <. . .> > H: > We agree on this, and it turns out that there were > several prior points of agreement. I still don't get what you were > driving at with regard to not directly being aware of dhammas, but you > say you did not mean to imply an observer sitting back trying to watch > the cittas go by but unable to because of their speed, and I take you > at your word on that. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I said to James that we, being mere beginners in this training and > still uninstructed worldlings, do not directly know paramattha > dhammas. That's all I was getting at. We experience dhammas all the > time but, as I said to you (I think), so too do animals and people who > have never even heard of paramattha dhammas. Maybe the confusion was > simply over our different use of the words, experiencing and knowing. (?) > > ------------------------------------------ > <. . .> > KH: >>As for your theory on different energy levels, I am not so > sure. I haven't read anything about that sort of thing. > >> > > H: > There are degrees of viriya and degrees of attention and > degrees of one-pointedness. Is that a matter of debate? > ------------------------------------------- > > I would be a good thread on its own. I will steer clear of it for the > time being, however, in case it involves "control." :-) > > Ken H > > > ========================= With uncontrolled (LOL!) metta, Howard #63317 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Ken: Touching Base and Clarifying My Position upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/15/06 7:28:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > >>S: I also agree with this. When we refer to 'kammic conditionality', > >we > >>are talking about cetana as you suggest. Dhammas have the effect of > >>conditioning other dhammas, but they cannot be made to arise or be > >>conditioned by any 'will' on our part. > >> > >----------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > That last clause seems to me like an attempt to eat your cake and > >have > >it too. > ... > S: I don't think so. Dhammas perform their functions, but this is without > the assistance of any self's willing. Mere dhammas rolling on, each as > conditioned as the next one. -------------------------------------------- Howard: To bring in "self" in a conversationabout willing with me is a red herring. I don't believe in a self that does anything of any sort sort at any time. -------------------------------------------- > .... > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Sarah, what do you think the Buddha had in mind when he said that > > > >kamma is intention? Do you think there is no relation between cetana, > >javana > >cittas, and conventional willing? I don't claim that conventional > >willing is the > >same as the others, but I do claim that it intimately involves them. > >--------------------------------------- > .... > S: I think that conventional willing usually involves a lot of ignorance > and a deep-seated idea that a self can perform actions. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Everything that people (conventionally) do involves a lot of ignorance. We are beset by craving, aversion, and ignorance, most especially by a sense of self in "the person" and in conventional and paramatthic phenomena, and th at remains so until final awakening. So what? ------------------------------------------- Of course, if> > there were not the various cittas and mental factors such as cetana, > vitakka, viriya, manasikara, ekaggata, sanna, adhimokkha, lobha and so on > performing their various functions, no such actions would occur and no > such wrong views would arise either. > > Btw, I liked the comments you wrote to David, Matheesha and myself on > David's questions (#63263). I thought you expressed yourself very clearly. > Of course, not only dhammas, but concepts too are recognized. Also, > bhavanga cittas are a bit of a 'bug-bear' to you, I know. I wouldn't > describe them as 'subliminal', but they arise and fall away like other > cittas. In their case, as Nina explained, they arise outside the sense and > mind-door processes and in between these. Also in deep, dreamless sleep, I > think they account well for how life continues. I agreed and liked all > your other comments. Thanks for the kind assistance. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s I think your threads with Sukin and Ken H are useful for many people > to follow and reflect further. > ========================== With metta, Howard #63318 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > ------------------- > <. . .> > H: > When there is speaking of paramattha dhammas taking but a > trillionth of a second, too fast for there to be direct knowledge of > them, there are several problems with that word-picture. I suppose it > is the cittas, Ken, that you are referring to with regard to that > time-scale. Not all paramattha dhammas have the same duration. Rupas, > it is said, last longer for example. > --------------------- Hallo Howard, Ken H, all Please don't use words like the time-scale of "a trillionth of a second" The Buddha didn't use that number. Perhaps some commentators did and then they were wrong. "A trillionth of a second" is neuroscientific impossible. If you want to use a time-scale, then it's better to think of milli-seconds. Joop #63319 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Joop (and Ken) - In a message dated 9/15/06 12:05:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Hallo Howard, Ken H, all > > Please don't use words like the time-scale of "a trillionth of a > second" > The Buddha didn't use that number. Perhaps some commentators did and > then they were wrong. > "A trillionth of a second" is neuroscientific impossible. If you want > to use a time-scale, then it's better to think of milli-seconds. > > Joop > ======================== Thank you for this input. I haven't seen such mention in the suttas, and I find the alleged precision suspect. But the precise speed doesn't strike me as particularly relevant in any case. One can compare the relative speed of mental operations to the speed of rupas, the former being much faster, and the Buddha did note that distinction in the suttas, but otherwise I don't see the relevance of speed or, in fact, even the coherence of the notion. What, after all, other than the speed of rupas, is the speed of the flow of consciousness to be compared with? With metta, Howard #63320 From: Daniel Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:37 am Subject: An article on the mind sbhtkk Hi all, This seems to be an interesting article : http://www.alanwallace.org/ChoosingReality23.pdf If you have any thoughts regarding it, please share! :) Daniel #63321 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Howard (and James), -------------------- KH: > > > There is another related point, which I tried to make two posts back: When we (or citta) react to the dhammas we are experiencing we do so > without knowing that they are, in fact, dhammas. Only someone who has > heard and learnt the Buddha's teaching, and has become highly > proficient in it, can directly know a dhamma as a dhamma. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > KH: >> Moreover, if we remember that there are ultimately no > sentient beings (no us) then it can't ultimately be a problem that > dhammas are too fast for sentient beings to see either. > >> > > H: > Well of course. That was my point that there is no > observer in the stands watching the parade go by! The cittas > constitute the knowing. > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Another point I would emphasise here is that dhammas are not the kinds > of thing that can be caught. Acrobats and sportsman can have lightning > fast reflexes and reaction times. With practice they can, for example, > catch a cricket ball as it flies straight off a bat. But that kind of > ability has no bearing whatsoever when it comes to paramattha dhammas. > The uninstructed worldling is unable to directly know a dhamma, not > because his reflexes are too slow, or because he is not trying hard > enough, but because he has not understood the Buddha's teaching. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Here again, Ken, you are doing the conventional-ultimate language mixing that James pointed to. Who is this worldling unable to directly know a dhamma? ---------------------------------------------- As I said to James, I am trying to be as 'Abhidhammically' correct as I can, but it will always be possible to read confusion (between concepts and realities) into what any of us says - no matter how careful we are. You will notice that I carefully added "or citta" when I wrote, " When we (or citta) react to the dhammas we are experiencing we do so without knowing that they are, in fact, dhammas." So I meant that quite literally. Citta (of both the wholesome and unwholesome kinds) reacts to dhammas without knowing that they are in fact dhammas. It is only when citta is accompanied by panna (of the vipassana kind) that dhammas are known to be dhammas. (At such times, a dhamma is known to be a nama (for example) as distinct from a rupa, or it is known to rise and fall by conditions or to have a particular inherent characteristic, and so on.) ---------------------------------- H: > There *is* the direct knowing of dhammas, and the knowing of a dhamma is called a "citta" by the Abhidhamma enthusiasts. ---------------------------------- As I explained in my previous post, the Abhidhamma enthusiasts say that citta "experiences" an object. Your personal preference for the word "knows" is fine so long as you can remember that other people are reserving that word (more or less exclusively) for the function of panna. ---------------------------------------------- H: > There is no one to catch anything at all. What you are pointing towards, and I don't think that what you have in mind is without basis, really amounts to certain mental functions, I believe, conditioned by ignorance, but not in reality involving the attempting to do anything by anyone. ------------------------------------------------ That's right - ultimately there are only dhammas. Dhammas are different from the objects of the conventionally known [ultimately illusory] world. In the conventionally known world there are cricket balls that can be caught it you are fast enough - there are also jokes and nuances that can be caught if you are fast enough. But dhammas are not like that. Dhammas are not things that can be known (directly understood as being the way they are - having the characteristics they have, etc) by trying. ------------------------------------------------ KH: > > But panna knows it in an infinitely more useful way. The texts compare them to a child, a villager and a moneychanger knowing the value of a coin. > > H: > Those similes aren't so good today, at least not for me. They are time and culture dependent. ------------------------------------------------- I know what you mean. I might suggest though - just as a matter of interest - that money changing (or currency trading as it is now called) is every bit as intricate today as it ever was. Ken H #63322 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited ken_aitch Hi Joop and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Joop (and Ken) - > > In a message dated 9/15/06 12:05:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jwromeijn@... writes: > > > Hallo Howard, Ken H, all > > > > Please don't use words like the time-scale of "a trillionth of a > > second" > > The Buddha didn't use that number. Perhaps some commentators did and > > then they were wrong. > > "A trillionth of a second" is neuroscientific impossible. If you want > > to use a time-scale, then it's better to think of milli-seconds. > > > > Joop > > > ======================== > Thank you for this input. I haven't seen such mention in the suttas, > and I find the alleged precision suspect. > But the precise speed doesn't strike me as particularly relevant in > any case. One can compare the relative speed of mental operations to the speed > of rupas, the former being much faster, and the Buddha did note that > distinction in the suttas, ------------ Yes, there is the simile for vipassana (I think) of stringing a pearl necklace by the light of a single lightning flash. There is also the sutta that explains how each citta is so brief that even a Buddha could not give a simile that would be adequate to describe just how brief. -------------------------------- Howard: > but otherwise I don't see the relevance of speed or, in fact, even the coherence of the notion. What, after all, other than the speed of rupas, is the speed of the flow of consciousness to be compared with? --------------------------------- If it could be compared with anything, then the Buddha would have been able to give an adequate simile, but it can't. As I understand the explanations of anicca, it is an absolute. It is not relative to anything. Namas and rupas are fleeting, but not only in comparison to conventional things. They are fleeting by virtue of their own inherent characteristic - anicca. The textual authorities for saying dhammas last a trillionth (or whatever it is) of a second have been given on DSG from time to time. I forget what they were. No doubt, they were meant as a rough guide - if the Buddha couldn't turn an absolute reality into a conventional one then no one could. :-) Ken H #63323 From: connie Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Addiction to quietness? nichiconn Dear Joop, Isn't it funny how we read the same words and walk away with totally opposite feelings for them? I could be an inspired commentary addict. Besides talking about the faults of an unsuitable monastery, the Path of Purity also quotes AN v 15 on the five good qualities of the suitable one - no mention of women there one way or another, but "in that dwelling are senior monks of wide knowledge, scholars of the Texts, memorizers of the Dhamma, of the Vinaya, of the Maatikaas." Seems to me most of the negative things are like the crowding & jostling conditions the bull elephant was fed up with before he met his Good Friend. I doubt I would attend a Batchelor retreat, but hope you get something useful from it. I've been known to "sit" with other sectarians from time to time thinking there might be good Dhamma discussions. Generally speaking, I'm afraid I haven't done as well as our elephant friend as far as anger & such not arising, but walked off anyway. best wishes, c. #63324 From: connie Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:38 pm Subject: Re: too distracted nichiconn Hi, All Y'all Environmentalists and Folklorists, Distracted, addicted... still the same old rut. Meghiya runs off to this apparently beautiful old glory hole and gone is whatever touch with reality he had. One of the dryers breaks down at work & we're all variously twisted around it in our own unpleasant ways. The manager more or less yells that "when things are different they'll be different" and I really LOL and 'careering deer' i am, mimic him then and there trying to keep from laughing more. Maybe we can not read each other's minds, but faces were sure going thru some changes. No doubt about my living heedless. If I prayed, it would be that this round applies to the countdown. Like, say, five more to go? Is that asking too much? I'll settle for 3. What exactly is cupidity anyway? That little angelic looking sniper's way, insanely darting about divers objects. The mind killed by wrong view! This stuff is scary. Draw back your bow. Best regards... methodical and deliberate, "after giving precedence to, quite before anything else, right view ..." Not sure how 'generally calmed' the mind wearing a burning hat needs be. but 50 modes of the 5 upaadaanakkhandhas! I've really got to do some reading. peace, c. #63325 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/15/06 8:45:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Howard: >but otherwise I don't see the relevance of speed or, > in fact, even the coherence of the notion. What, after all, other than > the speed of rupas, is the speed of the flow of consciousness to be > compared with? > --------------------------------- > > If it could be compared with anything, then the Buddha would have been > able to give an adequate simile, but it can't. As I understand the > explanations of anicca, it is an absolute. It is not relative to > anything. Namas and rupas are fleeting, but not only in comparison to > conventional things. They are fleeting by virtue of their own inherent > characteristic - anicca. ------------------------------------ Howard: Forget conventional things. I'm talking about what actually occurs, not what seem to occur. If rupas last for up to 17 mind-moments, i.e., if there can be up to 17 (sequential) cetasika cessations occurring while a single rupa is object throughout, then the flow of cittas is p to 17 imes as fast as rupas. Other than comparisons of this sort, I don't know what there i to say about citta speed. ALL speed is relative. Of course all dhammas are fleeting. That means only that they do not last. That, itself, has nothing to do with speed. ------------------------------------ > > The textual authorities for saying dhammas last a trillionth (or > whatever it is) of a second have been given on DSG from time to time. > I forget what they were. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Me, too. I suspect it is nonsense. The Buddha never made such a statement to my knowledge. Such a measure is meaningless. ------------------------------- No doubt, they were meant as a rough guide -> > if the Buddha couldn't turn an absolute reality into a conventional > one then no one could. :-) > > ================== With metta, Howard #63326 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:37 pm Subject: Fwd: A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas nilovg Dear friends, some of you may be interested. Nina. Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Alan Weller > Datum: 14 september 2006 12:06:13 GMT+02:00 > Aan: nina van gorkom > Onderwerp: A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas > Antwoord aan: alan@... > > Hi Nina, > > A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas is now 'published' in USA and UK. It > can now be bought online via eg amazon . However unlike my previous > books there is no active marketing of it to bookshops etc so it > will be interesting to see if it sells any copies. > I did not have resources to do design a front cover so it is in > plain dark blue hard back with gold writing on the spine. A 43 > character limit on the spine meant I could not include Sujin's > name, just the title of the book and publisher zolag. Despite being > a copy it is better quality than the original. I only have one copy > at present which has to go to the British Library legal deposit, > but will send you one when I get more. > > Best wishes, > > Alan > > #63327 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:23 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 521- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (r) 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;-) =============================================== Another pair of sobhana cetasikas is: proficiency of cetasikas, kåya-påguññatå proficiency of citta, citta-påguññatå According to the Dhammasangaùi (§ 48, 49) this pair of cetasikas consists in fitness, competence and efficiency. Påguññatå is fitness, competence or efficiency in the performance of kusala. The Atthasåliní (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 131) explains that proficiency of cetasikas and of citta suppress mental illness and that they are the opponents of the corruptions, such as diffidence, which cause mental illness(1). When the citta is akusala citta, there is diffidence, lack of confidence in kusala and then there is mental sickness. Mental proficiency assists the kusala citta and then citta and cetasikas are healthy and skilful so that they can perform their functions in the most efficient way. *** 1) See also the Visuddhimagga, XIV, 149. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63328 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] too distracted, and renunciation. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Connie & Sukin, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > As to Renunciation, I am just at it with my revision of the Perfections. > My turn to make a long quote: <....> >Satipaììhåna cannot arise all the > time, but still, the fact that one is developing it, that one has > listened to the Dhamma and accumulated understanding of the way of > developing satipaììhåna, all these factors are conditions for the > arising of a level of sati other than sati of satipaììhåna. This > means: sati of the level of all the excellent qualities which are the > perfections. .... S: I think this quote from 'Perfections' is also relevant to the discussions we were having about the development of the perfections even in those lives when there was no Buddha's teaching and so on. KS was talking on this topic of the effect of satipatthana in other lives, depending on its strength. Do you have any further comments, Sukin? Metta, Sarah ======== #63329 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ten Parmitas! nilovg Dear Kanchu, Sarah gave you some links. I am delighted to discuss with you the paramitas, and best is one by one. My favorite subject. From Sunday week I am on a trip for one week. Nina. Op 12-sep-2006, om 11:57 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Please help me understand about Parmita! And about 10 parimitta! > > > > #63330 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhas sarahprocter... Hi Kel (& Howard), I hadn't read Kel's detailed and comprehensive post (#62678) on this topic when I responded to Howard. Some posts I just marked and put aside for later printing and reading after our recent trip. Thanks again Kel for your helpful detail. Metta, Sarah ===== --- kelvin_lwin wrote: <...> > http://ignca.nic.in/jatakint.htm > The Introductory chapter of the Jataka Atthakatha presents a list of > the twenty-five Buddhas (excluding the Future Buddha: Metteya) ... > Sometimes, the tradition also identifies three additional Buddhas, > who were born before Dipankara. The names of those Buddhas are > Tanhankara, Medhankara and Sarankara. > See Buddhavamsa and Jatakatthakatha for details > > **** > http://www.ubakhin.com/uchittin/arimet/INTRODUC.html > > In the future (ten) Bodhisattas will attain full awakening > in the following order: the most honourable (Ariya) Metteyya, > (King) Rama, (King) Pasenadi of Kosala, (the Deva) Abhibhu, > (the Asura Deva) Dighasoni, (the Brahman) Candani, (the young > man) Subha, the Brahman Todeyya, (the elephant) Nalagiri, > and (the elephant) Palaleya [from Anagatavamsa] <...> #63331 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:18 am Subject: Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna buddhatrue Hi Phil, Phil: These days I am feeling that it is worthwhile to discuss Dhamma with you… James: Well, that's good because I am not out to get you or anything. You could very well be right in what you are saying, and I could be wrong. I am open to that possibility. My spiritual path has undergone many transformations through the years and I'm sure it will undergo even more. Let me relate something about my past to you. When I first came to Buddhism, and even after several years of serious study (mainly Zen), I knew that the Buddha taught the brahma viharas but I saw absolutely no purpose for them. I was shooting for the gold, for enlightenment! I saw the Buddha's path as just cultivating insight and that metta meditation must be some sort of window dressing I wasn't interested in. When I met my meditation teacher at a Buddhist temple in Arizona, after some time, he encouraged me to practice metta meditation in addition to insight meditation. I had no clue of what he was talking about and didn't see the point- so I didn't do it. I saw meditation as the development of detachment, and metta meditation wasn't going to lead to detachment (in my mind). So, I didn't do it. However, after several years of progressing this way, I finally hit a brick wall. I got to the point where my insight (vipassana) meditation wouldn't progress any farther. The insights I encountered during my meditation terrified me and made it impossible to go any deeper. Thankfully, at that point, I discovered DSG** which encouraged me to study the Buddha's original teachings. In studying those teachings, I found that I had not done two of the things the Buddha had specifically taught for insight to arise: jhana and the brahma viharas. I had not properly cultivated my mind for insight to arise, so I had hit the brick wall. Now I have to start all over again with the cultivation of jhana and the brahma viharas. They are the means to prepare the mind properly for insight. They aren't window dressing, they are a very necessary first step. Phil: But in the Buddha's teaching, if I understand correctly, metta meditation is related to deep absorption of some kind and is not about sitting on a cushion in one's living room and wishing this person to be well, that person to be well. James: Metta meditation, as with all meditation, must start somewhere. It doesn't begin with deep absorption; it begins with simply wishing this person and that person to be well (starting with oneself). Read some articles about it if you wish. The Vism. details all the steps involved in cultivating the brahma viharas. Phil: For example, James, the thing you do on your exercise bike. (No, not *that* thing!!!) I have done it too. It is so effective for emotional cleansing. But not truly metta meditation, I feel. James: I don't ride an exercise bike anymore because I ride a bike to and from work- and it's hard to cultivate metta when you are trying to avoid being run over! ;-)) However, when I cultivated metta on the exercise bike, there was nothing wrong with that. Phil, I just can't seem to win with you! When I tell you about cultivating metta during a non-meditation, everyday moment, you claim that isn't the right way; when I tell you about cultivating metta during meditation, you tell me that isn't the right way! Well, the Buddha did teach metta meditation, and he taught it for a specific purpose, why don't you tell me the right way to cultivate it and follow his teachings. You tell me what I should and shouldn't do, since you seem to know so much about it (and I don't mean that in the bitchy way it sounds ;-)). Metta, James ** Though I get frustrated with the KS camp within DSG, I am truly happy and thankful I came across this group. #63332 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:16 am Subject: Perfections - changes sarahprocter... Dear Nina, The following is the passage I referred to in which KS made some changes. You quoted it on 9th August in a post to Howard in a discussion on sila: N: I took up Kh. Sujin’s book on the Perfections of the Bodhisatta, on siila: < We may consider the perfections that we begin to develop. We wish to listen to the Dhamma ..... S: She asked me to cross out 'wish' and change it to 'are interested', so that it reads: 'We are interested to listen to the Dhamma'. <...> >Síla of performance, cåritta síla, is very subtle and refined, .... S: Instead of 'very subtle', she suggested it should just read 'subtle'. She pointed out that kusala cittas concerning sila are ordinary moments, not like satipatthana. ..... >and we should consider it at the present moment with sati sampajañña. For example, when a dear friend does something wrong, one may be off guard and blame him immediately in front of others. But when sati sampajañña arises, ... S: Here she asked me to cross out sampajanna and also did the same in the Thai version. So it just reads 'when sati arises'. Otherwise, it seems to refer to bhavana and particularly satipatthana. .... >one will wait for the proper opportunity and speak to him later on. This shows that defilements have to be worn off time and again, until they eventually will be completely eradicated. > .... S: Of course such eradication is only by satipatthana and the development of adhi sila. She was also discussing how sila in general has to be more and more refined of all kinds - more carita sila as well as more virati sila. For example, politeness with kusala cittas, speech with adosa and so on. This is the effect of the development of the path. I also had a chat with K.Duangduen who made the point that the study again is not just theoretical but has to show up in our daily life. We become more sincere, respectful and straightforward in our contact with others, for example, acting in a friendly manner. Those were the only changes mentioned. Metta, Sarah ====== #63333 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. sarahprocter... Dear Nina (Plamen & Howard), You wrote some helpful posts and had some good discussions on bhavanga cittas, luminous cittas and so on. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > ----------------------------------- > > N: The sutta you allude to is in the salayatanavagga, the Kindred > > Sayings on Sense (S IV), and we have to take into consideration the > > context: it is all about cittas arising in processes. > Actually we always have to look at the context. The bhavangacitta is > called pure, but in another context all cittas are called pandara, > pure (See Sarah's old messages). Why is that? Because citta > experiences an object and defilements that accompany it are cetasikas. > Evenso, in one sutta one aspect is explained, in another sutta > another aspect. One aspect cannot be rigidly applied to all other > parts of the teachings. ... S: Yes, see more in U.P. under 'bhavanga' and 'luminous'. Yes, actually all cittas are said to be pure or clear(pandara), but sometimes only the bhavanga cittas are referred to in context. But not all cittas are ever said to be luminous (pabhassara) - never akusala cittas, for example. So, it can be confusing, especially as 'pure' is sometimes used in translation for both terms. You quoted from a passage from Survey and I'm a little puzzled because we had a long discussion once in Bkk and afterwards KS said she was going to change the text to clarify and she once showed me an amendment which looked fine, I thought. Now, I see this, I wonder if it was used? Survey: "In the Dhammasangani, the citta is called 'pure' or luminous (pa.n.dara), and according to the Atthasalini this refers to the life-continuum, bhavanga-citta. The Atthasalini.......states, "Mind also is said to be 'clear' in the sense of 'exceedingly pure' with reference to the bhavanga-citta." The citta is pure only at the moment it does not experience an object through the doors of the eyes......or mind. etc" .... S: What the Atth says is: "Mind also is said to be 'clear' in the sense of 'exceedingly pure' (parisuddha.t.thena pa.n.dara.m), with reference to the subconscious life-continuum (bhava'nga.m). So the Buddha has said: - 'Bhikkhus, the mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but is corrupted by adventitious corruptions.' ... S: It continues: ... "Though immoral, it is called 'clear' (pa.n.daran)because it issues [from subconscious vital functions] just as a tributary of the Ganges ia like the Ganges and a tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the Godhaavarii." .... S: So I think that in the text above, we can say that it is luminous (pabhassaram)only at the moment it does not experience an object and is then corrupted by kilesa etc, but it is still pure (pa.n.dara.m)at such times. One problem is that sometimes it's not clear what 'pure' and 'luminous' are referring to in the text. Only a small detail and perhaps I've missed something. Metta, Sarah ======= #63334 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Discussions at the Foundation contd (a) sarahprocter... Hi Kel & Robert K, We were discussing whether there was any prior development of insights as a bodhisatta: You quoted(#62613)a passage which Rob also also raised: --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > Hi again Sarah, > > Thanks to KenO, I just found my source for Bodhisatta wisdom > development. <...> >But here, because it is > intended for the great bodhisattvas, it should be explained making > compassion and skilful means the forerunners. One further > distinction must also be made: here insight (vipassana) should be > developed only as far as purification by knowledge and vision of the > way, without attaining purification by knowledge and vision. Note: 25 .... S: Before we get to BB's translation note, I believe the reference is to the path of the bodhisatta. Once the supramundane purification of knowledge and vision is attained, of course we're no longer talking about the bodhisatta, but about the Buddha. As for when the insights leading up to this(vipassana)were developed, where in the text does it say that these were in previous lives as opposed to just before his enlightenment in his last life? .... > > 25. Purification by knowledge and vision is the supramundane wisdom > of the four noble paths. Because this purification issues in the > realization of nibbana, the bodhisattva-aspirant must stop short of > this attainment so that his realization of nibbana will coincide > with his perfect enlightenment. ... S: This is a footnote of B.Bodhi's I believe. I think it is a popular understanding but misleading. Metta, Sarah ======== #63335 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday discussion report (a) sarahprocter... Hi Robert K & Kel again, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > -Dear Sarah and Kel > Have you brought up this quote by Ledi sayadaw? > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL08.html > "Cula-sotapanna or the Virtuous One > To understand Dependent Origination or to gain Knowledge in > comprehending the Law of Causality enables one to discard the three > aforesaid Wrong Views of No-cause, Unjustified Cause of Creation, > and misleading belief in past-kamma alone. In fact this Knowledge > equips one to be a virtuous one, ever freed from the ignoble > destinies of the Four Lower Worlds, a Cula-sotapanna, a future- > stream-winner' - so the Commentaries say. Hence a goal well worth > striving for. " ... S: To his credit, I think Kel did mention that Ledi Sayadaw also indicated that on his reading of the commentaries, a cula-sotapanna was one of 'assured destiny', never liable to future destinies in the hell realms at least. Here it says the 'Four Lower Worlds' which would also include the animal and ghost realms too, I assume. I think Kel mentioned that other Burmese teachers have a different understanding. Obviously Ledi Sayadaw had access to more commentaries than we do. I'm not sure about the striving for this particular goal, but that's another issue. Metta, Sarah .... > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > S: >>....that to my understanding, once vipassana nanas > have > > been attained, one is a savaka of the Buddha from whom one heard > the > > teachings. Gotama Buddha was not a savaka of a previous Buddha. > > > > I don't think we can reach any textual agreement on this matter, > though. #63336 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 34 sarahprocter... Dear Plamen,(Howard*) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Plamen Gradinarov" wrote: <..> > Here is my short presentation > http://www.indopedia.org/Plamen_Gradinarov.html .... S: I've only just clicked on your link and for those who didn't do so, I'm copying an extract from it here as I know some friends like Nina and Jon are too busy to check them: >Plamen Gradinarov >M.Phil. (1978, Sofia University), Ph.D. (1982, Moscow State University) in German Phenomenology (Scheler), postdoctoral research in the phenomenological method of Husserl (two volumes published in 1987 and 1996), combined with studies in Indian logic and epistemology. Associate Professor since 1989. In 1990 Plamen received his Dr. Habil., or D.Litt. degree from the Russian Academy of Sciences (Institute of Philosophy) with a D.Sc. Thesis on the Philosophy of Indian Atomism. In the same year, during his stay as Visiting Professor in CASS, Dr. Gradinarov launched the Sophia Indological Series with Ajanta Books International (Delhi, India), including books like "Indian Theories of Error," Tarka-kaumudi (The Moon-Light of Logic of Laugaksi Bhaskara), the monograph "Phenomenology and Indian Epistemology", "Indo-Bulgarian Philosophical Studies," "Essence of Vaisnavism," etc. Many translations from German, English, French, Russian and Sanskrit into Bulgarian and English of mainly philosophical works have been prepared and published subsequently, including works of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Husserl, Karen Horni, Helene Deutsch, Sankara, Vacaspati Misra, Vijnana Bhiksu, etc. Founder of Eurasia Academic Publishers (Sofia, 1990) and editor of many online projects, like Indology Net (http://www.indology.net), Orientalia (http://www.orientalia.org), Yoga-darœana (http://www.yogadarsana.org), Husserl Info (http://www.husserl.info), Indopedia (http://www.indopedia.org), Scindex.Org (http://www.scienceindex.org), Global Buddhism (http://www.globalbuddhism.com), to mention some of them; listed in the 16th edition of Marquis_Who's_Who in the World. Lives in Sofia, Bulgaria. Married, with two children. < ***** S: I think you are our first active member from Bulgaria and I see you have translated (as well as written)in many languages. I've been very interested to follow your threads with Nina and others and I'm sure you'll be getting used to the use of Pali terms (as opposed to Sanskrit ones) here very easily. Meanwhile, it's interesting to guess at the Sanskrit ones you use. I saw at the link above that you have a nice pic. Can you add it to our member photo album too? (If this is difficult, I know James can help with it). Metta, Sarah *p.s Howard, someone else interested in phenomenology! Btw, I heard you may have live dhamma get-together in a week or so. Remember to add a pic too! ========= #63337 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:47 am Subject: Excellent DVD video on Sri Lankan Buddhism! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: An excellent DVD video on Buddhism on Sri Lanka 2005 have been produced by our friend Phil Hoyt USA. You may request him a for copy. His email is: hoyt@... May you enjoy the sweet spirit of this stream! Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. #63338 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:33 am Subject: Ceasing is Bliss ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to reach the Ease & Peace of Ceasing? At Savatthi, the Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, when the experience of stilling, ending, stopping, and ceasing is developed and cultivated, then it is of great fruit & immense benefit! It leads to great good, it leads to great security from bondage, it leads to a great sense of urgency, it leads to living in fearless ease & comfort! How, Bhikkhus, is the experience of ceasing developed & cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit? Here, the Bhikkhu systematically develops the: Awareness Link to Awakening, joined with the experience of ceasing. Investigation of states Link to Awakening, while examining full stilling. Energy Link to Awakening, perceiving an ultimate ending of all activity. Joy Link to Awakening, while laughing at the complete cessation of all. Tranquillity Link to Awakening, accompanied by calm & serene silencing. Concentration Link to Awakening, focused on fading away of all states. Equanimity Link to Awakening, indifferent even at the final stopping. Which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, halting, & maturing in release... It is in this very way that the experience of stilling & ceasing into peace is developed & cultivated so that it is of great advantage, great benefit, great good, great security from bondage, great sense of urgency, and living in the great ease of calmed, fearless and imperturbable comfort! Bhikkhus, when the perception of ceasing is developed and cultivated in this way fused and enhanced by the seven Links to Awakening, one of two fruits is to be expected: either final knowledge in this very life or, if there is a remaining residue of clinging, the state of non-returning... Comments: Ceasing is Bliss... Ceasing of What? Ceasing of the internal and infernal Fire of Greed, Fire of Hate, and Fire of Ignorance & their derivatives! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:133-4] section 46: The Links. 76-: Cessation... Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. #63339 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:16 am Subject: Rob's forum on jhana, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, Access & Fixed Concentration Dhamma talk by Venerable Sujivo, Kota Tinggi, January 1993 Transcribed by Bhikkhu Bodhisara There are two approaches in the practice of meditation. The first approach is called samatha yanika. Those meditators who follow this approach practise initially by using concentration, or tranquillity, as a base. This means they practise pure tranquillity meditations like kasinas, visualisations; asubhas, meditations on loathsomeness of the body. There are forty such objects enumerated in the Visuddhimagga. They usually practise until they have reached an established state: At least to upacara samadhi, or to any of the jhanas, the blissful absorptions. When they are established here, they go further and practise vipassana. The second type of approach is suddha vipassana yanika, the pure insight practice. There is another type of approach: The practice where both concentration and insight are developed. The meditators are not established in either one alone but they practise alternatingly whenever one is more suitable. Usually people talk about the first two types, the pure samatha yanika and the pure vipassana yanika. You find that both these methods have been taught by the Buddha and his instructions can be found in the Tipitaka itself. For some the Buddha taught pure samatha methods before going to vipassana. Others he taught directly the Four Foundations of Mindfulness without going through the jhanas. There are many cases of both ways in the Tipitaka. If you ask which one to practise, ideally it is the more you know the better. It's better when you know all the eight jhanas, as well as all the magga-phalas. But that would not always be possible. First, you have to find a suitable teacher who can teach you all these things. Second, of course, you need the time to do it. There are also different ways to approach it. Sometimes you may be practising vipassana for a period as we are doing here. After that, at a suitable time, one can also practise samatha. Some find that vipassana is good enough. That means they keep on practising and progressing and they do not need to go into samatha at all. Certain people find it necessary to go through some degree of samatha before they go into vipassana. But finally they will have to go to vipassana if they want to find enlightenment. In any case you have to do a lot of practice. And you need a lot of time. Of course the emphasis of the Mahasi tradition is on vipassana. Not that the teachers are ignorant about the nature of samatha. From what I gather in Myanmar we know that many of the teachers can actually teach all the forty objects of samatha. When I was there many years ago, I asked them, "Why don't you teach me samatha? I also want to learn samatha." They said: "Vipassana is more important. After you have established vipassana well then you can do all the samatha you want." The reason is that most people do not have so much time to practise. Even if you're a monk, it doesn't mean you have all the time to practise. You get involved with other things. The important thing is that while there is the sasana period we learn what we can and as much as we can in vipassana. From what we understand, the concentration in an intensive retreat in vipassana is usually able to carry a person forward for a long time. Therefore, the emphasis here is on vipassana. As a lay person has even less time than a monk he should practise what is most important. Also according to our understanding, it is rather difficult to practise samatha successfully. Moreover, it may take some time if you are required to attain the jhanas. The object must be suitable and you also must have the potential. ********* #63340 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:21 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 75. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the ``Discourse on Fools and the Wise'' (Middle Length Sayings III, 129) that the Buddha, when he was staying in the Jeta Grove, in Anåthapiùèika's monastery, spoke to the monks about the sufferings in hell and about the anguishes of animal birth. The Buddha said: ``In many a disquisition could I, monks, talk a talk about animal birth, but it is not easy to describe in full, monks, so many are the anguishes of animal birth. Monks, it is like a man who might throw a yoke with one hole into the sea. An easterly wind might take it westwards, a westerly wind might take it eastwards, a northerly wind might take it southwards, a southerly wind might take it northwards. There might be a blind turtle there who came to the surface once in a hundred years. What do you think, monks? Could that blind turtle push his neck through that one hole in the yoke?'' ``If at all, revered sir, then only once in a very long while.'' ``Sooner or later, monks, could the blind turtle push his neck through the one hole in the yoke; more difficult than that, do I say, monks, is human status once again for the fool who has gone to the Downfall. What is the cause of that? Monks, there is no dhamma-faring there, no even-faring, no doing of what is skilled, no doing of what is good. Monks, there is devouring of one another there and feeding on the weak. Monks, if some time or other once in a very long while that fool came to human status (again), he would be born into those families that are low: a family of low caste or a family of hunters or a family of bamboo-plaiters or a family of cartwrights or a family of refuse-scavengers, in such a family as is needy, without enough to drink or to eat, where a covering for the back is with difficulty obtained. Moreover, he would be ill-favoured, ugly, dwarfish, sickly, blind or deformed or lame or paralysed; he would be unable to get food, drink, clothes, vehicles, garlands, scents and perfumes, bed, dwelling and lights; he would fare wrongly in body, wrongly in speech, wrongly in thought. Because he had fared wrongly in body, speech and thought, at the breaking up of the body after dying he would arise in the sorrowful ways, a bad bourn, the Downfall, Niraya Hell... ...This, monks, is the fool's condition, completed in its entirety...'' ********* Nina. #63341 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:29 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 56 nilovg Dear friends, So one chooses only calm, one does not want to know one's akusala, one misleads oneself, one lives in an artificial world one creates oneself. While on the other hand, it is so helpful for one's daily life, one's dealing with others included, to just begin to know the seeing as only a nama which sees, visible object as only a rupa, a reality which does not know anything, no person. To know that whatever is experienced is conditioned, whether we like it or not. It helps us to accept suffering, old age, troubles. All that matters is the development of understanding which can lead us on in the right way, to walk the right way in life. In this way one makes the best of one's life. One may see two people helping someone else, but the cittas are so different. One may expect something in return, or have selfish motives, be full of the idea of self. Another person may outwardly do the same good deeds, but his citta is different: he is mindful and realizes that that moment of helping is conditioned, only a nama, not self. Thus, his whole attitude is different, but someone else may not see any difference. The life of someone who develops satipatthana is very ordinary, just daily life, but, and this is the difference, there is right understanding, or rather a developing understanding. In this way one applies the teachings. This is very ordinary, common sense advice, it may seem. But if one knows the purpose of the teachings, such advice is really different. The development of right understanding of the present reality is not always mentioned, but it is implied. We should remember this when we read the Buddha's advice to laypeople; it seems almost too ordinary, but we should understand the goal of his teachings: purification through the development of right understanding now, always now, whether one likes to hear it or not. ****** Nina. #63342 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited nilovg Dear Sukin, I just take this part since it reminds me of a discussion with Lodewijk. Namely about the fact that Kh Sujin said about my question how was Kh Charupan's cremation: just like now. Lodewijk could not take this, and I shall come back to our discussion later on. it was all very emotional. I am really touched by your wise words, you helped me. Nina. Op 13-sep-2006, om 16:11 heeft Sukinder het volgende geschreven: > This is the reason why correct intellectual understanding is so much > stressed. It is not just stating the facts, i.e. realties, > conditionality and > the tilakkhana, but *understanding* better and better, these same > concepts. The result of this is a growing confidence that indeed "this > moment" is conditioned and beyond control, and that the dhammas > arising here and now are no different from those there and then. Two > persons may express the same words about Dhamma, but the > difference is that one knows deeply enough not to think of another > time > and place, while the other still has doubts as to whether another time > and place might not be more conducive to development of sati and > panna. #63343 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/16/06 5:08:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > S: So I think that in the text above, we can say that it is luminous > (pabhassaram)only at the moment it does not experience an object and is > then corrupted by kilesa etc, but it is still pure (pa.n.dara.m)at such > times. > ============================= For me, the Pabhassara Sutta, which points out the adventitiousness of defilements is sufficient. It is an incredibly important sutta, for if defilements were intrinsic, freedom would be unrealizable. As for the statement of yours above, it strikes me as contrary to the Pabhassara Sutta, because that sutta speaks of mind as luminous whether defiled or not. ["Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.] The adventitiousness of defilement is what makes possible liberation. That is of essential importance. Whether there are bhavanga-cittas or not, and if there are what their is exact nature is far less important. With metta, Howard #63344 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 34 upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/16/06 6:23:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > *p.s Howard, someone else interested in phenomenology! Btw, I heard > you may have live dhamma get-together in a week or so. Remember to > add a pic too! > ====================== Thanks. :-) Good idea about a picture! My digital camera isn't working at the moment - I had better pick up a disposable one! With metta, Howard P.S. I think of it more as a meeting of dear friends than a live Dhamma get-together, but, of course, it is both. ;-) #63345 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about citta and cetasika nilovg Dear David, welcome here. If you have any questions, do ask. Nina. Op 14-sep-2006, om 16:56 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Conditions are what it's all about, I feel. Here's a link to a great > book Nina wrote on the topic. > > http://www.dhammastudy.com/Conditions.html #63346 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi again, Sarah - In a message dated 9/16/06 10:29:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > Whether there are bhavanga-cittas or not, and > if there are what their is exact nature is far less important. > ===================== That came out jumbled. What I meant was "Whether there are bhavanga-cittas or not, and if there are what is their exact nature, is far less important." (Less important than the adventitiousness of defilement.) Bhavanga-cittas, if realities, are, IMO, among the many simsapa leaves not held in the Buddha's hand, whereas the adventitiousness of defilement is a leaf held high between thumb and index finger. With metta, Howard #63347 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ditthi (Jon) nilovg Hi Phil. but you do not have to think that it is self, also without thinking there can be wrong view. Sense-door processes and mind-door processes alternate very rapidly, and when ditthi arises in a mind-door process taking a ruupa for self, this can be closely followed again by a sense-door process with wrong view. I remember another case where it was asked: can satipatthana arise in a sense-door process? This is similar to above: who can stop satipatthana from arising in a sense-door process, Kh Sujin answered. We know that all eight lobha-mulacittas and all eight mahaakusala cittas can also arise in a sense-door process. This is all according to conditions. There is no time to do anything, as Rob K said when quoting the text about the elements. Nina. Op 14-sep-2006, om 16:50 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Acharn sujin answered "do you think rupa is yours" or something > like that, and of course Tamara answered yes, honetly. "So there is > ditthi" said Acharan Sujin. But thinking about whether rupa is self > or not is all mind door. I didn't see what that had to do with > ditthi at the sense door process. #63348 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna nilovg Hi Phil, kara.niiya.m atthakusalena. See PTS Minor Readings and Illustrator. Nina. Op 15-sep-2006, om 3:42 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > I add a question re the metta sutta - the opening "those skilled in > goodness" - what exactly does that mean? Pali please, someone, or > commentarial material. Thanks in advance. #63349 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna nilovg Hi James, I am glad. But please, do not think in the way of camps. You used the word re Kom's post, he had used it. But though people think differently, is it not better just to exchange views? Nina. Op 16-sep-2006, om 9:18 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Though I get frustrated with the KS camp within DSG, I am truly > happy and thankful I came across this group. #63350 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. nilovg Dear Sarah, hard to trace. What you quote from the atth. is fine. I made a footnote in survey about pandara. Now I wonder whether even akusala citta is pure if we only look at the function of citta, knowing an object? I agree pabhassara and pandara is confusing. Nina. Op 16-sep-2006, om 10:49 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > But not all cittas are ever said to be luminous (pabhassara) - never > akusala cittas, for example. So, it can be confusing, especially as > 'pure' > is sometimes used in translation for both terms. > > You quoted from a passage from Survey and I'm a little puzzled > because we > had a long discussion once in Bkk and afterwards KS said she was > going to > change the text to clarify and she once showed me an amendment which > looked fine, #63351 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:07 am Subject: Purity and Luminosity (Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3.) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & Sarah - In a message dated 9/16/06 11:37:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Dear Sarah, > hard to trace. What you quote from the atth. is fine. I made a > footnote in survey about pandara. Now I wonder whether even akusala > citta is pure if we only look at the function of citta, knowing an > object? I agree pabhassara and pandara is confusing. > Nina. > ====================== I suspect that citta is "pure" only when unaccompanied by (active) defilement, but it is always "luminous" (pabhassara) in the sense of defilements not being intrinsic. So, as I see it, the "purity" (in the sense I give above) can come and go, but the "luminosity" (also in the sense I give) is always present. The luminosity is an absence - the absence of inherent flaw, with corruption/defilement being extrinsic and removable. That luminosity provides the potential for awakening. Without it, awakening would be an unrealizable pipe dream. With metta, Howard #63352 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:04 am Subject: Re: too distracted scottduncan2 Hi connie, Pleasant arising! c: "Distracted, addicted... still the same old rut. Meghiya runs off to this apparently beautiful old glory hole and gone is whatever touch with reality he had. One of the dryers breaks down at work & we're all variously twisted around it in our own unpleasant ways. The manager more or less yells that "when things are different they'll be different" and I really LOL and 'careering deer' i am, mimic him then and there trying to keep from laughing more. Maybe we can not read each other's minds, but faces were sure going thru some changes. No doubt about my living heedless." Work-a-day distractions: Me too but weird job where distractions arise in human (not machine) form with vapourous emotions. Am I distracted or do I remain withdrawn? Too often heedless. Best so far is looking calm while feeling distracted. Which is vipaaka? Which is clinging (when the guy appears spewing unpleasantness)? Where is the glory hole? Inside? Or outside? Not likely conceptual at all. Probably not a place. c: "I've really got to do some reading." You as well? With loving kindness, Scott. #63353 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. nilovg Dear Sarah, Survey, p. 56, footnote 6, but it is missing on line: "Though immoral, it is called 'clear' (pa.n.daran)because it issues > [from > subconscious vital functions] just as a tributary of the Ganges ia > like > the Ganges and a tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the > Godhaavarii." > .... > S: So I think that in the text above, we can say that it is luminous > (pabhassaram)only at the moment it does not experience an object > and is > then corrupted by kilesa etc, but it is still pure (pa.n.dara.m)at > such > times. > > One problem is that sometimes it's not clear what 'pure' and > 'luminous' > are referring to in the text. #63354 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 34 nilovg Hi Howard, Lodewijk just bought a digital camera he takes to New York for the occasion. Don't bother. He only does not know how to connect it with the computer, but we shall manage. Nina. Op 16-sep-2006, om 16:21 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > *p.s Howard, someone else interested in phenomenology! Btw, I heard > > you may have live dhamma get-together in a week or so. Remember to > > add a pic too! > > > ====================== > Thanks. :-) Good idea about a picture! My digital camera isn't working > at the moment - I had better pick up a disposable one! #63355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. nilovg Hi Howard, I give more of this sutta with Pali: N:The ordinary person who has not learned (the Dhamma, not listened to it) does not understand it as it really is. > tasmaa assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhaavanaa natthiiti vadaamiiti. N:Therefore I say that for the ordinary person who has not listened there is no mental development (literally. free: the ordinary person who has not listened to the Dhamma has not developed the mind.) > 1. 6. 2. > pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi > vippamutta.m. N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed released from oncoming defilements. >ta.m sutavaa ariyasaavako yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati. N: The learned noble disciple understand it as it really is. >tasma sutavato ariyasaavakassa cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti. N: Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has developed the mind. *** I added some remarks in this Pali lesson with Jim: Remarks: sutavaa seems to be from sutavant, just like mahaa from mahavant. Ta~nca: a niggahita before the c. Aagantuka: who has arrived, a visitor. The upakilesas, defilements arising with the citta (different from the anusayas, latent tendencies who do not arise with the akusala citta but can condition akusala), are like visitors from outside. It seems disturbing, but we have to note: the ariyan knows the citta as it really is: yathaabutta. One has to know also akusala citta as it is, otherwise one cannot become an ariyan, this is stressed in this short sutta. Yathaabhuuta: bhuuta: that which has grown, is, exists, the truth. yathaabhuuta: in its real essence, according to the truth. .... The person who is enlightened, the ariyasaavako, has eradicated anusayas by the development of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path. It is pa~n~naa which knows realities as they are, yathaabhuuta, no other way. Anusayas are eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment, and only the arahat is freed from all defilements, he has no more latent tendencies of defilements, no conditions for their arising. ****** Nina. Op 16-sep-2006, om 16:14 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > or me, the Pabhassara Sutta, which points out the adventitiousness of > defilements is sufficient. It is an incredibly important sutta, for if > defilements were intrinsic, freedom would be unrealizable. As for > the statement of > yours above, it strikes me as contrary to the Pabhassara Sutta, > because that > sutta speaks of mind as luminous whether defiled or not. > ["Luminous, monks, is > the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. Luminous, > monks, is the > mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.] > The adventitiousness of defilement is what makes possible liberation. > That is of essential importance. Whether there are bhavanga-cittas > or not, and > if there are what their is exact nature is far less important. #63356 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. pgradinarov Dear Nina (Sarah and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >The characteristic of citta is experiencing an object, and thus it is not defiled by upakilesas (accompanying akusala cetasikas), hence citta is by nature (sabhaava) pure. When it isaccompanied by upakilesas, which defile it, it is still called 'pan.d.ara.m' (pure). > If the characteristic of citta is to experience an object, then bhavanga-citta, being a consciousness, must also experience an object which is obviously not the case. Bhavanga-citta is rather the potentiality of experiencing an object which potentiality turns to actulity when the corresponding seeds get ripened or stays forever luminous if the ripening (vipaka) gets prevented by the second type of nirodha. "Experiencing an object" and "not defiled" are incompatible conditions, because "having an object" is already "being defiled." Such is the nature (svabhava) of the salambana-klistamanovijnana (the defiled mind possessing objects). Or probably there are some words missing in the quote because I fail to see the logical connection betweeh the thesis (experiencing an object), the ground (whatever is experiencing an object is not defiled by upakilesas), and the conclusion (citta is pure). Because citta is pure when there are no objects defiling it. Or is this a deluded citta thinking so? Kindest regards, Plamen #63357 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 34 upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/16/06 3:20:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Lodewijk just bought a digital camera he takes to New York for the > occasion. Don't bother. He only does not know how to connect it with > the computer, but we shall manage. > Nina. > ========================== Okay, great! :-) One of these days I'll have to buy a new camera. The current one is just past warrantee, and the cost of repair makes it more sensible to buy a new one. But no time to go shopping for the right one to get at this time. Looking forward to hearing from you, Nina, and seeing you both! :-) With metta, Howard #63358 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Plamen (and Nina & Sarah) - In a message dated 9/16/06 5:12:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, pgradinarov@... writes: > Dear Nina (Sarah and Howard), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > >The characteristic of citta is experiencing an object, and thus it > is not defiled by upakilesas (accompanying akusala cetasikas), hence > citta is by nature (sabhaava) pure. When it isaccompanied by > upakilesas, which defile it, it is still called 'pan.d.ara.m' (pure). > > > > If the characteristic of citta is to experience an object, then > bhavanga-citta, being a consciousness, must also experience an > object which is obviously not the case. Bhavanga-citta is rather the > potentiality of experiencing an object which potentiality turns to > actulity when the corresponding seeds get ripened or stays forever > luminous if the ripening (vipaka) gets prevented by the second type > of nirodha. -------------------------------------- Howard: From what Nina has said, it would seem that the position of the Theravadin commentators is that bhavanga-cittas do have an object - the same one as that of the prior rebirth citta, though, somehow, it is not known through any sense door. (That all strikes me as quite odd, but that is what the story is supposed to be. I await correction, though, on the details.) ------------------------------------------ > > "Experiencing an object" and "not defiled" are incompatible > conditions, because "having an object" is already "being defiled." -------------------------------------------- Howard: The living Buddha was aware of objects. Were his mindstates defiled? I don't think so. -------------------------------------------- > Such is the nature (svabhava) of the salambana-klistamanovijnana > (the defiled mind possessing objects). > > Or probably there are some words missing in the quote because I fail > to see the logical connection betweeh the thesis (experiencing an > object), the ground (whatever is experiencing an object is not > defiled by upakilesas), and the conclusion (citta is pure). > > Because citta is pure when there are no objects defiling it. > > Or is this a deluded citta thinking so? > > Kindest regards, > > Plamen > =========================== I have always considered "defilement" to refer to defilement by the three poisons. Awareness of an object when there is no presence of ignorance, craving, or aversion, no sense of self in either knowing or known, and not even the slightest inclination to grasp seems to me to have no aspect of defilement to it. It seems to me that neither content of consciousness nor lack of content is preferable for one who has realized freedom. With metta, Howard #63359 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Ditthi (Jon) philofillet Hi Nina Thanks. > but you do not have to think that it is self, also without thinking > there can be wrong view. > Sense-door processes and mind-door processes alternate very rapidly, > and when ditthi arises in a mind-door process taking a ruupa for > self, this can be closely followed again by a sense-door process with > wrong view. So ditthi first in the mind-door process, and then in a following sense-door process? I think I share Tamara's feeling, that she expressed in that talk - she and I maybe misunderstand what ditthi means, thinking it to be only wrong views such as the belief in rules and rituals when in fact it can much more subtly be takingrupa for self. I'll discuss this more with Jon, when we both have time. (Not because he understoods it better than you, but because I have never discussed things with him and would like to after having heard him in so many discussions.) Phil #63360 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:50 pm Subject: Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna philofillet Hi James > James: Well, that's good because I am not out to get you or > anything. You could very well be right in what you are saying, and > I could be wrong. I am open to that possibility. My spiritual path > has undergone many transformations through the years and I'm sure it > will undergo even more. I definitely feel the same way. Definitely. I am open. But I suspect the shift will come more from my own developing understanding rather than having understanding pushed on me by someone in a debate-like exchange. I am not stupid and have certainly come to see where my Dhamma friends (people in my "camp" as you and others sometimes say) are inconsistent on some points. I cacn see that on my own, and should see it on my own. But it it is a gradual thing, listening, reflecting, and as things settle slowly seeing where some things don't settle quite right. At DSG this process is sped up in a counterproductive way. The pond gets stirred up too much and things don't have time to settle. The nature of the internet rather than any shortcoming on your part or others I tend to disagree with. I have some doubts about the internet being helpful in developing understanding. Perhaps those doubts will settle too. > a brick wall. I got to the point where my insight (vipassana) > meditation wouldn't progress any farther. The insights I > encountered during my meditation terrified me and made it impossible > to go any deeper. Thankfully, at that point, I discovered DSG** > which encouraged me to study the Buddha's original teachings. In > studying those teachings, I found that I had not done two of the > things the Buddha had specifically taught for insight to arise: > jhana and the brahma viharas. I had not properly cultivated my mind > for insight to arise, so I had hit the brick wall. Now I have to > start all over again with the cultivation of jhana and the brahma > viharas. They are the means to prepare the mind properly for > insight. They aren't window dressing, they are a very necessary > first step. I see. I read a good passage about the brahma-viharas, from someone called Venarable Sujiva - "Metta in Buddhism is a state of mind. Its object is the lovable being. It is the state of wishing to promote the welfare of the lovable being. In the Buddhist teaching, the doctrine of anatta or nonself occupies a postiion of prime importance. As such it may seem to be conflicting. This is because there are two types of truths - sammuti and paramattha. At such a time (vipassana) we cannot be having metta as the nature of the object differs. Comparatively, vipassana is more profound and superior, since it frees one utterly from all sufferings of samsara. Metta, however, must not be understimated although it has its limitations. Most of us will need a lot of time before we have completed the work of insight cultivation. And even after that metta will stillplay a great role. Even Buddhas are not without conceptual objects. The Brahma Viharas act as a soothing blam to those still within samsara. Besides this , we see metta as an efective means to...overcome anger...build up the reuqired concentration base for development of insight because with metta our mind concentrates rapidly..for a healthy relationshop with ever living being." So I guess this gets at what you are saying. >> James: Metta meditation, as with all meditation, must start > somewhere. It doesn't begin with deep absorption; it begins with > simply wishing this person and that person to be well (starting with > oneself). Read some articles about it if you wish. The Vism. > details all the steps involved in cultivating the brahma viharas. I've read probably hundreds of articles about it. I belonged to a Yahoog roup devoted to brahma-viharas before I came to DSG - and that is where I began to see a lot of shortcomings in the way the bvs are taught today. I won't go in to them - you've heard it all before. > > > James: I don't ride an exercise bike anymore because I ride a bike > to and from work- and it's hard to cultivate metta when you are > trying to avoid being run over! ;-)) However, when I cultivated > metta on the exercise bike, there was nothing wrong with that. > Phil, I just can't seem to win with you! When I tell you about > cultivating metta during a non-meditation, everyday moment, you > claim that isn't the right way; when I tell you about cultivating > metta during meditation, you tell me that isn't the right way! I won't tell you any more. I'll tell you something very helpful, though, that I recommend to everyone. I find relfecting on the "burning" sutta (SN 35:26 if I recall correctly, somewhere near there) is incredibly helpful for promoting/condition metta. We're all in the same boat. Hard not to feel friendly toward someone when reflecting that we are all subject to the same burning of ignorance, hatred and greed - all of us, without exception. Only the ariyans devleop the revulsion (nibbida) that frees them from it. It really has helped me to let go of irritations in daily life so easily. (adosa is metta, as you know.) OK, let's drop this now. Nice to touch bases with you. When I come back from Nagoya (away next week) maybe we could look at "Burning" in more detail. It is where I am coming from these days but being that it is so important for me I am probably latching on to aspects with lobha and misunderstanding them. Phil #63361 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna philofillet Hi Nina Thanks. Not any more specific than the English, in this case. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Phil, > kara.niiya.m atthakusalena. alternatively, anything at all that is beneficial to oneself (attano > hita.m), ... By one with skill in good: atthakusalena... by one > clever in good is what is meant....> > See PTS Minor Readings and Illustrator. > Nina. > Op 15-sep-2006, om 3:42 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > > > I add a question re the metta sutta - the opening "those skilled in > > goodness" - what exactly does that mean? Pali please, someone, or > > commentarial material. Thanks in advance. #63362 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:24 pm Subject: Why did the Buddha hesitate? philofillet Hi Nina (and all) I often hear in the talks that the Buddha was reluctant at first to go out into the world and teach because he knew that his way went against the way of the world. What exactly do the texts say on this matter? Thanks in advance. (And only when you have time - I am off to Naomi's hometown for a few days.) Phil #63363 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:36 pm Subject: Re: Why did the Buddha hesitate? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi Nina (and all) > > I often hear in the talks that the Buddha was reluctant at first to > go out into the world and teach because he knew that his way went > against the way of the world. What exactly do the texts say on this > matter? Thanks in advance. (And only when you have time - I am off ____________________ Dear Phil The commentary to Majjihma nikaya sutta 26 (p1217 of Bodhi's translation). The Atthakatha raises the question of why after countless aeons of striving to become a Buddha who could teach the Dhamma he now had such thoughts. The answer is that it was only now, after becoming a Buddha that he realised just how strong defilements were in people. And only now could he fully realise just how profound the Dhamma is.. Another reason was that he wanted Brahma to ask him to teach (so other s would understand how precious this teaching is) Robert #63364 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:32 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited sukinderpal Hi Howard, > >Howard: > > Kamma vipaka consists of dhammas, Ken! > >---------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I wanted to ask you about this each time that you made a reference to > it. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Each time I make reference to what? There is nothing but dhammas. What is unusual in saying that kamma vipaka consists of dhammas? S> I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that your reason for highlighting kamma/vipaka, identifying them sometimes as being "dhammas" and at other times as an important Buddhist teaching, is to substantiate your claim that 'conventional intention' to note/ meditate/ guard the senses/ put in effort, is a necessary part of the practice. (?) ===================================== > What understanding of kamma/vipaka do you have in mind when you > refer to the `intention' to note the rise and fall of khandas? What is the > mechanism involved? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see my recent post to Sarah (and David) on conditionality. S> I suppose you are referring to post 63265 and the following conclusion made there: <> S> I believe that conventional reality does correspond with some ultimate realities. However what these might be at any given moment, only panna can know. Knowing this, I wouldn't come in from the side of the conventional reality and use the knowledge of 'dhammas' to justify that. No meditator considers his efforts wrong, or concentration wrong, or sati as being wrong, as long as he follows some conventional description of what constitutes right 'practice'. So too the 'intention' to do so, is never suspected as being anything but kusala. Ken H. often reminds us about there being "only dhammas" and this may sound trite. But it really isn't,because we still don't understand this deeply enough. It should sink in to the bone. From this perspective and the fact that ignorance and craving is so prevalent, and unless panna arises in the moment, I think we should be careful not to believe our ideas about any kusala intentions. It is perhaps relatively safe to act upon those intentions involving dana, sila, metta, karuna and so on. We've likely accumulated more conditions for these to arise by natural decisive support condition. However it must be quite a different case with satipatthana. This involves a very good understanding of anatta and conditionality. There is no room here for any 'practice' done with 'self'. The patipatti evolves from firm pariyatti, and even this latter we can't claim to have. Indeed we are swimming in the ocean of concepts day and night and it is no surprise that even with regard to Dhamma, we are going to react to this by way of stories. Stories in which there is a 'self' here who has to do something to get there. But in fact, there are only dhammas! It is imperative therefore, that we seek to understand this very moment instead of following any ideas about another time, place, posture and object. For if there is no panna now, then with what confidence do we then undertake the conventional practice. Saddha of kusala in general is one thing, but saddha of the Buddha kind is quite another. It goes intimately with panna. It seems to me that that other kind of confidence has little to do with this kind of Saddha. It is the kind of confidence that at one time and in one form or the other says to the effect that it does not "need" to hear the theory, but only to get on with the "practice". Huh! ====================================== > My understanding is that kamma which results in vipaka is > kusala/akusala intention of certain strength. This may be purely mental > or it can manifest as verbal or bodily action. Vipaka on the other hand, > manifests as the five sense-door experiences. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Are you saying there is no namic vipaka? Perhaps that goes under another name than 'vipaka'? S> Vipaka is only nama. Others like rebirth consciousness, bhavanga, receiving consciousness etc. is not relevant here, the ones that matter in terms of our moment to moment experiences are just these 5 sense cognitions, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and body consciousness. I was asking about what vipaka you have in mind when thinking about 'intention to pay attention'. ============================= > Surely if I hit someone so hard that I hurt my hand or he hits me back, > this is not kamma/vipaka relationship, is it? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is an event (i.e.,series of dhammas) clearly conditioned in part by akusala intention. The "connection" is clear. That is a fact. Whether that conditionality is called "vipaka" or not holds little interest for me. S> We may see/make connections in the sphere of conventional reality. But even here nothing is predictable. In terms of dhammas giving rise to other dhammas, I think we should be happy with knowing that we don't know. ;-) ============================== > So you wouldn't make this > kind of connection between `intention to note' and any > consequent `noting', would you? -------------------------------------------- Howard: WHAT "kind of connection"? Certainly there is a connection between intention to note and noting. S> Roughly, thinking conditions more thinking. Tanha and wrong view with regard to Dhamma is papanca and any future becoming is more papanca. This is very important to realize. What so called meditators call sati is a form of thinking only. We have been conditioned since ever to react to thoughts with more thinking. We hear about momentary dhammas and when we follow the advice to pay attention, automatically our attention goes to concept of these, including 'location' of where they arise. The other day there were conditions for me to pay attention to what goes through the ears, and for about five minutes I experienced various sounds as never happened before. Was it sati? Definitely not! But had I not known better, I might have thought otherwise. It is the same thing with 'sitting or walking meditation'. Pure papanca to conceive of the idea, and pure papanca which follows. One is supposed to observe the various namas and rupas, and instantly without much difficulty, one *does* observe much more than one ever did. Is this more awareness? Yes, if one distinguishes this from the development of satipatthana and know that it is not what the Buddha taught, being in essence no different from the kind of attention one is already used to having without the Teachings. It is this that many aim to and *do* have for extended periods of time. But this is not the development of satipatthana. "Dhammas" are not observable by anyone in this way; and this is not how the ariyan's world is like. But avijja does make people feel that they are on the right track. One thing I've always wanted to point out and perhaps I already did (to Htoo?). If indeed those extended periods of mindfulness was satipatthana, then it reflects a very high level of panna. Then why is it that there is so much resistance to certain everyday life situations and seeking of a quieter environment? One's confidence should have grown greater to not be intimidated by any idea of unsuitable time and place! Dhammas are after all the same everywhere, just one moment of citta arising and taking on one object at a time. Loud noise and relative quiet both involve equally fleeting dhammas. The problem as I see it, is that meditators continue to observe only *concepts*, and only in that world there occurs comparison, hence aversion to one and attachment to another. One problem is that there is a change in what is observed and understandably there is attachment to these results. I really wish this could be seen. ============================= > I don't pay much attention to `intention' for the reason that > > its quality is determined by these other dhammas. And any time there > is `self reference', a concern about where one is at or will be, then likely > it is avijja conditioning some cheating dhammas that is doing the > talking. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think it is very important to pay great attention to intention and to what motivates it. S> Again, thinking conditions more thinking. If it is a 'thought' which one intends to get to the root of, then this very thinking would also require getting to the root of, and on and on. Hence the Path is one of satipatthana leading to vipassana and not some thought analysis. ----------------------------------------- > For some of us even right intellectual understanding does not arise, > worse, there may even be wrong view. And it is not so much that we > act conventionally with `self'. We `do' things with either tanha, mana or > ditthi. The first two is not much of an obstacle to the development of > panna, unlike the last one. Ditthi understands wrongly and therefore > whatever is then done in the name of Dhamma/development, will lead > in the wrong direction and accumulate. And as you know, I believe that > this idea of `intentional noting' is a consequence of such wrong view, > one that denies at that moment, the fact of conditionality. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, we can pay attention or not. The more we pay attention, the better we get at it. (Restated in DSG-speak: The more that attention is present, the more frequently and intensely it tends to arise.) It is important to pay attention. Doing so needs, itself, to be kept in mind. When no effort is made to do so, the ability will wane. It is a skill, Sukin, and it calls for cultivation. S> DSG-speak is not important, there is no problem with conventional speak; it is the understanding which needs to agree. :-) --------------------------------------------- > difference is that one knows deeply enough not to think of another time > and place, while the other still has doubts as to whether another time > and place might not be more conducive to development of sati and > panna. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Some conditions are more suitable for certain ends than others. That is a universal truth. But it is also true that every time and every place is the time and place for cultivation. S> But there is a world of a difference between one who believes in deliberate intention and one who sees conditionality everywhere including any 'intention'. ;-) Metta, Sukin #63365 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. pgradinarov Dear Howard, Technically, developing prajna is also defilement, although kusala. The paratantra manas is called klistamanovijnana (defiled mind) because of its salambanatva (having objects). Alayavijnana (bhavanga- citta) is all objectless, yet has the seeds that bring to the rise of the subject-object dichotomy. It has the perfume (vasana) of the object rather than the object (alambana) itself. Having no phenomenal objects at the alambana pole of the intentional arc, alayavijnana is called niralambana. Kindest regards, Plamen #63366 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > Hi Nina > > Thanks. Not any more specific than the English, in this case. .... S: I added a little more before on these lines which may be of help: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/49448 (from that message) > > The Metta Sutta: > > This is what should be done > By one who is skilled in goodness, <...> ... S: There is a lot we could discuss further on the Metta Sutta. I believe metta has to be developed like other wholesome qualities -- not by trying to emulate the truly wise and noble. For example, starting with the first two lines, what does it mean 'by one who is skilled in goodness'? There is lots of detail in the commentary, summarised as: "Herein those 'with skill in good', praised either in so far as they are established in the virtue that provides non-remorse, or [in so far as] they exert themselves in the 'way of suppression of defilement', [or in so far as they attain] the paths and fruitions, are 'those with skill in good' in this sense.' And those bhikkhus were of such kinds." The bhikkhus addressed were ripe for attaining the various jhanas and becoming arahants too. We should know whether there really can be universal metta right now or whether there can just be the understanding and development of metta in our daily lives as we meet and speak to people around us.< ***** Metta, Sarah (lots more under 'Metta' and 'Metta sutta' in U.P. > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > kara.niiya.m atthakusalena. > alternatively, anything at all that is beneficial to oneself > (attano > > hita.m), ... By one with skill in good: atthakusalena... by one > > clever in good is what is meant....> > > See PTS Minor Readings and Illustrator. #63367 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters from Nina, 34 sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Nina & Lodewijk, --- upasaka@... wrote: > Looking forward to hearing from you, Nina, and seeing you both! > :-) .... S: Besides the pics, we'll all look forward to your reports of the occasion, I'm sure:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #63368 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussions at Kaeng Krajan (3) sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > S: There were very large numbers of lay people who listened to the > Buddha, > > became enlightened and were never encouraged to ordain. Only those > who > > were suited to ordaining and living the 'life of an arahant' were > > encouraged to ordain. > J:> Where do you get this information? From my understanding, if a lay > person becomes enlightened he must become ordained or pass into > paranibbana. Lay life is incompatible with arahanthood. .... S: Yes, lay life is incompatible with arahanthood, but very large numbers of lay people became englightened as sotapannas and sakadagamis and continued their ordinary ways of living. Think of famous ones like Visakkha and Anathapindika. Were they ever encouraged to ordain? I don't think so. I don't think we have to be concerned about what our lifestyles would be like if we were arahants for now:-) We can't begin to imagine what it would be like to live without attachment in a day, can we? Metta, Sarah ======= #63369 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:08 am Subject: just like now. nilovg Dear friends, I shall now render the discussion Lodewijk and I had during our trip. When I asked how Khun Charupan's cremation was, Kh Sujin answered: Just like now. Lodewijk: This is unhuman, sad and depressing. Nina: Do you mind having aversion? We do so long as we take aversion for self, but understanding can be the condition to mind less having aversion. One person explains the Dhamma in one way, another person in another way. Everyone should develop his own understanding. It is good to remember that Kh. Sujin goes to all cremations she is invited to, in order to give support to others. She is concerned about her fellow human beings. Why is she speaking like this? We live mostly in the conventional world without any awareness of realities. With such a saying she likes to help us to be aware of seeing and visible object that appear all the time. Lodewijk: I feel that her remark touches on the essence of the Dhamma. N: It is important that you see this, it shows your understanding. At a cremation and also at this moment there are many different dhammas: sadness and aversion, pleasant and unpleasant results produced by kamma, seeing, thinking. We may think of the Twin Towers that were destroyed and all the people who died. L: I understand that everything is dhamma. I understand that there is the world of ultimate realities and conventional realities. N: Realities are the same, no matter where we are, in the sense of being only nama and rupa. L: The danger of these words is that they may become a slogan: there is only the present moment, there are only nama and rupa. N: Quite right. If we just repeat these words, but do not realize the truth this may be a slogan. That is why Kh Sujin emphasizes that we have to develop our own understanding. It can also be a consolation that no matter at a cremation or here there are nama and rupa arising and falling away. We experience great loss at a funeral or cremation, this life is gone and then there is another life. Also now this citta is gone and then there is another citta and that is momentary death. Nama and rupa cannot stay, they have to fall away. ----- I discussed with Lodewijk what I heard on a Thai tape. The aim of the teachings is detachment. This should not be merely words, it means letting go of what is dear. When we begin to understand that what is seen is only visible object, not a person or thing, there is already a degree of detachment. If we see the value of understanding it will develop more, and not merely theoretical understanding that what is seen is visible object or colour. What is seen, no matter at a cremation or here in a room is the same: visible object. On account of what we see we think in different ways. We think with kusala citta or akusala citta. Lodewijk said that he already listened to the Dhamma for forty years and understands so little of direct awareness. N: But think of the aeons of latent tendencies that were accumulated, including ignorance. I think of the Therigatha, a bhikkhuni who for aeons accumulated understanding and also taught the Abhidhamma. In her last life she met the Buddha and realized the truth. Forty years is nothing. By listening we can have more confidence in the Dhamma. ------ We were walking on the street and discussing Dhamma. We may think of our feet or the street, but sometimes hardness or pressure appears without thinking of the body or the street. Of course there are many moments of ignorance following bodyconsciousness that experience rupas. But by listening and considering there may be conditions for awareness. Provided we do not try with lobha to have sati. L: How do I know that there is direct experience of nama and rupa? N: When time comes, only by pa~n~naa. Your question stems from thinking. This does not help. I like to ocnclude, quoting Sukin's words: (end quote). Nina. #63370 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (& Nina), --- upasaka@... wrote: > The adventitiousness of defilement is what makes possible > liberation. > That is of essential importance. Whether there are bhavanga-cittas or > not, and > if there are what their is exact nature is far less important. .... S: I would put it that 'the adventitiousness of defilement' (or simply the arising of lobha in particular) is what makes the path and liberation necessary. If there was no lobha, there'd be no purpose in developing insight. There is a distinction between pabhassaara (luminous) and pandara (clear/pure) in the Theravada texts. Luminous never refers to the nature of all cittas. It is only ever used for sobhana cittas, bhavanga cittas (as here) and in some contexts to nibbana. It's also used in some contexts to refer to rupas conditioned by sobhana cittas. It's all very intricate and rather technical, but I think it's misleading as I've seen in some Mahayana quotes of these lines to suggest that all cittas are luminous and it's just a matter of clearing away the defilements for their true state to appear (or something along those lines). I'm not suggesting that you think or say this of course! I appreciate your point about the lesser importance of bhavanga cittas, but I do think that however they are referred to, it's important to appreciate that there is a continuation of cittas without any break, no matter whether we're awake, asleep or what. I know you agree with this. For years when I started getting into the Abhidhamma, I used to just ignore all references to bhavangas, so I sympathise with your comments:-). [Nina, yes, the footnote in Survey which I hadn't noticed before is v.good. Yes, even akusala citta is pure (pandara)in the sense it just experiences its object, so I don't think we can say it's not pure (pandara)as soon as objects impinge on the sense doors or we have to clarify perhaps. Of course, we know what is meant.] Metta, Sarah ======= #63371 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited nilovg Dear Sukin, There can be a moment of sati and then holding on with lobha. It is hard to know because the cittas go so fast. One can only know for oneself. Had you not heard of hearing being different from thinking about sound you would not know anything. There is akusala more often than kusala, but on the other hand it is not so that all moments are akusala, and only akusala. Nina. Op 18-sep-2006, om 3:32 heeft sukinder het volgende geschreven: > The other day there were conditions for me to pay attention to what > goes > through the ears, and for about five minutes I experienced various > sounds as > never happened before. Was it sati? Definitely not! But had I not > known > better, I might have thought otherwise. It is the same thing with > 'sitting > or walking meditation'. #63372 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: too distracted sarahprocter... Hi Connie & Scott, Jumping into the ocean of Connie & Scott's rap in 'the same old rut' (not with any illusion of being able to keep up with the wit, of course!): --- Scott Duncan wrote: > c: "Distracted, addicted... still the same old rut. Meghiya runs off > to this apparently beautiful old glory hole and gone is whatever touch > with reality he had. One of the dryers breaks down at work & we're all > variously twisted around it in our own unpleasant ways. The manager > more or less yells that "when things are different they'll be > different" and I really LOL and 'careering deer' i am, mimic him then > and there trying to keep from laughing more. Maybe we can not read > each other's minds, but faces were sure going thru some changes. No > doubt about my living heedless." > Scott:> Work-a-day distractions: Me too but weird job where distractions > arise in human (not machine) form with vapourous emotions. Am I > distracted or do I remain withdrawn? Too often heedless. Best so far > is looking calm while feeling distracted. Which is vipaaka? Which is > clinging (when the guy appears spewing unpleasantness)? Where is the > glory hole? Inside? Or outside? Not likely conceptual at all. > Probably not a place. .... Sarah: And this end we're back from our trip into major household works - last week the place was all covered in plastic sheeting with attempts to stop the flooding air-conditioner. No wonder there were so many typos as I typed messages to Math and others standing up at a corner of Jon's desk unable to access mine and then to cap it, he went down with a 3 day wonder fever - so that was the bedroom out of action too:-) The dusty life, but just the ordinary dhammas arising and falling. 'Just like now!'. It's all a long, long story about what's all gone already. Seeing then (no matter how many plastic coated pipes) and seeing now are just the same. Just visible object. And as for all that unpleasantness, hearing truly only hears sound and the rest is not vipaka, but the fertile imagination at work. Do we this or that or what is best? More thinking about stories about dhammas which are conditioned to arise already. No rule at all --- just the path of understanding the presently appearing namas and rupas. No 'me' at work or home, just sense door experiences and lots of careering deer regardless:-) (Scott, I never worked out your one-liner about being in the bliss of the ocean of pakatupanissaya paccaya.....did I miss something?) Metta, Sarah ======= #63373 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ditthi (Jon) jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: > Hi Jon > > I've heard you having a lot of interesting talks with Acharn >Sujin about ditthi, wrong view, self view, that of thing. I haven't >really begun to understand ditthi or begun to sort out what the >difference is between wrong view and self view and this view and >that. But I thought I'd launch a bit of an ongoing discussion with >you on the topic if you don't mind. > Happy to discuss any time! It's a topic I think is important to know more about (because it's so prevalent yet so 'hidden'). > Tonight I was listening to Tamara asking about how there can be >ditthi at the first javana cittas in the sense door process. Like >her, I have trouble understanding how the dhamma that is translated >as "wrong view" (right?) could arise in a sense door process. I >useally thing of wrong view means wrong views about ways of practice >etc. Acharn sujin answered "do you think rupa is yours" or something >like that, and of course Tamara answered yes, honetly. "So there is >ditthi" said Acharan Sujin. But thinking about whether rupa is self >or not is all mind door. I didn't see what that had to do with >ditthi at the sense door process. > Yes, I think this is what was behind Amara's question, as she more or less indicated in the talk (I happen to have listened to it recently). But wrong view (miccha ditthi, but ditthi for short) is not so much a matter of the way we *think* about things, as about the way things are inherently perceived. I think there is a common misconception about this. One hears people who have studied and accepted the teachings saying that they no longer have any idea of, or belief in, a self. What they mean is that they no longer engage in conscious thinking that admits of a self. But until the underlying tendency of wrong view has been eradicated (at stream-entry) the defilement remains and the wrong view must manifest when the conditions are appropriate. > Do you have any thoughts on this, just to get us started? Is there >ditthi immediately, with moments of seeing/hearing etc the way there >is lobha immediately? > In general terms, yes, there can be ditthi immediately without any preceding discursive thinking (I believe sanna also plays a role here). But since it presents as being right, it may not be immediately apparent as such. Jon #63374 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:09 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 522- Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas (s) 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;-) =============================================== proficiency of cetasikas, kaaya-paagu~n~nataa proficiency of citta, citta-paagu~n~nataa There are many degrees of efficiency in kusala. When right understanding is being developed, it conditions proficiency and skilfulness in all kinds of kusala. The sotåpanna has eradicated wrong view, doubt and stinginess, and he will never neglect the five moral precepts. His generosity and his observance of morality is purer than the generosity and morality of the non-ariyan, he has no clinging to a wrong idea of “my kusala”. His confidence in the Buddha’s teachings has become unshakable, it has become a “power”. He has, in comparison to the non-ariyan, a higher degree of efficiency and competence with regard to kusala. He can assist others in a competent and efficient way, and thus we see that the development of right understanding also bears on one’s relationship with others. We read in the Gradual Sayings (V, Book of the Elevens, Chapter II, § 4, Subhúti) that the Buddha spoke to Subhúti about the traditional marks of belief (saddhå) in a believer. One of these “traditional marks” is the following: * "… Again, in all the undertakings of his fellows in the Brahma-life, be they matters weighty or trivial, he is shrewd and energetic, possessing ability to give proper consideration thereto, as to what is the fit thing to do and how to manage it. In so far as a monk is such, this also is a traditional mark…" * There is a higher degree of proficiency as higher stages of enlightenment are attained and defilements eradicated. At the stage of arahatship proficiency has reached perfection. ***** Six Pairs of Beautiful Cetasikas to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #63375 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:27 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] too distracted, and renunciation. sukinderpal Dear Sarah, S: I think this quote from 'Perfections' is also relevant to the discussions we were having about the development of the perfections even in those lives when there was no Buddha's teaching and so on. KS was talking on this topic of the effect of satipatthana in other lives, depending on its strength. Do you have any further comments, Sukin? Nothing useful I guess, but since you ask I began speculating a bit and this is what came to mind. Surely the quality of citta is different, one that has in the past accumulated much right view from the one that hasn't. So at any given lifetime where the Teachings do not exist, perhaps there is a strong tendency to cling to kusala with 'self-view' on the part of the latter and not so much with the former? In this way there is in the case of one with much accumulated right view, the possibility of some kusala cittas being parami ..? :-/ Metta, Sukin #63376 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:27 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited sukinderpal Dear Nina, Frankly, I think it was at this point during the discussions that I felt very inspired by K. Sujin's example, and I even wanted to express myself to her there and then. I hesitated partly because I was not sure how others there felt about it. What we value is usually the stuff of samsara, even the most noble of intentions. However there is no greater gift than to be pointed to the truth of nama and rupa, and this is what K. Sujin always inspires us to understand. Metta, Sukin. _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nina van Gorkom Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:51 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited Dear Sukin, I just take this part since it reminds me of a discussion with Lodewijk. Namely about the fact that Kh Sujin said about my question how was Kh Charupan's cremation: just like now. Lodewijk could not take this, and I shall come back to our discussion later on. it was all very emotional. I am really touched by your wise words, you helped me. Nina. Op 13-sep-2006, om 16:11 heeft Sukinder het volgende geschreven: > This is the reason why correct intellectual understanding is so much > stressed. It is not just stating the facts, i.e. realties, > conditionality and > the tilakkhana, but *understanding* better and better, these same > concepts. The result of this is a growing confidence that indeed "this > moment" is conditioned and beyond control, and that the dhammas > arising here and now are no different from those there and then. Two > persons may express the same words about Dhamma, but the > difference is that one knows deeply enough not to think of another > time > and place, while the other still has doubts as to whether another time > and place might not be more conducive to development of sati and > panna. #63377 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:36 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited sukinderpal Dear Nina, In my case it was clearly lobha. I was following the sounds, in fact felt entertained, like listening to the orchestral instruments being tuned just before a concert. There was no thought about Dhamma at all. Metta, Sukin. Dear Sukin, There can be a moment of sati and then holding on with lobha. It is hard to know because the cittas go so fast. One can only know for oneself. Had you not heard of hearing being different from thinking about sound you would not know anything. There is akusala more often than kusala, but on the other hand it is not so that all moments are akusala, and only akusala. #63378 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:38 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited sarahprocter... Hi Sukin & Nina, --- sukinder wrote: > However there is no greater gift than to be pointed to the > truth > of nama and rupa, and this is what K. Sujin always inspires us to > understand. ... S: Yes and particularly to the truth of nama and rupa *at this moment*. It always comes back to the citta now. I mentioned that I'd been thinking about K.Charupan and even imagining the cremation and service. I was aware of almost yearning to hear something about some special reflections or talk given at that time and you (Nina) had specially mentioned and asked about the service as well. When K.Sujin laughed and said 'just like now', and 'just thinking about K.Charupan' and 'she's completely gone', it was like a helpful wake-up call for me. Sometimes we do think it's a consideration or humane (as Lodewijk put it) to dwell on particular topics like the cremation or death or lost friends, but again we forget all about present dhammas appearing. We also think that at such services themselves, perhaps we should have particular kinds of reflections, but again we forget about conditioned dhammas 'just like now'. Just seeing, hearing, thinking, likes and dislikes, occasionally sati or other wholesome dhammas rolling on..... I've appreciated your further comments and reflections. Metta, Sarah btw, Betty kindly told me it was a very nice service and gave me more details:-) N:> I just take this part since it reminds me of a discussion with > Lodewijk. Namely about the fact that Kh Sujin said about my question > how was Kh Charupan's cremation: just like now. #63379 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: too distracted scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "The dusty life, but just the ordinary dhammas arising and falling. 'Just like now!'. It's all a long, long story about what's all gone already. Seeing then (no matter how many plastic coated pipes) and seeing now are just the same. Just visible object. And as for all that unpleasantness, hearing truly only hears sound and the rest is not vipaka, but the fertile imagination at work. Do we this or that or what is best? More thinking about stories about dhammas which are conditioned to arise already. No rule at all --- just the path of understanding the presently appearing namas and rupas. No 'me' at work or home, just sense door experiences and lots of careering deer regardless:-) Yeah so the pleasure and pain are already just the show. Enjoying the band is not the result. Deafened by loud sound only. Seeing and hearing, smelling and tasting alone is eyes, ears, nose, mouth and objects. Only result. She dreamt of being scared of water and floods but woke up only wet and suddenly I'm all indifferent except body and now its pleasant or unpleasant body sense right from the start and I'm like huh? (S): "(Scott, I never worked out your one-liner about being in the bliss of the ocean of pakatupanissaya paccaya.....did I miss something?)" (No, I was just posting to show I was still around since I've been studying and reading a lot more than posting these days; I just was into pakatupanissaya paccaya at the moment and found it cool.) With loving kindness, Scott. #63380 From: "kanchaa" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:09 am Subject: Re: Ten Parmitas! kanchuu2003 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. I will go in detail one by one. Once you are back, please post a message. One by one in detail would be great. Thank you very much... Thanks to Shara too... Nitesh #63381 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma teacher jonoabb Hi Mateesha matheesha wrote: >>>M: Yes it is. I got the impression from what you said that >>>|you felt that one needed to place oneself under a teacher >>>only if he was developing samatha/jhana. Hence the quote >>>to show that regardless of it being development of samatha >>>or vipassana, a (skilful) teacher is helpful. >>> >>> >>Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for not appreciating the relevance of the reference initially. >> >>I think I said that the passage in question from the Vism should be read in the context of the development of samatha. >> >>As regards vipassana bhavana, the crucial thing is association with the good friend, and the good friend can be anyone from whom we learn about the teachings; I do not read the texts as saying that we should seek out a particular person to place oneself under in a formal 'teacher-pupil' relationship. >> >> > >M: As you wish. > Do I detect a note of scepticism in your reply? ;-)) I'm wondering then if I did not make myself clear, so let me elaborate. I agree with the comment you made in an earlier reply, that the quote from AN IV, 94 shows that, regardless of it being development of samatha or vipassana, a (skilful) teacher is helpful. No question at all about that. However, the issues I was discussing at the time, and which I mentioned in my reply to you, were not covered by that quote, as I see it. The first issue was whether the 'good friend' referred to elsewhere in the texts referred exclusively to a person who had been taken as one's teacher, or included anyone who helped one in the understanding of the teachings. As you know, my view is that it's the latter. The second was the issue of entering into a formal 'teacher-pupil' relationship, and whether this was something recommended/encouraged in the teachings. Of course, there are instances of such in the suttas, especially within the Sangha, and there are suttas that advise one to listen to the teachings from those who are knowledgeable and skilled in them. After all, repeated hearing of the dhamma is one of the prerequisites for the continual development of insight. However, I'm not aware of any instances where, for example, lay-people are advised to formally put themselves under a chosen 'teacher'. If you know of any relevant defences on either of these points I'd be interested to see them. Hoping this clarifies. Jon #63382 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sati, Samadhi, Samatha, Vipassana and Panna jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: >Do you mean the general population? No, the Buddha didn't encourage >jhana for the general population because not all of them are >Buddhist. The Buddha had encouraged jhana for those who had taken >refuge in the Triple Gem. > I'm aware of course of suttas in which the Buddha extolled the advantages of jhana and encouraged its development. But I know of no suttas where the development of jhana is encouraged for lay followers in general. There is a sutta where the Buddha advises a particular group of lay followers to develop jhana, but I do not read this as applying to all lay followers generally. >>But you have given a sort of definition of jhana, rather than a >>description of what it development involves. On that latter I >>am sure we will manage to find some disagreement, if we discuss ;-)) >> >> > >Probably the only disagreement we would run into is your belief that >a person's accumulations is of paramount importance in the >development of jhana, and my belief that it is of minor importance. > This is an interesting observation on your part, James, and a perceptive one. But to get down to specifics, if I was asked to state briefly how I saw the development of jhana, I'd say that it begins with the development of samatha in daily life. Any disagreement from you so far? ;-)) >;-)) I don't have any 'rules'. If you want to ask me leading >questions, ask away. But, of course, I will call you on it. Jon, >you are an attorney so you know what leading questions are. I >shouldn't have to define them for you. > >The significance of leading questions is that the questioner has a >specific answer in mind. It isn't a genuine question where the >questioner is seeking information. I believe it is best for >dialogue between equals to avoid leading questions because they can >become rather pedantic. (After all, you are not Socrates and I am >not your student. ;-)) > I'm glad you've clarified this. I'll try to avoid that manner of expression in future. (After all, I have no wish to be Socrates to anyone ;-)) >>He would not have read that on DSG, I feel sure. >> >> > >Perhaps I have been reading a different DSG. ;-)) > > Beware of counterfeits and imitations ;-)) >>Anapanasati is the only one of the 38 or 40 'kammatthana' that is >>said to be the object of samatha of Buddhas and Buddhas' sons, so >>I think it must require especially great wisdom for its development. >> >> > >It doesn't 'require' great wisdom, it can develop great wisdom. > > Jhana is accompanied by the mental factor of panna, which is why it is such a high level of kusala. Even the development of samatha leading to jhana requires panna. Otherwise there cannot be direct understanding of the kusala or aksuala nature of the present mind-state. Jon PS On leading questions: In the legal context, an attorney is not permitted at trial to ask a leading question of his own client or witness, as this 'tells' the client or witness the answer to be given. However, there is no rule against asking leading questions when cross-examining the other party or his witnesses. How this applies in the DSG context depends, I suppose, on whether you see there being opposing camps (if you do, then you should not object to leading questions from the other camp ;-)). #63383 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] just like now. jonoabb Hi Nina and Lodewijk Nina, many thanks for sharing this discussion. Much good material to reflect on. Lodewijk, I'd just like to add my 2 cents' worth: Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Dear friends, > >I shall now render the discussion Lodewijk and I had during our trip. >When I asked how Khun Charupan's cremation was, Kh Sujin answered: >Just like now. >Lodewijk: This is unhuman, sad and depressing. > > I think the point of the answer given by A. Sujin was not that there was no sadness or other 'normal' reaction, but that those reactions are in essence no different to the kusala and akusala cittas that arise at other times. If we don't 'get' this (and in my experience it is a lifelong lesson), we will continue to think in terms of occasions other than the present as being more suitable for the development of awareness and understanding. I think a reminder along these lines is more useful than any description of the actual thoughts or reactions experienced at the time. Of course, it may not be the kind of answer we were looking for ;-)) Jon #63384 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:16 am Subject: Rob's forum on jhana, no 6 nilovg Dear friends, Continuation of Dhamma talk by Venerable Sujivo. (end quote). ****** Nina. #63385 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:21 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily LIfe, 76 nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha spoke about the dangers of birth in many different ways. He said that birth is dukkha (sorrow); it is followed by old age, sickness and death. He pointed out the foulness of the body and he reminded people that also at this very moment the body is dukkha, impermanent and non-self. If we continue taking mind and body for self there will be no end to the cycle of birth and death. We read in the Kindred Sayings (II, Nidåna-vagga, chapter XV, Kindred Sayings on the Incalculable Beginning, §10, A Person) that the Buddha, when he was in Råjagaha, on Vulture's Peak, said to the monks: Incalculable is the beginning, monks, of this faring on. The earliest point is not revealed of the running on, faring on of beings, cloaked in ignorance, tied by craving... The bones of one single person, monks, running on, faring on for an aeon would be a cairn, a pile, a heap as great as Mount Vepulla, were there a collector of those bones and the collection were not destroyed. How is this? Incalculable is the beginning, monks, of this faring on. The earliest point is not revealed of the running on, faring on of beings, cloaked in ignorance, tied by craving... Thus spoke the Exalted One. After the Wellfarer had said this, he spoke further: The pile of bones (of all the bodies of) one man Who has alone one aeon lived, Were heaped a mountain high--so said the mighty seer-- Yes, reckoned high as Vipula To north of Vulture's Peak, crag-fort of Magadha. When he with perfect insight sees The Ariyan Truths:--what dukkha is and how it comes And how it may be overpassed, The Ariyan Eightfold Path, the way all ill to abate-- Seven times at most reborn, a man Yet running on, through breaking every fetter down, Endmaker does become of dukkha. It is fortunate to be born in the human plane where we can cultivate insight. When the first stage of enlightenment (the stage of the sotåpanna) has been attained, the four noble Truths have been realized. Then we will not be reborn more than seven times and we can be sure that there will eventually be an end to rebirth. ******* Nina #63386 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:25 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 57 nilovg Dear friends, One will be really urged to develop right understanding if one realizes that one is full of self, but if one does not know this, there will not be any urge. To be full of self: this does not even mean that one thinks of a self, it is the deep-rooted clinging to self which is latent and motivates many other kinds of defilements. Even if one does not think 'It is me, it is self' one can still be full of self. Don't we take the body as a whole, a body, instead of different ever changing phenomena? Don't we take the mind as a mind, a mind which sees and also understands the meaning of the concepts of trees and people after the seeing, instead of realizing the mind as ever changing phenomena, then seeing, then thinking, and they are all totally different. Seeing has nothing to do with thinking, although they may arise closely one after the other. I do not say that there is wrong view arising all the time, but is there not a deep-rooted wrong interpretation of reality? We cannot claim that we see realities as they are, that we know the difference between seeing and visible object, seeing and thinking of concepts. There is still such a lot to learn, and thus, why put it off? One loses precious time if one thinks one has to be calm first. One can wait for ever. ******* Nina #63387 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] just like now. nilovg Dear Jon, You put that very well. We expect another answer, but this is more helpful. Nina Op 17-sep-2006, om 15:15 heeft Jonothan Abbott het volgende geschreven: > I think a reminder along these lines is more useful than any > description > of the actual thoughts or reactions experienced at the time. Of > course, > it may not be the kind of answer we were looking for ;-)) #63388 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ...> The characteristic of citta is > experiencing an object, and thus it is not defiled by upakilesas > (accompanying akusala cetasikas), hence citta is by nature (sabhaava) > pure. When it isaccompanied by upakilesas, which defile it, it is > still called 'pan.d.ara.m' (pure). > This is actually the same as what you said. Hallo Nina, Plamen, Howard, all The problem is Nina mixes the use of the term "citta" in an abstract way ànd the occurrance, the arising, of a citta as a ultimate reality. A citta only exists (in an ultimate way) as and at the moment of experiencing an object. So of course it is pure: there has been no opportunity to defile it (and there was and is noboby to defile it) This again is an argument to avoid the term sabhaava in Abhidhamma; even if it is given only the meaning 'properties' and no transcendent meaning at all (as is the case in Mahayana), than still it gives misunderstanding in stead of information. Joop #63389 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Plamen - In a message dated 9/17/06 3:23:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pgradinarov@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Technically, developing prajna is also defilement, although kusala. > The paratantra manas is called klistamanovijnana (defiled mind) > because of its salambanatva (having objects). Alayavijnana (bhavanga- > citta) is all objectless, yet has the seeds that bring to the rise of > the subject-object dichotomy. It has the perfume (vasana) of the > object rather than the object (alambana) itself. Having no phenomenal > objects at the alambana pole of the intentional arc, alayavijnana is > called niralambana. > > Kindest regards, > > Plamen > ============================= With respect: As I question some Theravadin orthodoxy, I also question Mahayanist othodoxy. ;-) With metta, Howard #63390 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Multiple-Mindstream Interaction Revisited upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 9/17/06 2:44:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > > > >>Howard: > >>Kamma vipaka consists of dhammas, Ken! > >>---------------------------------------------- > >Sukin: > >I wanted to ask you about this each time that you made a reference to > >it. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Each time I make reference to what? There is nothing but dhammas. What > is unusual in saying that kamma vipaka consists of dhammas? > > > > S> I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that your reason for > highlighting kamma/vipaka, identifying them sometimes as being "dhammas" and > at other times as an important Buddhist teaching, is to substantiate your > claim that 'conventional intention' to note/ meditate/ guard the senses/ put > in effort, is a necessary part of the practice. (?) > ===================================== > > >What understanding of kamma/vipaka do you have in mind when you > >refer to the `intention' to note the rise and fall of khandas? What is the > > >mechanism involved? > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Please see my recent post to Sarah (and David) on conditionality. > > S> I suppose you are referring to post 63265 and the following conclusion > made there: > > < Sarah, what do you think the Buddha had in mind when he said that > kamma is intention? Do you think there is no relation between cetana, javana > > cittas, and conventional willing? I don't claim that conventional willing is > the > same as the others, but I do claim that it intimately involves them.>> > > > > S> I believe that conventional reality does correspond with some ultimate > realities. However what these might be at any given moment, only panna can > know. Knowing this, I wouldn't come in from the side of the conventional > reality and use the knowledge of 'dhammas' to justify that. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Inasmuch as you claim to know nothing but conventional reality and to not directly know paramattha dhammas, and you evidently are awaiting the arising of pa~n~na in the same way the the Jews await the coming of the Messiah - tomorrow! tomorrow! but never today - and the Christians await the 2nd coming, always imminent but never happening, what *do* you come in on the side of? Theoretical stories you read in "the texts"? Ninety percent of what the Buddha taught in the suttas pertains to conventional activities (all reducing, of course, to the phenomena that actually occur), but he taught us in terms of those conventional objects and activities that we are familiar with, to engage in actions that will take us beyond the world of mere appearance. But you choose to ignore his conventional teachings, grasping at ends without engaging in the means. ------------------------------------------------- > > > > No meditator considers his efforts wrong, or concentration wrong, or sati as > being wrong, as long as he follows some conventional description of what > constitutes right 'practice'. So too the 'intention' to do so, is never > suspected as being anything but kusala. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I follow the teachings of the Buddha, rather than avoiding what he said to do because perhaps my approach is imperfect. Not following what he said to do is surely imperfect. ------------------------------------------------ > > Ken H. often reminds us about there being "only dhammas" and this may sound > trite. But it really isn't,because we still don't understand this deeply > enough. It should sink in to the bone. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Repetitions and uttering aphorisms is a form of self-hypnosis, but not the means to wake up to reality. I can say "only dhammas" from now till "kingdom come" - a fitting phrase, I think - with nothing of real value resulting. ------------------------------------------------ > > From this perspective and the fact that ignorance and craving is so > prevalent, and unless panna arises in the moment, I think we should be > careful not to believe our ideas about any kusala intentions. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha gave precise practices to cultivate sila, samadi, and pa~n~na. Pa~n~na doesn't arise by sheer luck. ------------------------------------------- It is perhaps> > relatively safe to act upon those intentions involving dana, sila, metta, > karuna and so on. We've likely accumulated more conditions for these to > arise by natural decisive support condition. However it must be quite a > different case with satipatthana. This involves a very good understanding of > anatta and conditionality. There is no room here for any 'practice' done > with 'self'. > > ----------------------------------------- Howard: An arahant has no "self", and thus nothing to cultivate. A non-arahant is beset by "self", and all s/he does is accompanied by "self". Thus, there can be no practice without "self" for anyone at any time. And if that is the only sort of practice you would find acceptable, then, for you, there is no cultivation, no progress, no hope, and no awakening! I find this position, enunciated by so many here to be an absurd perversion of the Dhamma! I consider the view that the Dhamma is a meditation-free zone to be ludicrous, and I believe that those who hold that view don't have a clue of what the Dhamma is. Is that sufficiently clear, Sukin? ----------------------------------------- The patipatti evolves from firm pariyatti, and even this latter> > we can't claim to have. ---------------------------------------- Howard: To paraphrase you: There is no room here for any study done with 'self'. -------------------------------------- > > > > Indeed we are swimming in the ocean of concepts day and night and it is no > surprise that even with regard to Dhamma, we are going to react to this by > way of stories. Stories in which there is a 'self' here who has to do > something to get there. --------------------------------------------- Howard: For you, are the concepts of Abhidhamma and all the talk of paramattha dhammas anything more than stories? The world of trees, birds, tables, and television sets is more experiential and less a matter of "stories" for the non-meditator than the world of paramattha dhammas! You take paramattha dhammas on faith. I meditate, engage in ongoing mindfulness, and guard the senses, all with the aim of gradually going beyond stories to reality. Merely believing in the concepts of Abhidhamma does not constitute the Buddhist practice. It is a self-delusion to think that it does. -------------------------------------------- > > But in fact, there are only dhammas! It is imperative therefore, that we > seek to understand this very moment instead of following any ideas about > another time, place, posture and object. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, one must seek to understand - directly at this very moment, instead of following *any* ideas. Drop the ideas, and, instead, do what the Buddha said to do, so that we may come to SEE and not just think and believe. --------------------------------------------- For if there is no panna now, then> > with what confidence do we then undertake the conventional practice. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: All the pa~n~na initilally required is sufficient wisdom gained from experience to have confidence and trust in what that Buddha taught us to do. Then doing it will cultivate further wisdom, and the process expands, spirally, with ever-increasing intensity. Our "job" is to listen and follow. As we follow what the Buddha said, our confidence grows. Mere study and theorizing accomplishes nothing but the first baby step. --------------------------------------------------- Saddha> > of kusala in general is one thing, but saddha of the Buddha kind is quite > another. It goes intimately with panna. It seems to me that that other kind > of confidence has little to do with this kind of Saddha. It is the kind of > confidence that at one time and in one form or the other says to the effect > that it does not "need" to hear the theory, but only to get on with the > "practice". Huh! --------------------------------------------------- Howard: One, of course, needs to know what the Buddha taught! That is the beginning. Without that there can be no cultivation. With that alone, there can be no cultivation!! -------------------------------------------------- > > ====================================== > > >My understanding is that kamma which results in vipaka is > >kusala/akusala intention of certain strength. This may be purely mental > >or it can manifest as verbal or bodily action. Vipaka on the other hand, > >manifests as the five sense-door experiences. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Are you saying there is no namic vipaka? Perhaps that goes under > another name than 'vipaka'? > > > > S> Vipaka is only nama. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: You seem to be missing my question. You said "Vipaka on the other hand, manifests as the five sense-door experiences." My question is does vipaka not "manifest" as mind-door experirence as well? ----------------------------------------------------- Others like rebirth consciousness, bhavanga,> > receiving consciousness etc. is not relevant here, the ones that matter in > terms of our moment to moment experiences are just these 5 sense cognitions, > seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and body consciousness. I was asking > about what vipaka you have in mind when thinking about 'intention to pay > attention'. > > ============================= > > >Surely if I hit someone so hard that I hurt my hand or he hits me back, > >this is not kamma/vipaka relationship, is it? > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is an event (i.e.,series of dhammas) clearly conditioned in part by > akusala intention. The "connection" is clear. That is a fact. Whether that > conditionality is called "vipaka" or not holds little interest for me. > > > > S> We may see/make connections in the sphere of conventional reality. But > even here nothing is predictable. In terms of dhammas giving rise to other > dhammas, I think we should be happy with knowing that we don't know. ;-) > > ============================== > > >So you wouldn't make this > >kind of connection between `intention to note' and any > >consequent `noting', would you? > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > WHAT "kind of connection"? Certainly there is a connection between > intention to note and noting. > > > > S> Roughly, thinking conditions more thinking. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: It conditions at lot more than that! It conditions feelings, emotions, intention, and bodily sensations! And if you don't know that, then you had better get your head out of the books and turn your attention within! --------------------------------------- Tanha and wrong view with> > regard to Dhamma is papanca and any future becoming is more papanca. This is > very important to realize. What so called meditators call sati is a form of > thinking only. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: What an arrogant presumption! From the time of the Buddha. monks, nuns, and laypersons meditated, correctly meditated. Those who do *not* meditate are out of step with the Dhamma, not the meditators! I think that I will bow out now. I see no gain in this. ---------------------------------------- We have been conditioned since ever to react to thoughts with> > more thinking. We hear about momentary dhammas and when we follow the advice > to pay attention, automatically our attention goes to concept of these, > including 'location' of where they arise. > > The other day there were conditions for me to pay attention to what goes > through the ears, and for about five minutes I experienced various sounds as > never happened before. Was it sati? Definitely not! But had I not known > better, I might have thought otherwise. It is the same thing with 'sitting > or walking meditation'. Pure papanca to conceive of the idea, and pure > papanca which follows. One is supposed to observe the various namas and > rupas, and instantly without much difficulty, one *does* observe much more > than one ever did. Is this more awareness? Yes, if one distinguishes this > from the development of satipatthana and know that it is not what the Buddha > taught, being in essence no different from the kind of attention one is > already used to having without the Teachings. > > > > It is this that many aim to and *do* have for extended periods of time. But > this is not the development of satipatthana. "Dhammas" are not observable by > anyone in this way; and this is not how the ariyan's world is like. But > avijja does make people feel that they are on the right track. > > One thing I've always wanted to point out and perhaps I already did (to > Htoo?). If indeed those extended periods of mindfulness was satipatthana, > then it reflects a very high level of panna. Then why is it that there is so > much resistance to certain everyday life situations and seeking of a quieter > environment? One's confidence should have grown greater to not be > intimidated by any idea of unsuitable time and place! > > > > Dhammas are after all the same everywhere, just one moment of citta arising > and taking on one object at a time. Loud noise and relative quiet both > involve equally fleeting dhammas. The problem as I see it, is that > meditators continue to observe only *concepts*, and only in that world there > occurs comparison, hence aversion to one and attachment to another. One > problem is that there is a change in what is observed and understandably > there is attachment to these results. I really wish this could be seen. > > ============================= > > > > >I don't pay much attention to `intention' for the reason that > > >its quality is determined by these other dhammas. And any time there > >is `self reference', a concern about where one is at or will be, then > likely > >it is avijja conditioning some cheating dhammas that is doing the > >talking. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think it is very important to pay great attention to intention and > to what motivates it. > > > > S> Again, thinking conditions more thinking. If it is a 'thought' which one > intends to get to the root of, then this very thinking would also require > getting to the root of, and on and on. Hence the Path is one of > satipatthana leading to vipassana and not some thought analysis. > ----------------------------------------- > > > >For some of us even right intellectual understanding does not arise, > >worse, there may even be wrong view. And it is not so much that we > >act conventionally with `self'. We `do' things with either tanha, mana or > >ditthi. The first two is not much of an obstacle to the development of > >panna, unlike the last one. Ditthi understands wrongly and therefore > >whatever is then done in the name of Dhamma/development, will lead > >in the wrong direction and accumulate. And as you know, I believe that > >this idea of `intentional noting' is a consequence of such wrong view, > >one that denies at that moment, the fact of conditionality. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sukin, we can pay attention or not. The more we pay attention, the > better we get at it. (Restated in DSG-speak: The more that attention is > present, > the more frequently and intensely it tends to arise.) It is important to pay > > attention. Doing so needs, itself, to be kept in mind. When no effort is > made > to do so, the ability will wane. It is a skill, Sukin, and it calls for > cultivation. > > > > S> DSG-speak is not important, there is no problem with conventional speak; > it is the understanding which needs to agree. :-) > --------------------------------------------- > > > > >difference is that one knows deeply enough not to think of another time > >and place, while the other still has doubts as to whether another time > >and place might not be more conducive to development of sati and > >panna. > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > Some conditions are more suitable for certain ends than others. That > is a universal truth. But it is also true that every time and every place is > > the time and place for cultivation. > > > > S> But there is a world of a difference between one who believes in > deliberate intention and one who sees conditionality everywhere including > any 'intention'. ;-) > > > > Metta, > > Sukin > ========================== With metta, Howard #63391 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/17/06 5:37:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard, (& Nina), > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > > The adventitiousness of defilement is what makes possible > >liberation. > >That is of essential importance. Whether there are bhavanga-cittas or > >not, and > >if there are what their is exact nature is far less important. > .... > S: I would put it that 'the adventitiousness of defilement' (or simply the > arising of lobha in particular) is what makes the path and liberation > necessary. If there was no lobha, there'd be no purpose in developing > insight. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: No. It is the *presence* of defilements that make path and liberation necessary. It is their *adventitiousness* that makes them possible. ------------------------------------------------ > > There is a distinction between pabhassaara (luminous) and pandara > (clear/pure) in the Theravada texts. Luminous never refers to the nature > of all cittas. It is only ever used for sobhana cittas, bhavanga cittas > (as here) and in some contexts to nibbana. It's also used in some contexts > to refer to rupas conditioned by sobhana cittas. It's all very intricate > and rather technical, but I think it's misleading as I've seen in some --------------------------------------------- Howard: I disagree entirely. The Pabhassara Sutta is clear. ---------------------------------------------- > Mahayana quotes of these lines to suggest that all cittas are luminous and > it's just a matter of clearing away the defilements for their true state > to appear (or something along those lines). I'm not suggesting that you > think or say this of course! ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Mahayana has no bearing on this. It is irrelevant to this discussion. The Sutta Pitaka stands on its own, without any "help" from Mahayana. ---------------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your point about the lesser importance of bhavanga cittas, > but I do think that however they are referred to, it's important to > appreciate that there is a continuation of cittas without any break, no > matter whether we're awake, asleep or what. I know you agree with this. > For years when I started getting into the Abhidhamma, I used to just > ignore all references to bhavangas, so I sympathise with your comments:-). ---------------------------------------------- Howard: There are lots of references to bhavangas in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? I thought there were hardly any! --------------------------------------------- > > [Nina, yes, the footnote in Survey which I hadn't noticed before is > v.good. Yes, even akusala citta is pure (pandara)in the sense it just > experiences its object, so I don't think we can say it's not pure > (pandara)as soon as objects impinge on the sense doors or we have to > clarify perhaps. Of course, we know what is meant.] > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======================== With metta, Howard #63392 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:46 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. nidive Hi Howard, Sarah & Nina, > > There is a distinction between pabhassaara (luminous) and pandara > > (clear/pure) in the Theravada texts. Luminous never refers to the > > nature of all cittas. It is only ever used for sobhana cittas, > > bhavanga cittas (as here) and in some contexts to nibbana. It's > > also used in some contexts to refer to rupas conditioned by > > sobhana cittas. > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree entirely. The Pabhassara Sutta is clear. > ---------------------------------------------- This "luminosity" business got the curiosity out of me to make a closer study of the Pabhassara Sutta. -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html "Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1} "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2} -------------------------------------------------------------------- I discovered a sutta that may help to explain the meaning of "luminous". Muluposatha Sutta The Roots of the Uposatha -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than.html "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects his own virtues, thus: '[They are] untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, conducive to concentration.' As he is recollecting virtue, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when a mirror is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is a mirror cleansed through the proper technique? Through the use of oil & ashes & chamois & the appropriate human effort. This is how a mirror is cleansed through the proper technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects his own virtues... As he is recollecting virtue, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned. He is thus called a disciple of the noble ones undertaking the virtue-Uposatha. He lives with virtue. It is owing to virtue that his mind is calmed, that joy arises, and that whatever defilements there are in his mind are abandoned. This is how the mind is cleansed through the proper technique. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The mind is like a mirror (luminous). If the surface of the mirror is dusty (defiled by incoming defilements), what it reflects is distorted (doesn't discern things as they actually are present). The mind is like a mirror (luminous). If the surface of the mirror is clean (undefiled by incoming defilements), what it reflects is clear (discerns things as they actually are present). It is related to the five hindrances. Regards, Swee Boon #63393 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon (and Sarah & Nina) - In a message dated 9/17/06 11:48:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Sarah &Nina, > > >>There is a distinction between pabhassaara (luminous) and pandara > >>(clear/pure) in the Theravada texts. Luminous never refers to the > >>nature of all cittas. It is only ever used for sobhana cittas, > >>bhavanga cittas (as here) and in some contexts to nibbana. It's > >>also used in some contexts to refer to rupas conditioned by > >>sobhana cittas. > > > >--------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > >I disagree entirely. The Pabhassara Sutta is clear. > >---------------------------------------------- > > This "luminosity" business got the curiosity out of me to make a > closer study of the Pabhassara Sutta. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming > defilements." {I,v,9} > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming > defilements." {I,v,10} > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming > defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern > that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the > uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the > mind." {I,vi,1} > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming > defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns > that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the > well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of > the mind." {I,vi,2} > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I discovered a sutta that may help to explain the meaning of > "luminous". > > Muluposatha Sutta > The Roots of the Uposatha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than.html > > "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects his > own virtues, thus: '[They are] untorn, unbroken, unspotted, > unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, conducive > to concentration.' As he is recollecting virtue, his mind is calmed, > and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as > when a mirror is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is a > mirror cleansed through the proper technique? Through the use of oil & > ashes &chamois &the appropriate human effort. This is how a mirror > is cleansed through the proper technique. In the same way, the defiled > mind is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is the defiled > mind cleansed through the proper technique? There is the case where > the disciple of the noble ones recollects his own virtues... As he is > recollecting virtue, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the > defilements of his mind are abandoned. He is thus called a disciple of > the noble ones undertaking the virtue-Uposatha. He lives with virtue. > It is owing to virtue that his mind is calmed, that joy arises, and > that whatever defilements there are in his mind are abandoned. This is > how the mind is cleansed through the proper technique. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The mind is like a mirror (luminous). If the surface of the mirror is > dusty (defiled by incoming defilements), what it reflects is distorted > (doesn't discern things as they actually are present). > > The mind is like a mirror (luminous). If the surface of the mirror is > clean (undefiled by incoming defilements), what it reflects is clear > (discerns things as they actually are present). > > It is related to the five hindrances. > > Regards, > Swee Boon > =========================== I think your choice of sutta is perfect! And, BTW, I'll bet it is the basis for the dust-on-a-mirror analogy to be found in the Zen stories! I've never seen this sutta before, and I'm som glad you've brought it yo our attention. I'm saving a link to it!! With metta, Howard #63394 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:35 am Subject: A Question for Plamen on an Article of His upasaka_howard Hi, Plamen - In a nicely written article to be found at the site http://www.ratnavali.com/dharma/teachings/materialism_and_idealism_7638.html, you include the following: _______________ As far as our being in the world is concerned, Buddhism is the Middle Way between the extremes of Materialism and Idealism. When we exclude ourselves from the picture of the universe as the creators and upholders of this picture, we should be able to see with the eye of wisdom that nama cannot exist without rupa, while rupa can, and in fact does predominantly exist without being conjoined to nama. -------------------------------- With regard to the last "while rupa can, and in fact does predominantly exist without being conjoined to nama," perhaps rupa can and does exist independent of nama, but I would ask you how, in principle, as a pragmatic matter, you could come to know that? My impression of the Dhamma is that nama and rupa are said to be mutually dependent, but whether or not that is a correct reading, I do maintain that there is, in principle, no way of knowing the alleged independence of rupa from nama, inasmuch as unknown rupa is exactly that - unknown. With metta, Howard #63395 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi again, Swee Boon - In a message dated 9/17/06 1:02:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes the following: > I've never seen this sutta before, and I'm som glad you've brought it > yo our attention. ======================== What the above was intended to be is "I've never seen this sutta before, and I'm so glad you've brought it to our attention." LOL! With metta, Howard #63396 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. nilovg Dear Swee Boon, thank you for this sutta. Recollection of sila is one of the meditation subjects of calm. It can also be recollection of daana. IT can be done in daily life. Nina. Op 17-sep-2006, om 17:46 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > Muluposatha Sutta > The Roots of the Uposatha > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than.html > > "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects his > own virtues, thus: '[They are] untorn, unbroken, unspotted, > unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, conducive > to concentration. #63397 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ten Parmitas! nilovg Dear Kanchaa, Yes, you could start now, do you start? I still have time until this coming Sunday. Nina. Op 17-sep-2006, om 14:09 heeft kanchaa het volgende geschreven: > I will go in detail one by one. Once you are back, please post a > message. One by one in detail would be great. #63398 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavangacitta and object, no 3. nilovg Dear Plamen and Howard, Howard answered already several of your points. I just add a little. Citta is a dhamma that experiences an object, otherwise citta would be like rupa that does not know anything. Howard finds it difficult that citta can experience an object without a doorway. But when we think of deep sleep without dreaming, it may be easier to understand that this is possible. Such moments are different from, if I may say so. 'just now', while seeing or hearing. Thus, bhavangacitta must experience an object otherwise we would be dead. There cannot be life without citta. The bhavangacitta is vipaakacitta but it does not arise in a process, like the vipaakacitta of seeing. The first bhavangacitta follows immediately upon rebirth-consciousness, and thus we may understand that it experiences the same object. It is a very special object conditioned by kamma, the same kamma that produced our rebirth- consciousness. You use the term: salambana-klistamanovijnana, in Pali: sa alambana (with an object, or sa arammana) and klistamanovijnana: kilesa- manovi~n~naa.na. Howard mentioned a few points with regard to this. The vipaakacittas arising in processes experience objects through the different doorways and in that same process there are kusala or akusala javanacittas that react to the object in a wholesome or unwholesome way. Mostly akusala cittas arise. In the Pabhassara sutta we are reminded that as soon as we are assailed by all the objects that impinge on the sense-doors, defilements are likely to arise. But we should follow the way leading to their eradication, the eightfold Path. Nina. Op 16-sep-2006, om 22:57 heeft Plamen Gradinarov het volgende geschreven: > If the characteristic of citta is to experience an object, then > bhavanga-citta, being a consciousness, must also experience an > object which is obviously not the case. Bhavanga-citta is rather the > potentiality of experiencing an object which potentiality turns to > actulity when the corresponding seeds get ripened or stays forever > luminous if the ripening (vipaka) gets prevented by the second type > of nirodha. > > "Experiencing an object" and "not defiled" are incompatible > conditions, because "having an object" is already "being defiled." > Such is the nature (svabhava) of the salambana-klistamanovijnana > (the defiled mind possessing objects). > > Or probably there are some words missing in the quote because I fail > to see the logical connection betweeh the thesis (experiencing an > object), the ground (whatever is experiencing an object is not > defiled by upakilesas), and the conclusion (citta is pure). > > Because citta is pure when there are no objects defiling it. #63399 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question for Plamen on an Article of His nilovg Hi Howard, This reminds me of my Tiika study on conditions. Rupa is prenascence condition for nama, namely, the rupa that is the physical base, vatthu, and the rupa that is sense object. Rupa is weak at its arising moment and thus it functions at the moments of its presence for the relevant cittas. Eyebase arises just before seeing and visible object arises just before seeing. Now, how to experience this is another question. All such moments are so short. I would say: only through insight when it has been developed. Nina. Op 17-sep-2006, om 19:35 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > predominantly exist without being conjoined to nama," perhaps rupa > can and does exist > independent of nama, but I would ask you how, in principle, as a > pragmatic matter, > you could come to know that?