#65200 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sariputtara ? nilovg Dear Sebastien, No info. It is best to keep to the Pali, I think. Sariputta. The son of Sari. Putta in Pali is son. But the Sanskrit has putra. Why use Sanskrit? The Theravada tradition is founded on Pali. Nina. Op 10-nov-2006, om 20:28 heeft Sebastien Billard het volgende geschreven: > As the french bhikkhu (burmese tradition) was re-reading my > translations, he > suggested me to use "Sariputtara" instead of "Sariputta". This form > seems > rare, do you have any information about this ? #65201 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:58 am Subject: Re: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup, nilovg Dear Scott (Howard, and all interested in effort), Scott, you discerned finely that effort had already arisen when thinking of trying. A great part of the day I was bending over Kh Sujin's perfection of energy and I cannot resist posting a part of it. This is all about the kusala viriya: < The perfection of viriya should be developed in daily life. When we perform kusala, viriya is essential; we should go against the current of akusala, against the stream of attachment to comfort and well- being, and in this way kusala can be accomplished.> < For someone who develops satipaììhåna in daily life so that paññå knows more thoroughly the characteristics of realities, the right conditions are present that can lead to the result, namely, the realization of the four noble Truths. For him, the result will naturally occur and this is not difficult. However, the conditions leading to such a result are difficult to develop: one should gradually consider and study with awareness the characteristics of nåma and rúpa, as they appear through the sense-doors and the mind- door. This is a very gradual process, and viriya, energy, is necessary to be aware again and again, to be aware very often, since this is the only way for paññå to be able to penetrate the arising and falling away of the characteristics of nåma and rúpa. At this very moment realities are arising and falling away, but if we do not study with awareness and begin to understand the characteristics of nåma dhammas and rúpa dhammas, it will not be possible to realize the arising and falling away of dhammas. The cause which can bring such a result has to be developed time and again, life after life...> ******* NIna. Op 10-nov-2006, om 15:31 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I think (beware of what follows these fatal words) that sometimes, > when one is 'trying', the 'trying' has already arisen, is a self-less > dhamma (as you seem to be pointing out above), and is worth > cultivating. #65202 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:02 am Subject: Craving, Acting Upon Craving, and the Brilliance of the Buddha upasaka_howard Hi, all - A brief report on some contemplating of basics: The Buddha has taught us that the direct condition for dukkha is tanha, the craving for the presence or absence of specific conditions, the craving for absence being aversion. We typically react to craving by pursuit of the craved goal. It seems on the face of it that we do so because that is what is desired. That may be part of it, but I think it is the lesser part. We act in pursuit of the goal in order to end the craving! The craving hurts! The craving itself is gnawing dukkha! When goal is attained, the painful craving ceases. But that is our mistake! The cessation is temporary. Attaining desired goals is a counterfeit solution. Desire and aversion arise again & again & again, and that is the wandering called samsara. The Buddha's brilliance was not only to see that tanha is the root of dukkha, but that avijja is the root of tanha, and to provide the means to cultivate the supermundane wisdom that will uproot that ignorance, outting an end once and for all to tanha and dukkha.. With metta, Howard #65203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:02 pm Subject: Water. nilovg Hi Howard, Scott posted a text from the Visuddhimagga and tiika, Ch XIV. Do you remember the discussion we had when Larry and I were posting this? How I fell in the marshy waters of the Haute Fagne, and noticed just the cold? Not the fluidity? The text is not easy to read and I unraveled it at the time, adding explanations. Do you want me to repost this, or could you find sense in the text posted by Scott? Nina. #65204 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/10/06 3:39:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Scott posted a text from the Visuddhimagga and tiika, Ch XIV. Do you > remember the discussion we had when Larry and I were posting this? > How I fell in the marshy waters of the Haute Fagne, and noticed just > the cold? Not the fluidity? > The text is not easy to read and I unraveled it at the time, adding > explanations. Do you want me to repost this, or could you find sense > in the text posted by Scott? > Nina. > ===================== Thanks. No need to re-post that. I did find sense in what Scott posted. With metta, Howard #65205 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:23 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,112 Vism.XVII,113 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 112. Moreover, there is this way of explanation as well: Now when a man is ignorant Of death and rebirth and the round, The characteristics of the formed, Dependently-arisen states, And in his ignorance he forms Formations of this triple kind, Then ignorance itself will be Condition for each of the three. 113. But how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus, 'Death in every case is break-up of aggregates', he figures that it is a [lasting] being that dies, that it is a [lasting] being's transmigration to another incarnation, and so on. *********************** 112. apica aya.m a~n~nopi pariyaayo -- cutuupapaate sa.msaare, sa"nkhaaraana~nca lakkha.ne. yo pa.ticcasamuppanna-dhammesu ca vimuyhati.. abhisa"nkharoti so ete, sa"nkhaare tividhe yato. avijjaa paccayo tesa.m, tividhaanampaya.m tatoti.. 113. katha.m pana yo etesu vimuyhati, so tividhepete sa"nkhaare karotiiti ce. cutiyaa taava vimuu.lho ``sabbattha khandhaana.m bhedo mara.na´´nti cuti.m aga.nhanto ``satto marati, sattassa dehantarasa"nkamana´´ntiaadiini vikappeti. #65206 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:51 pm Subject: Re: Craving, Acting Upon Craving, and the Brilliance of the Buddha buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > A brief report on some contemplating of basics: The Buddha has taught > us that the direct condition for dukkha is tanha, the craving for the presence > or absence of specific conditions, the craving for absence being aversion. We > typically react to craving by pursuit of the craved goal. It seems on the > face of it that we do so because that is what is desired. That may be part of it, > but I think it is the lesser part. We act in pursuit of the goal in order to > end the craving! The craving hurts! The craving itself is gnawing dukkha! When > goal is attained, the painful craving ceases. But that is our mistake! The > cessation is temporary. Attaining desired goals is a counterfeit solution. > Desire and aversion arise again & again & again, and that is the wandering called > samsara. The Buddha's brilliance was not only to see that tanha is the root of > dukkha, but that avijja is the root of tanha, and to provide the means to > cultivate the supermundane wisdom that will uproot that ignorance, outting an end > once and for all to tanha and dukkha.. Very nicely stated and written! We can never have too many reminders of the basics of the Buddha's teaching!! > > With metta, > Howard Metta, James #65207 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:47 pm Subject: Re: groundhog day reflections buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Sarah) and all, I would normally drop this thread at this point, because it isn't going anywhere; but this is such an important topic I won't drop it. I appreciate the quotes you gave from KS's writings on the texts. It is really wonderful that young Yudanjaya (the Buddha in a previous life) saw the impermanence in life from something so simple as dew drops evaporating. However, the conclusions you draw from the story are the complete opposite of the conclusions I draw. Yudanjaya saw the impermanence in life, he became disenchanted with life, and then he left his home and became a recluse. This is what you conclude: "One may at first be agitated by an event, but then a true sense of urgency can arise and this is always with a beautiful citta, no sadness." First, I never did say `sadness'. `Sadness' doesn't really quite capture the feeling. However, the feeling of disenchantment with life is not a beautiful citta or a beautiful feeling!! What do you think "disenchantment" means? From Vism XVI, 30: "Or alternatively, he announced the truth of suffering first to instil a sense of urgency into living beings caught up in the enjoyment of the pleasure of becoming…" Nina, I don't believe you and Sarah quite understand samvegga because you haven't experienced it firsthand. You are still caught up in the enjoyment of the pleasure of becoming. With your nice homes, fat bank accounts, supportive husbands, etc. why would you want to give that all up? Answer: you don't. You don't have a sense of urgency to end the round of becoming. I see it all the time in your posts- rather than stressing the need to escape samsara NOW, you stress the false idea that it must take lifetimes. You would rather settle in, have a nice cup of tea, and watch the lifetimes roll by. I, on the other hand, have experienced samvegga first hand so I know what it is like. If I had the right opportunity and the permission of my parents (or if my parents weren't in the picture) I would become a monk TODAY! You and Sarah are deluded; there is no comfort in this world. This world is ablaze with suffering: "But why is it suffering? Because it is the basis for many kinds of suffering. For there are many kinds of suffering, that is to say, intrinsic suffering (dukkha-dukkha), suffering in change (viparinama- dukkha), and suffering due to formations (sankhara-dukkha); and then concealed suffering, exposed suffering, indirect suffering, and direct suffering." Vism XVI, 34 Metta, James #65208 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:02 pm Subject: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup, scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you for: N: "Scott, you discerned finely that effort had already arisen when thinking of trying." I'd been thinking this generally as I pondered the 'no-control' paradigm. I think that when any particular dhamma is 'active' and one notices it, the noticing is just another dhamma performing a function (as is the dhamma being noticed if you know what I mean). I suppose it is a function of the rapidity with which things arise and fall away, as well as of the tendency towards 'I-making', that gives one to think that a certain dhamma's presence was caused by one's will that it be present (or by one's actions in sequence or whatever). N: "...This is all about the kusala viriya..." Yes, I was thinking today at work that this was about viriya, and was planning to study more about this tonight. I like this: "When we perform kusala, viriya is essential; we should go against the current of akusala, against the stream of attachment to comfort and well- being, and in this way kusala can be accomplished." Here is a refutation, I think, of the view that 'no-control' is pessimistic or nihilistic or whatever. When I 'go against the current of akusala...' I must also be clear that viriya-cetasika is 'going against akusala'. 'I' am not doing anything. The energy to go against akusala is arising if there is a going against akusala happening. "This is a very gradual process, and viriya, energy, is necessary to be aware again and again, to be aware very often, since this is the only way for pa~n~na to be able to penetrate the arising and falling away of the characteristics of naama and ruupa..." In the above, is 'to be aware' in reference to 'sati'? It is interesting that, again today, I was noticing awareness to arise. I've learned the way awareness 'feels' when it arises. To me it seems to be a certain 'airiness' or sense of 'volume' or 'spatiality' - metaphors are hard to come by here. Its just an awareness that, upon arising, demarcates a period of time when it was absent by being present, if that makes sense. There is a sense of noticing. Interestingly, the arising is always preceded by a half-formed or barely thought thought about the Dhamma, almost a tinge of joy and a remembering, as if the previous moments without awareness had been lived in a bit of a fog of forgetting I've encountered the Dhamma. I used to note the arising of this 'awareness' once in awhile but it is true: With persistence (and I'd say this is viriya) this 'awareness' sort of thing has been arising more often. "Monks, on three occasions ardent energy is to be exerted. What three? To prevent the arising of evil, unprofitable states not yet arisen; to cause the arising of good, profitable states not yet arisen; to endure the bodily feelings that have arisen, feelings which are painful, sharp, bitter, acute, distressing and unwelcome, which drain the life away. These are the three occasions..." Nina, this is one of my favourites. I like to think of the phrase from time to time. Thank you. With loving kindness, Scott. #65209 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... Hi Nina and Howard Question... Why does water feel cold? or better put ... Why does water have a cooling effect? TG In a message dated 11/10/2006 1:37:22 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Scott posted a text from the Visuddhimagga and tiika, Ch XIV. Do you remember the discussion we had when Larry and I were posting this? How I fell in the marshy waters of the Haute Fagne, and noticed just the cold? Not the fluidity? The text is not easy to read and I unraveled it at the time, adding explanations. Do you want me to repost this, or could you find sense in the text posted by Scott? Nina. #65210 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:22 pm Subject: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thank you for: H: "I think that we act with underlying sense of self in varying degrees, but that it is quite persistent, and that doing what needs to be done *should* be done, whether the time is optimal or suboptimal.. Of course, the less sense of self interfering the better." I'm thinking of this 'degrees of sense of self'. I'll have to think more. At the outset I'm tempted to say that it would be degrees of ignorance or some such. And that we're dealing here with each moment of consciousness at a time, constellated as it is by the various accompanying cetasikas. And that when the doing is being done it is because a doing has arisen - not because of a self doing. That would be thinking afterwords and rationalisation and delusion. Let me think some more, if you would. If this tentative reply prompts some clarification, that would be good. With loving kindness, Scott. #65211 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art gazita2002 hello Sarah, Nina I am sorry to hear about yr condition also, Sarah. I know it can be xtremely painful, I think the Chinese doctors call it a 'snake rash' or something to do with a snake because of the way it twines around the torso. May u get well soon. gosh, Nina, is it only 8 weeks? Seems like I have a busy existence and have lots to fit in to those 8 weeks - work, mostly. I have been printing off lots of the dsg posts as I dont have much computor time, so its great having the posts to read at my leisure. Yesterday I went for a walk and sat under a beautiful tree that issued forth a most wonderful perfume. I sniffed and sniffed and then thought how fortunate I was to be in such a pleasant spot as it was also cool and green. Then along came a dhamma thought and shattered my illusion - so to speak. This was all just vipaka and whatever deed 'created' the result was loooong gone and so was the vipaka. It didnt stop me sniffing some more, but this time with less enthusiasum. I do like these sobering thoughts. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > I am sorry to hear this. I hope you get completely recovered before > we meet in Thailand, in about eight weeks. > Nina. > Op 10-nov-2006, om 12:17 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > > It's rather tough going at the moment- lots of nerve pain, fever, a > > large > > burning rash and very little sleep. > #65212 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Nina) - In a message dated 11/10/06 9:11:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Nina and Howard > > Question... Why does water feel cold? or better put ... Why does water have > > a cooling effect? > > TG > ======================= I don't get why you ask that. I don't get why one should care (from the Dhammic perspective). As to the question: Water (the conventional substance) feels hot when hot, and cold when cold. It has a cooling effect due to evaporation. That's the story that predictively works. Is that the sort of thing your question is looking to elicit, or are you after something else? :-) With metta, Howard #65213 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:52 pm Subject: Re: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/10/06 9:28:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thank you for: > > H: "I think that we act with underlying sense of self in varying > degrees, but that it is quite persistent, and that doing what needs to > be done *should* be done, whether the time is optimal or suboptimal.. > Of course, the less sense of self interfering the better." > > I'm thinking of this 'degrees of sense of self'. I'll have to think > more. At the outset I'm tempted to say that it would be degrees of > ignorance or some such. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, degrees of ignorance, or at least effectiveness of ignorance. -------------------------------------- And that we're dealing here with each moment> > of consciousness at a time, constellated as it is by the various > accompanying cetasikas. ---------------------------------- Howard: Yes. --------------------------------- > And that when the doing is being done it is > because a doing has arisen - not because of a self doing. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Of course. There is no self. Mere actions, no actor. Mere doings, no doer. Mere willing, no one who wills. Mere effort, no one who exerts effort. ---------------------------------- That would> > be thinking afterwords and rationalisation and delusion. Let me think > some more, if you would. If this tentative reply prompts some > clarification, that would be good. > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > ======================= With metta, Howard #65214 From: "jcmendoza1000" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:19 pm Subject: Questions jcmendoza1000 To everyone: Concerning lifespan of devas in the heavens and the realm of humans (Manuṣyaloka). In Buddhist Cosmology in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology) it says the Vibhajyavāda tradition which it says is the Theravada tradition believes that the devas of the Four Great Kings live for 90,000 human years while the Mahayana believes they live for 9,000,000 human years. But in the Theravadin Access to Insight website (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an3-70.html) it holds that they live for 9,000,000 human years. The same goes for the lifespan of the other devas in higher heavens, Access to Insight seems to hold the belief of the Sarvastivadin tradition mentioned in the Wiki article. So which is which? And also, concerning Manusyaloka, the article says: * Manuṣyaloka (Tib: mi) – This is the world of humans and human-like beings who live on the surface of the earth. The mountain-rings that engird Sumeru are surrounded by a vast ocean, which fills most of the world. The ocean is in turn surrounded by a circular mountain wall called Cakravāḍa (Pāli: Cakkavāḷa) which marks the horizontal limit of the world. In this ocean there are four continents which are, relatively speaking, small islands in it. Because of the immenseness of the ocean, they cannot be reached from each other by ordinary sailing vessels, although in the past, when the cakravartin kings ruled, communication between the continents was possible by means of the treasure called the cakraratna (Pāli cakkaratana), which a cakravartin and his retinue could use to fly through the air between the continents. The four continents are: * o Jambudvīpa or Jambudīpa is located in the south and is the dwelling of ordinary human beings. It is said to be shaped "like a cart", or rather a blunt-nosed triangle with the point facing south. (This description probably echoes the shape of the coastline of southern India.) It is 10,000 yojanas in extent (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or has a perimeter of 6,000 yojanas (Sarvāstivāda tradition) to which can be added the southern coast of only 3 1⁄2 yojanas' length. The continent takes its name from a giant Jambu tree (Syzygium cumini), 100 yojanas tall, which grows in the middle of the continent. Every continent has one of these giant trees. All Buddhas appear in Jambudvīpa. The people here are five to six feet tall and their length of life varies between 80,000 and 10 years. * o Pūrvavideha or Pubbavideha is located in the east, and is shaped like a semicircle with the flat side pointing westward (i.e., towards Sumeru). It is 7,000 yojanas in extent (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or has a perimeter of 6,350 yojanas of which the flat side is 2,000 yojanas long (Sarvāstivāda tradition). Its tree is the acacia. The people here are about 12 feet tall and they live for 250 years. * o Aparagodānīya or Aparagoyāna is located in the west, and is shaped like a circle with a circumference of about 7,500 yojanas (Sarvāstivāda tradition). The tree of this continent is a giant Kadambu tree. The human inhabitants of this continent do not live in houses but sleep on the ground. They are about 24 feet tall and they live for 500 years. * o Uttarakuru is located in the north, and is shaped like a square. It has a perimter of 8,000 yojanas, being 2,000 yojanas on each side. This continent's tree is called a kalpavṛkṣa (Pāli: kapparukkha) or kalpa-tree, because it lasts for the entire kalpa. The inhabitants of Uttarakuru are said to be extraordinarily wealthy. They do not need to labor for a living, as their food grows by itself, and they have no private property. They have cities built in the air. They are about 48 feet tall and live for 1,000 years, and they are under the protection of Vaiśravaṇa. Now, we all know now that the earth is round unlike what is mentioned in the article of it having horizontal limits and that there are many continents in it but all can be reached by boat and that none of the people living there are more that 8 feet tall. People who grow 5 to 6 feet not only live in Jambudipa but also in all other continents that make up the world as we know today ( and why aren't these other continents named in Manusyaloka), are people mentioned in the article being 12 -48 feet tall myths or do they really exist and we still have no means to reach them? And why is Manusyaloka represented as horizontal instead of it being round? To Sarah: Thanks for the info. To Nina: So what can you say about the reply I sent you about being able to eat butter after 12 in the Uposatha? Salt? And who is Venerable Samahita and how can I contact him To Leo: You said, I found the following: In Anggutarra Nikaya 8.51,(Refer also to The First Sangha Council-The Thera Mahakassapa has made the blessed Buddha's message to endure 500 years - from the Mahavamsa book) the Buddha warned that the true Dhamma would remain unadulterated for 500 years after his passing into Nibbána. Thereafter, it will become very difficult to distinguish the true teachings from the false. Why? Because although many of these later books contain a lot of Dhamma, some adhamma (i.e. what is contrary to the Dhamma) are added here and there. These alterations scattered throughout these texts are only noticeable if one is sharp and very well versed in the earliest suttas. Otherwise, one would find it very difficult to distinguish the later books from the earlier ones. It was on a website: http://geocities. com/allbuddhism/ Is this Theravadin or not? -JC #65215 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:50 pm Subject: Fruitions of the Abilities ... !!! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Fruits of the 5 Mental Abilities? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five mental abilities. What five? The ability of Faith (saddhÄ? ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samÄ?dhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) These are the five abilities. One who has completed & fulfilled these five abilities is an Arahat . If they are weaker than that, then one is practising for the fruit of Arahat-ship ; if still weaker, one is a non-returner ; if still weaker, then one is practising for the reaching the fruit of non-returning ; if still weaker, one is a once-returner ; if still weaker, one is training for the realization of the fruit of once-return ; if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer ; if still weaker, one is striving for stream-entry ! Thus, Bhikkhus, one who activates the abilities fully succeeds fully; one who activates them partly succeeds partly. Therefore, I tell you: These five abilities, Bhikkhus, are not barren of resulting fruition... But, I tell you that one in whom these five abilities are completely & totally absent is an outsider, one who remains an ordinary worldling! Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 202] 48 The Mental Abilities: 18 Training... For Details on the Fruits of the Abilities (indriya) see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/ariya_puggala.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/anagami.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sotaapanna.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sotaapattiyanga.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/puthujjana.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/saddhaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/u_v/viriya.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sati.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/pannaa.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #65216 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:25 am Subject: Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Hi Azita, Mike, Phil, Howard, Nina & all, Thanks for all your kind comments and sympathy! --- gazita2002 wrote: > I am sorry to hear about yr condition also, Sarah. I know it can be > xtremely painful, I think the Chinese doctors call it a 'snake rash' > or something to do with a snake because of the way it twines around > the torso. May u get well soon. .... S: Yes, 'snake disease' on account of the snake-like rash entwined around the torso, just as you say. I have a 'beautiful' textbook 'snake':-) We could take a photo of it for those who are seriously into asubha practices, lol (A Thai friend mentioned that they also refer to is as snake disease). ... > Yesterday I went for a walk and sat under a beautiful tree that > issued forth a most wonderful perfume. I sniffed and sniffed and then > thought how fortunate I was to be in such a pleasant spot as it was > also cool and green. Then along came a dhamma thought and shattered > my illusion - so to speak. This was all just vipaka and whatever > deed 'created' the result was loooong gone and so was the vipaka. .... S: Yes, whatever - pleasant or unpleasnt.....just vipaka appearing through the various doorways. I've been reflecting and laughing about all that kamma catching up this week. It is a condition for a little more detachment, I find, for sure:-). .... S: Mike N was giving us computer crash tips off-list when this 'crash' struck. I wrote in response to his sympathy: S(off-list) > Anything, anytime can happen in samsara....and yet we still go on clinging > like mad to 'my body'... > No longer concerned about the computer crash - when it comes to lobha, > it's all relative! ... M (off-list):>Even when that isn't happening we tend to be preoccupied with wanting pleasant feelings and wanting to avoid unpleasant ones. Do you find there are any reflections on Dhamma that seem to relieve mental unpleasantness even when feeling physically ill? Speaking conventionally, of course--< ... S: (hope you don't mind a response here...)Speaking conventionally or non-conventionally - reflections on kamma have been helpful, any present moment reflections have been helpful -- as Ken H reminded us (that we reminded him when he was sick), what's gone really is gone. Forget the pain last night and concerns about tomorrow....one moment at a time. And the real problem is not the short, momentary unpleasant bodily feeling, but the aversion which makes it so many times worse. Of course, there's not even unpleasant bodily feeling all the time. Often, as Phil has been stressing from MN19(?), it's just a matter of what is being attended to.....Usually, it's all the nimitta anupyanjanna (marks and details) about what has been experienced, but reflecting on dhamma really can be a condition for moments of awareness to arise and develop....without expectation, of course! It's interesting - as soon as I got the 'right' diagnosis, I immediately started feeling quite cheerful about it. The symptoms are the same, but there aren't the same long stories and worries about whether I'd been unknowingly bitten by an unknown sea creature or whether I'd got some flesh-eating disease or whatever, lol:-) How about you, Mike - any reflections you find particularly helpful at such times which you'd care to share....conventionally speaking or not? .... S (off-list)> No longer concerned about the computer crash - when it comes to lobha, > it's all relative! M (off-list):Yes, always something isn't it--get well soon. ... S: Yes, while there's lurking or not-so-lurking lobha, there is always something to be concerned about....all very natural and daily life stuff. Nothing to fret about. Phil, thank you for your (& Naomi's) aromatherapy suggestions. As it happens, we do have both lavender and tea tree oils, so may try these - would have to be v.diluted as you suggest. I was dabbing with aloe vera for a few days, but recently have been dabbing with calomine lotion and wrapped up ice. May also ask a friend to try and get chamomile - not sure where.... maybe chamomile tea bags... Howard, it must be extremely tough for elderly people, especially for those who continue to experience pain - my sympathies. That's really tough vipaka in old age. Thanks for you sweet concern as usual and yes, I'm now onto serious pain and anti-shingle viral medication (a little late, but so be it...). As for writing/reading dhamma - it's the best antidote of all as far as I'm concerned, so will do my best to keep up! Metta, Sarah ======== #65217 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:24 am Subject: Abhidhamma in daily Life, 118 nilovg Dear friends, As we have seen, dhammaaramma.na, the sixth class of objects, can be experienced only through the mind-door. It includes all objects other than the sense objects. Dhammaaramma.na can again be subdivided into six classes. They are: 1. The five sense-organs (pasåda-rúpas) 2. The subtle rúpas (sukhuma-rúpas) 3. Citta 4. Cetasika 5. Nibbåna 6. Concepts and conventional terms (paññatti) The first class of dhammaaramma.na comprises the five sense-organs (pasåda-rúpas); they are the rúpas which have the capacity to receive sense-impressions. The pasåda-rúpas themselves do not experience anything, they are rúpa, not nåma; they function as the doors through which cittas experience objects. The pasåda-rúpas can only be known through the mind-door, not through the sense-doors. For example, we know that there is eyesense, because there is seeing, but we cannot experience eyesense through the eyes. The five sense-organs are classified as gross (olårika) rúpas. Altogether there are twenty-eight kinds of rúpa of which twelve are classified as gross and sixteen as subtle (sukhuma). The gross rúpas include, besides the five sense-organs, the sense objects which can be experienced through the five sense-doors; these are seven rúpas, that is to say: four rúpas which can respectively be experienced through the four sense-doors of eyes, ears, nose and tongue, and the three rúpas of solidity, temperature and motion which can be experienced through the door of the bodysense. Thus, there are altogether twelve gross rúpas. As we have seen, the sense objects have been classified separately, they are not included in dhammaaramma.na. There are sixteen kinds of subtle rúpa and these have been classified as the second class of dhammaaramma.na. They include, for example, nutritive essence (ojå), bodily intimation, kåya-viññatti, the rúpa which is the physical condition for expression through the body, such as gestures or facial expression, and vocal intimation, vacíviññatti, the rúpa which is the physical condition for speech or other ways of vocal intimation. ****** Nina. #65218 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions nilovg Dear JC, Mike thought that gee is allowed, but the late Ven. Dhammadharo said; no milk in the tea after twelve. Ven. Samahita can be contacted here on dsg, or, look at jis latest message. Do not worry about the earth being round, the measurements etc. Those are conventional terms used at that time trying to explain something. what really matters: have more understanding of nama and rupa. Nina. Op 11-nov-2006, om 7:19 heeft jcmendoza1000 het volgende geschreven: > To Nina: > So what can you say about the reply I sent you about being able to eat > butter after 12 in the Uposatha? Salt? And who is Venerable Samahita > and how can I contact him #65219 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fruitions of the Abilities ... !!! nilovg Venerable Samahita, I am really glad to see you back. I hope you are in good health. I am amazed at the amount of work you must have put in collecting all this information. I just read about saddhaa, and this contains a lot of material. I will keep it and consult it now and then. Thank you very much, with respect, Nina. Op 11-nov-2006, om 8:50 heeft Bhikkhu Samahita het volgende geschreven: > What are the Fruits of the 5 Mental Abilities? > > The Blessed Buddha once said: > Bhikkhus, there are these five mental abilities. What five? #65220 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:00 am Subject: Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Azita, Mike, Phil, Howard, Nina & all, > > Thanks for all your kind comments and sympathy! > > --- gazita2002 wrote: > > I am sorry to hear about yr condition also, Sarah. I know it can be > > xtremely painful, I think the Chinese doctors call it a 'snake rash' > > or something to do with a snake because of the way it twines around > > the torso. May u get well soon. > .... > S: Yes, 'snake disease' on account of the snake-like rash entwined around > the torso, just as you say. I have a 'beautiful' textbook 'snake':- ) So sorry for your medical condition. Hope you get well soon. Metta, James #65221 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:34 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 576- Understanding/pa~n~naa (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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd Understanding which is supramundane, lokuttara, can be classified by way of three faculties: 1) I-shall-come-to-know-the-unknown” faculty (an-aññåtaññassåmí ‘t’indriya), arising at the moment of the magga-citta of the sotåpanna(1). 2) The faculty of final knowledge (aññindriya), which arises at the moment of the phala-citta, fruition-consciousness, of the sotåpanna, and also accompanies the magga-citta and the phala-citta of the sakadågåmí and of the anågåmí and the magga-citta of the arahat(2). 3) The final knower faculty (aññåtåvindriya), arising at the moment of the phala-citta of the arahat. The sotåpanna still has to develop right understanding of nåma and rúpa because his understanding has not reached the degree that all defilements can be eradicated. The task of developing understanding is finished only when the “final knower faculty” has arisen(3). *** 1) Dhammasangaùi, §362-364. Vis. XVI, 3. 2) Dhammasangaùi, §505. 3) Dhammasangaùi, §553. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65222 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:16 am Subject: attempted fix up, energy. nilovg Dear Scott, S: I'd been thinking this generally as I pondered the 'no-control' paradigm.... I suppose it is a function of the rapidity with which things arise and fall away, as well as of the tendency towards 'I-making', that gives one to think that a certain dhamma's presence was caused by one's will that it be present (or by one's actions in sequence or whatever). ------ N: Very well observed. -------- S:quote: "When we perform kusala, viriya is essential; we should go against the current of akusala, against the stream of attachment to comfort and well- being, and in this way kusala can be accomplished." Here is a refutation, I think, of the view that 'no-control' is pessimistic or nihilistic or whatever. When I 'go against the current of akusala...' I must also be clear that viriya-cetasika is 'going against akusala'. 'I' am not doing anything. The energy to go against akusala is arising if there is a going against akusala happening. ------ N: There is no idleness, no passivity. We are listening and considering and we know this is never enough. The exhortations of the Buddha we read about, such as do not be heedless, can be remembered and this remembrance of the dhamma is a condition for kusala viriya. --------- S: quote "This is a very gradual process, and viriya, energy, is necessary to be aware again and again, to be aware very often, since this is the only way for pa~n~na to be able to penetrate the arising and falling away of the characteristics of naama and ruupa..." In the above, is 'to be aware' in reference to 'sati'? --------- N: Yes, sati. We have to be courageous, because sati arises seldom and we are not sure about its characteristic. it is a type of nama, but nama cannot be known precisely before the first stage of insight. But how to develop insight? with sati and pa~n~naa. This sounds like a contradiction, more about this below. -------- S: It is interesting that, again today, I was noticing awareness to arise. I've learned the way awareness 'feels' when it arises. To me it seems to be a certain 'airiness' or sense of 'volume' or 'spatiality' - metaphors are hard to come by here. Its just an awareness that, upon arising, demarcates a period of time when it was absent by being present, if that makes sense. There is a sense of noticing. Interestingly, the arising is always preceded by a half-formed or barely thought thought about the Dhamma, almost a tinge of joy and a remembering, as if the previous moments without awareness had been lived in a bit of a fog of forgetting I've encountered the Dhamma. I used to note the arising of this 'awareness' once in awhile but it is true: With persistence (and I'd say this is viriya) this 'awareness' sort of thing has been arising more often. ------ N: This is a subject that is important and it should be discussed again and again. There is sati with each kusala citta as you know, thus also when listening and considering characteristics of realities. One may be inclined to wonder: what is sati, when is there sati. But, instead of thinking about sati, it is beneficial to know: is there already a little more understanding of one dhamma at a time as it appears through one doorway at a time? Usually we think of concepts of wholes, of persons and things, but sometimes we 'study' with sati a nama or a rupa. This cannot be precise understanding in the beginning, but it can develop. In this way we can discern the difference between complete fogginess and a beginning of understanding. We see all the time people and things, but we learnt: this is not seeing but thinking of concepts. Because of hearing Kh Sujin explaining about seeing time and again, there can sometimes be a moment of attending to seeing, but the intention to do so. Not 'me' trying to find out what visible object is, what seeing sees. That is counterproductive. Lodewijk keeps on asking me to explain what sati of satipatthawithoutna is and says that he does not understand. He says: when sati arises you know what it is like, but if it does not arise you do not know it. I used to ask the same question. It is logic, but this does not work Dhammawise. We need patience and energy to keep on studying the dhammas that appear, also when having a nice cup of tea and watching the lifetimes roll by, as James said. That is a sense of urgency. Very gradually we can learn characteristics of nama and rupa, becoming familiar with them. The suttas about the objects appearing through the six doors remind us. ***** Nina. #65223 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:23 am Subject: Re: Craving, Acting Upon Craving, and the Brilliance of the Buddha nidive Hi Howard, > The craving hurts! The craving itself is gnawing dukkha! Not only craving itself is gnawing dukkha. Fabrications itself is gnawing dukkha. Consciousness itself is gnawing dukkha. Name-&-form itself is gnawing dukkha. Six sense media itself is gnawing dukkha. Contact itself is gnawing dukkha. Feeling itself is gnawing dukkha. Craving itself is gnawing dukkha. Clinging itself is gnawing dukkha. Becoming itself is gnawing dukkha. Birth itself is gnawing dukkha. Aging & Death itself is gnawing dukkha. All of them in and of themselves are gnawing dukkha because they have their roots ultimately in Ignorance; they are ultimately rooted in Ignorance! > The Buddha's brilliance was not only to see that tanha is the root > of dukkha, but that avijja is the root of tanha, and to provide the > means to cultivate the supermundane wisdom that will uproot that > ignorance, outting an end once and for all to tanha and dukkha. The final breakthrough comes from seeing that Ignorance itself too is gnawing dukkha. I would say that Ignorance has it roots in Ignorance itself. Because Ignorance feeds on itself in a vicious cycle, there comes repeated births, there comes the discernibility of this world, samsara. When this vicious cycle is broken up through the penetration of the 4 Noble Truths, there comes the non-discernibility of this world, nibbana! Regards, Swee Boon PS: I know you think what I said above amounts to annihilationism. #65224 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Craving, Acting Upon Craving, and the Brilliance of the Buddha upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 11/11/06 10:33:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >The craving hurts! The craving itself is gnawing dukkha! > > Not only craving itself is gnawing dukkha. > > Fabrications itself is gnawing dukkha. > Consciousness itself is gnawing dukkha. > Name-&-form itself is gnawing dukkha. > Six sense media itself is gnawing dukkha. > Contact itself is gnawing dukkha. > Feeling itself is gnawing dukkha. > Craving itself is gnawing dukkha. > Clinging itself is gnawing dukkha. > Becoming itself is gnawing dukkha. > Birth itself is gnawing dukkha. > Aging &Death itself is gnawing dukkha. > > All of them in and of themselves are gnawing dukkha because they have > their roots ultimately in Ignorance; they are ultimately rooted in > Ignorance! ------------------------------------ Howard: They are all dukkha in the sense of not being sources of satisfaction and, when clung to, being sources of suffering. When I spoke of craving as itself being gnawing dukkha, I was speaking of dukkha in the sense of actual suffering (i.e, mental pain). ------------------------------------- > > >The Buddha's brilliance was not only to see that tanha is the root > >of dukkha, but that avijja is the root of tanha, and to provide the > >means to cultivate the supermundane wisdom that will uproot that > >ignorance, outting an end once and for all to tanha and dukkha. > > The final breakthrough comes from seeing that Ignorance itself too is > gnawing dukkha. I would say that Ignorance has it roots in Ignorance > itself. > > Because Ignorance feeds on itself in a vicious cycle, there comes > repeated births, there comes the discernibility of this world, > samsara. > > When this vicious cycle is broken up through the penetration of the 4 > Noble Truths, there comes the non-discernibility of this world, > nibbana! > > Regards, > Swee Boon > > PS: I know you think what I said above amounts to annihilationism. -------------------------------------- Howard: The goal of the Dhamma includes awakening and enlightenment, not i-gnor-ance, not a blanking out into a state of unknowing or even total nullity. If the goal is said to be not a no-thing-ness beyond separate conditions, but nothing at all, I would say such a characterization is indeed an annihilationism. ==================== With metta, Howard #65225 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:50 am Subject: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency nilovg Hi James, I appreciate your mails. What I like, your remark about having a nice cup of tea, enjoying pleasant things, unaware of samsara. It is a good shake up. But I am not inclined to debates either. We often talk cross purposes, because each of us sees something else in a text. We do not get each other's meaning, but, it is as it is. I also find this subject important. --- J quote: One may at first be agitated by an event, but then a true sense of urgency can arise and this is always with a beautiful citta, no sadness." First, I never did say `sadness'. `Sadness' doesn't really quite capture the feeling. However, the feeling of disenchantment with life is not a beautiful citta or a beautiful feeling!! What do you think "disenchantment" means? ----- N: Sadness because of a loss, or fear, all these moods are variations of aversion which is negative. People like Ubbiri who had lost her daughter came to the Buddha and he made her see the Truth. But I do think disenchantment is used in a positive sense, thus with a beautiful citta. Therigatha, Ubbiri: "'Jiva, my daughter,' you cry in the woods. Come to your senses, Ubbiri. 84,000 all named Jiva have been burned in that charnel ground. For which of them do you grieve?" Pulling out — completely out — the arrow so hard to see, embedded in my heart, he expelled from me — overcome with grief — the grief over my daughter. Today — with arrow removed, without hunger, entirely Unbound — to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha I go, for refuge to the Sage. --------- J: From Vism XVI, 30: "Or alternatively, he announced the truth of suffering first to instil a sense of urgency into living beings caught up in the enjoyment of the pleasure of becoming…" ------- N: I take this differently. People are attached to birth, they enjoy it. To instill a sense of urgency: people would come to see the danger of birth, and this is understanding. Positive, with a beautiful citta. It can be together with happy feeling or with indifferent feeling. -------- J: Nina, I don't believe you and Sarah quite understand samvegga because you haven't experienced it firsthand. ... You would rather settle in, have a nice cup of tea, and watch the lifetimes roll by. ----- N: I do appreciate this reminder. I do not want to give up my life in the world. If one has such accumulations one becomes a monk. But one cannot escape one's defilements, one takes them wherever one goes. Both monk and layperson can develop the wisdom to eradicate defilements. The word bhikkhu can be used in a wider sense. We read in the Co. to the satipatthanasutta; Everyone, also a layperson is in a sense abhikkhu if he practices satipatthana. ------- J: I, on the other hand, have experienced samvegga first hand so I know what it is like. If I had the right opportunity and the permission of my parents (or if my parents weren't in the picture) I would become a monk TODAY! You and Sarah are deluded; there is no comfort in this world. This world is ablaze with suffering: ------- N: People have accumulations for different lifestyles, but all can develop more understanding of the dukkha of life. One may think of a life different from what one leads today, but is this helpful? One forgets this moment. One delays and is thus heedless. Nina. #65226 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art nilovg Dear Azita, I like your story, very human. It makes me think of a sutta: We read in the Kindred Sayings (I, Sagåthå-vagga IX, Forest Suttas §14): A certain monk was once staying among the Kosalese in a certain forest-tract. Now while there was that monk, after he had returned from his alms-round and had broken his fast, plunged into the lotus- pool and sniffed up the perfume of a red lotus. Then the deva who haunted that forest tract, moved with compassion for that monk, desiring his welfare, and wishing to agitate him, drew near and addressed him in the verse: ``That blossom, water-born, thing not given, You stand sniffing up the scent of it. This is one class of things that may be stolen. And you a smell-thief must I call, dear sir.'' (The monk:) ``Nay, nought I bear away, I nothing break. Standing apart I smell the water's child. Now for what reason am I smell-thief called? One who does dig up water-lilies, one Who feeds on lotuses, in motley tasks Engaged: why have you no such name for him?'' (The Deva:) ``A man of ruthless, wicked character, Foul-flecked as is a handmaid's dirty cloth: With such the words I say have no concern. But this it is meet that I should say (to you): To him whose character is void of vice, Who ever makes quest for what is pure: What to the wicked but a hair-tip seems, To him does great as a rain-cloud appear...'' A monk is not supposed to indulge in odour, but for laypeople it is different, No need to stop sniffing. You had a Dhamma thought and this shows that understanding is being developed of what appears, such as odour, smelling, lobha. Nina. Op 11-nov-2006, om 3:43 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Yesterday I went for a walk and sat under a beautiful tree that > issued forth a most wonderful perfume. I sniffed and sniffed and then > thought how fortunate I was to be in such a pleasant spot as it was > also cool and green. Then along came a dhamma thought and shattered > my illusion - so to speak. This was all just vipaka and whatever > deed 'created' the result was loooong gone and so was the vipaka. It > didnt stop me sniffing some more, but this time with less enthusiasum. > I do like these sobering thoughts. #65227 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. nilovg Hi Howard, perhaps you still consider water as a concept. Look at the satipatthanasutta: Here the four great Elements are mentioned together and this by no means refers to conventional ideas. Nina. Op 10-nov-2006, om 23:18 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I did find sense in what Scott > posted. #65228 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/11/06 2:28:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > perhaps you still consider water as a concept. Look at the > satipatthanasutta: > > "And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body > according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of > materiality, thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of > solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode > of oscillation.' > > "O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow- > butcher's apprentice, having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way > of portions, should be sitting at the junction of a four-cross-road; > in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body, according > as it is placed or disposed, by way of the modes of materiality, > thinking thus: 'There are in this body the mode of solidity, the mode > of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' > > "Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally... and > clings to naught in the world. > > "Thus also, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the > body."> > Here the four great Elements are mentioned together and this by no > means refers to conventional ideas. > Nina. ====================== I don't know why you would think that just because it is mentioned in a sutta it is not a conventional notion. The notion of "great element of water" includes not only cohesion, but also flowingness, and they are quite different from each other. Moreover, cohesion, itself, is a relational phenomenon. I don't say it is unreal, but it does not seem to me to be directly observed as a sight or sound is, or like anger and love are. It is known conceptually, it seems to me. Getting back to the water element being mentioned in the suttas allegedly implying that it was not intended conventionally by the Buddha, I ask that you consider the following from MN 140: <> With metta, Howard #65229 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/11/2006 3:07:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I don't know why you would think that just because it is mentioned in a sutta it is not a conventional notion. The notion of "great element of water" includes not only cohesion, but also flowingness, and they are quite different from each other. Moreover, cohesion, itself, is a relational phenomenon. I don't say it is unreal, but it does not seem to me to be directly observed as a sight or sound is, or like anger and love are. It is known conceptually, it seems to me. Getting back to the water element being mentioned in the suttas allegedly implying that it was not intended conventionally by the Buddha, I ask that you consider the following from MN 140: <> With metta, Howard Hi Howard and Nina (Thanks for your earlier reply on water Howard, I'll get back to that.) I believe water symbolizes the element that is better thought of as "coalescence." The element "coalescence" is not a conventional notion, it is an actual occurrence. Water as a symbol is a conventional notion technically, but I believe in the Dhamma it is not meant to be a conventional notion. It is meant to point to the quality of coalescence. Water is only predominantly coalescence and contain portions of the other 3 Great Elements as well. Hence, fluidity is predominantly the "dispersion" aspect of water usually symbolized as the Air Element. The same type of analysis would apply to the Fire and Earth Elements as well. Water itself is not an element but a representation of coalescence. If Water itself is considered to be an Element, than I don't believe one would be able to make sense of a 4 Great Element analysis that speaks to Water, Fire, Air, or Earth ... as they each are a "mixed bag" of activities. IMO, these 4 Elements can only be meant to represent "principles of activities" of nature. IMO, when the Buddha talks about the Water Element, he is not referring to water, he is referring to the predominant activity that Water symbolizes... i.e., coalescence. "The Water Element" is only a conventional notion if one take "water" literally. TG #65230 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. scottduncan2 Dear Swimmers, Would this be relevant? "The water element, or fluidity, is the material factor that makes different particles of matter cohere, thereby preventing them from being scattered about. Its characteristic is trickling or oozing, its function is to intensify the coexisting material states, and it is manifested as the holding together or cohesion of material phenomena. Its proximate cause is the other three great essentials. The Abbhidhamma holds that unlike the other three great essentials, the water element cannot be physically sensed but must be known inferentially from the cohesion of observed matter." CMA, p.238. Scott. #65231 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/11/06 5:51:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard and Nina (Thanks for your earlier reply on water Howard, I'll > get > back to that.) > > I believe water symbolizes the element that is better thought of as > "coalescence." The element "coalescence" is not a conventional notion, it > is an > actual occurrence. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't say it isn't an actual occurrence. I didn't say it is imagined. In fact, what I said was "I don't say it is unreal, but it does not seem to me to be directly observed as a sight or sound is, or like anger and love are. It is known conceptually, it seems to me." Thunderstorms are actual occurrences also, but they are pa~n~natti. ------------------------------------- Water as a symbol is a conventional notion technically, but I > > believe in the Dhamma it is not meant to be a conventional notion. It is > meant to point to the quality of coalescence. > > Water is only predominantly coalescence and contain portions of the other 3 > > Great Elements as well. Hence, fluidity is predominantly the "dispersion" > aspect of water usually symbolized as the Air Element. The same type of > analysis would apply to the Fire and Earth Elements as well. > > Water itself is not an element but a representation of coalescence. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I understand you. When I say that the water element is concept, I'm not talking about H2O. But I do not think that in Abhidhamma the water element signifies only coalescence. And even if it did, I don't see that as an experienced phenomenon like hardness, but as a relational phenomenon that is inferred - known by concept only, and not by direct observaton through *any* sense door. ---------------------------------------- If > > Water itself is considered to be an Element, than I don't believe one would > be > able to make sense of a 4 Great Element analysis that speaks to Water, Fire, > > Air, or Earth ... as they each are a "mixed bag" of activities. IMO, > these 4 > Elements can only be meant to represent "principles of activities" of > nature. > > IMO, when the Buddha talks about the Water Element, he is not referring to > water, he is referring to the predominant activity that Water symbolizes... > > i.e., coalescence. "The Water Element" is only a conventional notion if > one > take "water" literally. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Where does the Buddha say that? In any case, coalescence/cohesion is only known inferentially and conceptually it seems to me. We no more directly sense cohesion than we literally see a tree. --------------------------------------- > > TG > ================== With metta, Howard #65232 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/11/06 6:23:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Swimmers, > > Would this be relevant? > > "The water element, or fluidity, is the material factor that makes > different particles of matter cohere, thereby preventing them from > being scattered about. Its characteristic is trickling or oozing, its > function is to intensify the coexisting material states, and it is > manifested as the holding together or cohesion of material phenomena. > Its proximate cause is the other three great essentials. The > Abbhidhamma holds that unlike the other three great essentials, the > water element cannot be physically sensed but must be known > inferentially from the cohesion of observed matter." CMA, p.238. > > Scott. > > > ======================== The description "The water element, or fluidity, is the material factor that makes different particles of matter cohere, thereby preventing them from being scattered about. Its characteristic is trickling or oozing, its function is to intensify the coexisting material states, and it is manifested as the holding together or cohesion of material phenomena." sounds quite conventional to me, especially "Its characteristic is trickling or oozing"! ;-) In any case, we do not directly experience coalescence, not through any sense door. With metta, Howard #65233 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:42 pm Subject: Help me find this sutta? philofillet Hi all I heard this in a talk but the sutta isn't identified: "In one passage, the Buddha says your experience of all the diffrent khandas that make up experience has to get shaped into these(?) things by the proces of fabrication (ie sankhara, volition) in other words there's a potential for feeling, for perception, for sankhara, consciousness, and the act of fabricating is what makes these things into an actual aggregate" Can anyone point me toward the sutta in question? In SN 22, I would guess. Thanks in advance. Phil #65234 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Yeah: "...In any case, we do not directly experience coalescence, not through any sense door." How about: "In the exposition of the element of cohesion 'liquid' is the natural word, whether it be aapo or aapagata; 'moist' is by way of being fluid, whether it be sineha or sinehagata. 'Cohesiveness of matter' is the cohering condition of the essential matter, such as the element of extension, etc. For the element of cohesion binds together iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, they are called rigid...All such things the element of cohesion binds, and makes rigid; they are rigid because of its binding...In other words, does the element of cohesion in binding the remaining elements, bind by being in contact, or not?...the element of cohesion binds the three others without being in contact with them. Otherwise it would be called tangible object..." Atthasaalinii, pp.435-436. Scott. #65235 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma jonoabb Hi Howard (and Larry) upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Larry (and also Jon and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 11/3/06 7:21:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... > writes: > > >> Hi all, >> >> For the sake of not having rock solid views there is a way of >> understanding a paramattha dhamma and its characteristic as two dhammas. >> In the case of earth element and hardness we could say earth element is >> a reality external to the body door and hardness is the experience of it >> as body consciousness. Just a possibility; I'm not trying to sell it. >> >> Larry >> > ==================== > It's a nice idea, one that I think may well appeal to Jon, in fact. I > have written to him before that his perspective presupposes "external rupas" > and "internal rupas" (or sensations), > As you've explained in another thread recently, you are referring here to actually experienced rupas and (allegedly) non-experienced rupas. I'll use the terms "experienced rupas" and "non-experienced rupas", to avoid confusion with the internal and external rupas mentioned in the texts. > but I'm not sure that I made myself clear to him. > Not at all; it's I who haven't made myself clear to you ;-)) > I, myself, don't believe in "external rupas", for they are never > experienced - only sensations are. The texts do not make explicit a distinction between experienced and non-experienced rupas. So we might ask whether there is any need to do so ;-)). If there is a distinction to be made, it is surely not a matter of 'believing' or not in that distinction. We may read the texts as supporting the distinction or not, but as I think you and I agreed in a previous post, there is no need to make any assumptions (since we have no way of knowing whether the assumption made is correct or not). In a later post you urge us to consider the question of *where* any non-experienced rupas would arise. I'm afraid I don't see the significance of this. Are you suggesting that the 'where' for non-experienced rupas would have to be different from the 'where' for experienced rupas? I don't see why, but perhaps you have some particular views on the 'where' of experienced rupas, and I'd be interested to hear you further on this. Jon #65236 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, Suffering) jonoabb Hi Sebastien Appreciating your work in doing the French translation. Just to add on the general subject of sutta names that (with some exceptions) the names of the suttas are not fixed, i.e., do not form part of the original texts, but are chosen by the translator/compiler. So the same sutta may have quite different names in different translations (depending, it seems, on the understanding of the translator -- in some instances the names chosen are positively misleading, in my view). Jon sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Sebastien (& Nina), > > --- s.billard@... wrote: > >> Still working on my french translation of ADL, I would like to know what >> is the >> sutta name of Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, >> Suffering) >> at the end of chapter 2 ? >> > .... > S: If it helps, the reference in B.Bodhi's translation is to: 'The > Connected Discourses of Buddha', 111, Khandhavagga, (Khandhasamyutta), > Final Fifty, 22:104 (2),'Suffering': > > "At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you suffering, the origin of > suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the > cessation of suffering.......etc" > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s If you don't have the BB translation and it's any help to have it > typed out in full, let me know. > ===== > > #65237 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: > Hallo Jon, all > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > >> ... >> I'm probably repeating myself here, but the reason is that >> according to the 'reverse order' of DO it is only with the >> complete cessation of ignorance (the first link/factor) >> that existence, birth and aging-and-death (the final 3 >> links/factors) also cease. So unless ignorance has been >> completely eradicated there will be conditions for further >> becoming at the end of the present lifetime. >> > > Joop: Now I understand. Yes, another time ignorance arises again. > My meaning was, unless ignorance has been completely eradicated by the time death comes, there will still be conditions for the continuation of becoming. >> If you mean ignorance of the >> way things really are then I'd say the only thing that helps in >> decreasing that is the development of insight into the true nature >> of dhammas. Contemplating on the 'this, that' formula would not be >> the development of such insight. >> > Joop: That makes the gap between us enormous! > True, because contemplating on the 'this, that' formula must involve a kind of discursive thinking, whereas insight is the direct experiencing by panna of the characteristic of a presently arisen dhamma. >> To my understanding, the opposite would be the case, that Ven >> Sariputta had accumulated such a deep analysis of the 24 conditions >> and all links of DO that he needed only the merest of hints for >> that knowledge to be recalled afresh in his final lifetime. >> > Joop: First you introduce here the concept 'hint', while talking > about something with enormous energy, a sudden awakening. I'm not with you here. I was using 'hint' to describe the mention in very general terms by Ven Assaji of the teaching on cause and effect, but which was nonetheless sufficient for Sariputta to fully grasp the truth of conditionality (and to become enlightened there and then). > Second: how > can Sariputta have done this analysis while 'the 24 condition' are > developed centuries after his passing away? > The '24 conditions' (or some variation of that number) were known during previous Buddha-sasana's. The mention of this in general terms only (= 'hint') of this aspect of the teaching by Ven Assaji was sufficient to bring to mind in Sariputta matters previously known but not yet recalled in the present lifetime. > I think in stead of 'deep analysis' we can talk about the 'deep > thought' of Sariputta. But Theravada doesn't like any more even the > possibility of sudden awakenings, is my impression. > Not at all. There are plenty of instances in the Theravada teachings of sudden awakenings (but all have a rational explanation in terms of insight knowledge gained in previous lifetimes). > But Buddhadasa is for me in the first place a spiritual Thai reformer > who had to do with superstitous popular buddhism in his country, and > his talks were aimed to change that superstutions (about which now > even the Queen of Thailand has made a public remark) > If you are saying that your main interest in Bhikkhu Buddhadasa is in his role in countering superstitions associated with popular Thai Buddhism, I can only say this comes as a surprise to me ;-)) I had thought you were recommending the study of his writings for their own sake, as an aide to a better understanding of the teachings (DO in particular). > Perhaps it was not nice to say that your remarks were scholastic, let > say now they are to technical > No problem, Joop. I readily admit that my remarks are likely to be too detailed for some. Jon #65238 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 11/11/2006 4:32:58 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/11/06 5:51:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > Hi Howard and Nina (Thanks for your earlier reply on water Howard, I'll > get > back to that.) > > I believe water symbolizes the element that is better thought of as > "coalescence. "coalescence." The element "coalescence" is not a conve > is an > actual occurrence. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't say it isn't an actual occurrence. I didn't say it is imagined. In fact, what I said was "I don't say it is unreal, but it does not seem to me to be directly observed as a sight or sound is, or like anger and love are. It is known conceptually, it seems to me." Thunderstorms are actual occurrences also, but they are pa~n~natti. ------------------------------------- TG: Your going on the presumption that "directly observed" is a necessary criteria for determining actuality. If direct experiencing is an absolute requirement for determining actuality, you'd be correct. If not, then your phenomenology cannot address this aspect of the Dhamma. Abhidhamma says the "Water Element" is non-experiencable and an actuality. I agree. (Please note...TG generally agrees with the Abhidhamma. Just not the way it is often interpreted.) :-) Water as a symbol is a conventional notion technically, but I > > believe in the Dhamma it is not meant to be a conventional notion. It is > meant to point to the quality of coalescence. > > Water is only predominantly coalescence and contain portions of the other 3 > > Great Elements as well. Hence, fluidity is predominantly the "dispersion" > aspect of water usually symbolized as the Air Element. The same type of > analysis would apply to the Fire and Earth Elements as well. > > Water itself is not an element but a representation of coalescence. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I understand you. When I say that the water element is concept, I'm not talking about H2O. But I do not think that in Abhidhamma the water element signifies only coalescence. And even if it did, I don't see that as an experienced phenomenon like hardness, but as a relational phenomenon that is inferred - known by concept only, and not by direct observaton through *any* sense door. TG: Exactly. Significant passages of Sutta and Abhidhamma is a matter of inference. Inference is a actual experience if that helps. ;-) But more seriously, coalescence is not directly felt but its effects/ramifications are directly felt and coalescence is inferred from that. ---------------------------------------- If > > Water itself is considered to be an Element, than I don't believe one would > be > able to make sense of a 4 Great Element analysis that speaks to Water, Fire, > > Air, or Earth ... as they each are a "mixed bag" of activities. IMO, > these 4 > Elements can only be meant to represent "principles of activities" of > nature. > > IMO, when the Buddha talks about the Water Element, he is not referring to > water, he is referring to the predominant activity that Water symbolizes.. w > > i.e., coalescence. "The Water Element" is only a conventional notion if > one > take "water" literally. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Where does the Buddha say that? In any case, coalescence/Where do only known inferentially and conceptually it seems to me. We no more directly sense cohesion than we literally see a tree. TG: Obviously I am not quoting the Buddha but giving my understanding. "Tree" is an imagination on any level. Coalescence is an actuality that is delegated to inference. --------------------------------------- > > TG > ================== With metta, Howard Good arguments! TG #65239 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: >> But there are no sila implications in being a smoker ;-)), nor is >> smoking a hindrance to the development of other kinds of kusala. >> > > I was just rambling/free-associating. Didn't mean it literally. > Sure, but I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that the underlying concern is more likely to be one's own self-image than the development of sila (or bhavana) as proclaimed in the teachings. >> You don't say what exactly is the significance/importance of >> commonly arising sensual desire or hatred in particular. If >> it is seen as something to be 'dealt with' somehow, this >> would be neither sila nor satipatthana, as I understand those >> terms. >> > > Please take a look at MN 19. It maes very clear the > significance/importance of commonly arising sensual desire/hatred. > > "That on which a man thinks often, to that his mind will incline" - > seomthing like that is in there. Yes, those words are there. And of course no argument from me on this. Very useful reminder to have. But the sutta doesn't take the further step that you seem to when you talk about choosing to take action towards the inclining of our mind in more wholesome directions, or purifying the conceptual content of our thinking in daily life. This is something you are reading into the sutta. > I am not content to have my mind > incline in akusala directions. We can choose to take action towards > the inclining of our mind in more wholesome directions. Yes, there > are the underlying tendencies. I am not intending to eradicate them > through the intentional methods encouraged by the Buddha to purify > the conceptual content of our thinking in daily life. Different > topic. > I think the important question here is whether the Buddha taught, here or elsewhere, that having the mind incline in akusala directions in the course of our normal daily life is a particular obstacle to the development of insight, or whether the crucial thing is not a straightening of one's views about the development of insight. > There is no doubt whatsover that the Buddha encouraged us to stamp > out akusala proliferation (thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of sensual > desire, thoughts of cruelty.) No doubt for me at least, none > whatsoever. If you don't see that, that's fine - if you can read MN > 19 and not relate to it, that means you don't have a tendency to the > proliferations in question. That's cool. Different Dhamma for > different folks with different leanings. :) > I would rather say that the Buddha encouraged the development of all kinds of kusala; but I don't see this as being the same thing at all as 'stamping out all kinds of akusala proliferation'. Are you sure the texts say this? MN 19 certainly doesn't ;-)) Jon #65240 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >>> Yes, tat's true. But there are countless suttas in which one is >>> encouraged to - among other similes - stamp out akusala >>> proliferation like a man stamps out a fire burning in dry grass. >>> Nothing ambiguous about that. >>> >> In all these suttas what is being referred to is the development of kusala >> of one level or another. In my view any attempt by you or me to 'stamp >> out akusala like a man stamps out a burning grass fire' would most likely >> result in the replacing of one form of akusala with another. >> >> > =========================== > Yes, silly Buddha! If only he had had the benefit of DSG membership! > ;-) > I think it's a safe bet that the idea of 'stamping out all akusala' was not something newly proclaimed by the Buddha but was in fact an aspect of extant teachings at the time of his enlightenment. So what is it that the Buddha discovered that was unknown in the world immediately before his enlightenment? The teaching on 'not-self' is not to be discovered by stamping out all akusala, but by seeing more clearly any presently arisen dhamma. Jon #65241 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Bu... jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > ========================== > No, you haven't. It is literally false that there is a self to do > anything, and if 'control' implies a controller to someone (to you, in > particular), then it is proper that that person should deny control. > When *I* speak of control, I merely mean the arising of dhammas as the > result of conditions among which occurrences of cetana are prominent, and > which, together, constitute what is conventionally called an act of volition. > I think this is the same thing as what I referred to earlier as control in the conventional sense: because there are acts of volition that bring the intended result, there can be said to be a degree of control. The fact that we then go further and say we understand there to be only conditioned dhammas underlying such acts of intention does not change the 'conventional' nature of the observation. But even at this level, we should consider the obvious fact of a certain 'failure rate' in volitional actions bringing their intended results, and also at a more micro level the question of whether we can predict with any certainly the exact objects that will next be experienced through any of the doorways. > In > fact, it's all a matter of impersonal conditions that have effect. I may > *speak* of "someone controlling something," but that is just a manner of speaking, > and I understand what the actual facts of the matter are. And these facts > aren't just theory. They can be seen directly by looking at what actually occurs. > The more we look, the more and better we can see. > Well, it all depends on what specifically you mean when you say 'looking at what actually occurs'. And in any event we need to remember that *looking* is not a prerequisite for *seeing* ;-)) Jon #65242 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:59 pm Subject: Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Jon) and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > I appreciate your mails. I'm glad you do. I don't think that others do, though; especially from what Sarah told me in Hong Kong. You are worshipped like a god around here and no one is supposed to question or confront a god. I just hope you don't take your god status too seriously. ;-)) What I like, your remark about having a > nice cup of tea, enjoying pleasant things, unaware of samsara. It is > a good shake up. Glad you liked that! And it fulfilled it's purpose- I did want to shake you and the other readers up. But I am not inclined to debates either. We often > talk cross purposes, because each of us sees something else in a > text. We do not get each other's meaning, but, it is as it is. I also > find this subject important. Debates are fine; that is what we do in this group anyway- we debate. If you think you are here to be my teacher and I am to be your student, you can just forget that idea! ;-)) Yes, I know that we each see different things in the texts, but I don't think that this is the case of an ambiguous text. Let me quote again from the Vism IV 63, and please read it carefully: "When the mind is listless owing to sluggishness in the exercise of understanding or to failure to attain the bliss of peace, then he should stimulate it by reviewing the eight grounds for a sense of urgency." Here it clearly states that samvegga (sense of urgency) stimulates the mind. Stimulate is the opposite of calm, right? Nina, you state that samvegga is a beautiful citta; but a beautiful citta is kusala and the characteristic of all kusala cittas is calm. I don't know a lot about the Abhidhamma, but Jon told me this in Hong Kong when we were discussing metta. Therefore, if samvegga were a beautiful citta it would be kusala and would bring forth calm- and the Vism. would be wrong about this point. BUT THE VISM. ISN'T WRONG ABOUT THIS POINT BECAUSE I KNOW FIRST HAND WHAT SAMVEGGA FEELS LIKE AND IT ISN'T CALM!! So, unless you have some other texts as DIRECT support of your point, I really think you should stop posting about it. Nina, you have lost this debate. (Or you could post to admit that I am right and you are wrong. Could the mighty god of DSG do such a thing?? ;-)) Metta, James #65243 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. lbidd2 Hi TG, Howard, and Nina, I think generally we have the wrong understanding of panna. If ditthi is wrong view and panna is right view then, it seems to me, it follows that ditthi is wrong reasoning and panna is right reasoning. There is no way to understand conditional relations or general characteristics except through reasoning. Likewise, there is no way to understand rupa through the mind door except through reasoning. As we get further into the Visuddhimagga I think we will find that reason plays an essential role in insight knowledge. Panna has the characteristic of penetrating the own-nature (sabhava) of dhammas but that is just the beginning. It has to relate those dhammas to each other and ultimately evaluate that relationship in order to understand dukkha. TG: ""Tree" is an imagination on any level. Coalescence is an actuality that is delegated to inference." L: I'm reading a very interesting book on this subject: "Recognizing Reality, Dharmakirti's Philosophy and its Tibetan Interpretations" by Georges Dreyfus. If coalescence is an actuality why not tree? They are both a matter of relationship. I can see that this blood is not me and that red is not blood, but perhaps it is going too far to say because red is not blood therefore there is no blood, or because blood is not me therefore there is no human being. Larry #65244 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... Hi Larry In a message dated 11/11/2006 10:39:24 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG, Howard, and Nina, I think generally we have the wrong understanding of panna. If ditthi is wrong view and panna is right view then, it seems to me, it follows that ditthi is wrong reasoning and panna is right reasoning. There is no way to understand conditional relations or general characteristics except through reasoning. Likewise, there is no way to understand rupa through the mind door except through reasoning. As we get further into the Visuddhimagga I think we will find that reason plays an essential role in insight knowledge. TG: This much I agree with. Insight is most powerful when applied to direct experience. But the reasoning must underlie it or insight cannot develop. When reasoning has advanced to become intuitive knowledge and direct mindfulness combines with it, then it is most effective. Panna has the characteristic of penetrating the own-nature (sabhava) of dhammas but that is just the beginning. It has to relate those dhammas to each other and ultimately evaluate that relationship in order to understand dukkha. TG: ""Tree" is an imagination on any level. Coalescence is an actuality that is delegated to inference." L: I'm reading a very interesting book on this subject: "Recognizing Reality, Dharmakirti'Reality, Dharmakirti's Philosophy and its T Georges Dreyfus. If coalescence is an actuality why not tree? They are both a matter of relationship. I can see that this blood is not me and that red is not blood, but perhaps it is going too far to say because red is not blood therefore there is no blood, or because blood is not me therefore there is no human being. TG: "Tree" is just an imagination/concept referencing a group of actual states. Coalescence is an actual state. The blood analogy I don't follow. Larry TG #65245 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency jonoabb Hi James (and Nina) Since you've included me in your salutation, let me make a comment or two. buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Nina (and Jon) and all, > > ... > Yes, I know that we each see different things in the texts, but I > don't think that this is the case of an ambiguous text. Let me quote > again from the Vism IV 63, and please read it carefully: > > "When the mind is listless owing to sluggishness in the exercise of > understanding or to failure to attain the bliss of peace, then he > should stimulate it by reviewing the eight grounds for a sense of > urgency." > > Here it clearly states that samvegga (sense of urgency) stimulates > the mind. Stimulate is the opposite of calm, right? > I don't agree ;-)). I think stimulate can be used in the sense of rouse, prompt, bestir, etc, so that in the present context the listless (akusala) mind without understanding is roused to kusala of different kinds and especially that of insight (understanding). > Nina, you state > that samvegga is a beautiful citta; but a beautiful citta is kusala > and the characteristic of all kusala cittas is calm. I don't know a > lot about the Abhidhamma, but Jon told me this in Hong Kong when we > were discussing metta. > Yes, calm ('passadhi'), in the sense of absence of restlessness (uddhacca), is the characteristic of all kusala. But then viriya (energy) is also present in kusala cittas, so these terms need to be understood in the context of momentary dhammas. > Therefore, if samvegga were a beautiful citta > it would be kusala and would bring forth calm- and the Vism. would be > wrong about this point. > > BUT THE VISM. ISN'T WRONG ABOUT THIS POINT BECAUSE I KNOW FIRST HAND > WHAT SAMVEGGA FEELS LIKE AND IT ISN'T CALM!! > If you are thinking of samvega as some sort of state of panic then it may be that what you take for samvega is not actually samvega ;-)) > So, unless you have some other texts as DIRECT support of your point, > I really think you should stop posting about it. Nina, you have lost > this debate. (Or you could post to admit that I am right and you are > wrong. Could the mighty god of DSG do such a thing?? ;-)) > Sorry, it's 2 against 1 so you've lost the debate I'm afraid ;-)) Jon #65246 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/11/06 7:13:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > Yeah: > > "...In any case, we do not directly experience coalescence, not through > any sense door." > > How about: > > "In the exposition of the element of cohesion 'liquid' is the natural > word, whether it be aapo or aapagata; 'moist' is by way of being > fluid, whether it be sineha or sinehagata. 'Cohesiveness of matter' > is the cohering condition of the essential matter, such as the element > of extension, etc. For the element of cohesion binds together iron, > etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, they > are called rigid...All such things the element of cohesion binds, and > makes rigid; they are rigid because of its binding...In other words, > does the element of cohesion in binding the remaining elements, bind > by being in contact, or not?...the element of cohesion binds the three > others without being in contact with them. Otherwise it would be > called tangible object..." Atthasaalinii, pp.435-436. > > Scott ========================== I do not think there is a single element of cohesion. There is molecuar cohesion involving water and other items, there is magnetic attraction, there is gravitational attraction, there are "strong forces" among subatomic particles, there are weak attractive forces. There are all sorts of "comings together" of various things under various conditions. We abstract from that and speak of "cohesion". It is concept. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with directly experienced rupas. Moreover, what in the world does cohesion have to do with relinquishment and the end of dukkha? My answer: Nothing. With metta, Howard #65247 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/11/06 8:46:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > In a later post you urge us to consider the question of *where* any > non-experienced rupas would arise. I'm afraid I don't see the > significance of this. Are you suggesting that the 'where' for > non-experienced rupas would have to be different from the 'where' for > experienced rupas? I don't see why, but perhaps you have some > particular views on the 'where' of experienced rupas, and I'd be > interested to hear you further on this. > ===================== The hardness I feel (i.e., encounter by touch) is part of the namarupic stream we call "Howard". It is not something that is anywhere else. The hardness I feel is not the same as the hardness you feel, though there may be a correspondence. Other than in experiential (namarupic) streams, I don't know where any conditioned dhammas are. I don't believe in hardnesses that exist in a separate "realm of rupas". An unfelt hardness is close to an oxymoron to me, but in any case is not only something that I don't believe in, but is also something for which there is no basis for verifying or disproving its alleged existence. I have no reason to presume it, and so I don't. But I DO have a reason for presuming felt hardnesses, namely the very fact that they are felt. I cannot do better than this, Jon. I don't expect to alter your perspective on this, and so I won't try to - actually, I feel no need to. (Do you feel a need to alter my perspective on it?) With metta, Howard #65248 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/11/06 10:46:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > >>In all these suttas what is being referred to is the development of > kusala > >>of one level or another. In my view any attempt by you or me to 'stamp > >>out akusala like a man stamps out a burning grass fire' would most likely > >>result in the replacing of one form of akusala with another. > >> > >> > >=========================== > > Yes, silly Buddha! If only he had had the benefit of DSG membership! > >;-) > > > > I think it's a safe bet that the idea of 'stamping out all akusala' was > not something newly proclaimed by the Buddha but was in fact an aspect > of extant teachings at the time of his enlightenment. > > So what is it that the Buddha discovered that was unknown in the world > immediately before his enlightenment? The teaching on 'not-self' is not > to be discovered by stamping out all akusala, but by seeing more clearly > any presently arisen dhamma. > > Jon > ====================== Quite so, Jon, but that's not the point. Regardless of what was unique to the Buddha's teaching, he DID urge active opposition to akusala states. This is the first have of what constitutes Right Effort. With metta, Howard #65249 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Bu... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/11/06 11:24:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > upasaka@... wrote: > >========================== > > No, you haven't. It is literally false that there is a self to do > >anything, and if 'control' implies a controller to someone (to you, in > >particular), then it is proper that that person should deny control. > > When *I* speak of control, I merely mean the arising of dhammas as the > >result of conditions among which occurrences of cetana are prominent, and > >which, together, constitute what is conventionally called an act of > volition. > > > > I think this is the same thing as what I referred to earlier as control > in the conventional sense: because there are acts of volition that > bring the intended result, there can be said to be a degree of control. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, such control is not an individual namic operation. It is a complex viewed as a single thing for purposes of discussion. I have clarified exactly what I mean by "control". The more effective such a complex of actions is in leading to the goal, the more is it "control". Obviously not all attempts at control succeed. Many don't succeed at all. And I never claimed that there is a control paramattha dhamma. That is a straw man. ------------------------------------------ > > The fact that we then go further and say we understand there to be only > conditioned dhammas underlying such acts of intention does not change > the 'conventional' nature of the observation. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Viewing such a complex as a single phenomenon is mere convention. That is so. So what? Viewing an airplane as a single phenomenon is no different. It doesn't stop you from making flights, does it? --------------------------------------------- > > But even at this level, we should consider the obvious fact of a certain > 'failure rate' in volitional actions bringing their intended results, > and also at a more micro level the question of whether we can predict > with any certainly the exact objects that will next be experienced > through any of the doorways. -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there is failure. We are not all-powerful. So? I make no claim of absolute control. But some here make the claim of NO control! ---------------------------------------- > > >In > >fact, it's all a matter of impersonal conditions that have effect. I may > >*speak* of "someone controlling something," but that is just a manner of > speaking, > >and I understand what the actual facts of the matter are. And these facts > >aren't just theory. They can be seen directly by looking at what actually > occurs. > >The more we look, the more and better we can see. > > > > Well, it all depends on what specifically you mean when you say 'looking > at what actually occurs'. --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it wouldn't be good if I meant by that "roasting chestnuts on an open fire," for example. What is it you don't understand in my words? ---------------------------------------- > > And in any event we need to remember that *looking* is not a > prerequisite for *seeing* ;-)) > > Jon > ====================== With metta, Howard #65250 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:54 pm Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi sgsin, Jon - In a message dated 11/12/06 3:35:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > This is the first have of what constitutes Right Effort. ====================== In the foregoing, the word 'have' was supposed to be 'half'. Sorry. With metta, Howard #65251 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:51 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sukinderpal Dear Sarah, Jon, Nina, Azita and all, > I am sorry to hear about yr condition also, Sarah. I know it can be > xtremely painful, I think the Chinese doctors call it a 'snake rash' > or something to do with a snake because of the way it twines around > the torso. May u get well soon. .... S: Yes, 'snake disease' on account of the snake-like rash entwined around the torso, just as you say. Sorry to hear about this. Hope you will recover soon and not feel too much pain along the way. Talking about kamma-vipaka, our friend Peter Swan met with an accident this Tuesday under quite strange circumstance. He and Marasi had just finished an enjoyable dinner with some friends at a restaurant, (no alcohol, as Peter points out). Now the two with some friends were standing at the parking lot talking while waiting for some car, when suddenly at quite a speed, a car backed out and hit Peter and one of his friends. Only Peter had his back towards the car, and was hit quite seriously, 'broken ribs'. Luckily, the wall towards which Peter's front side was hit and he was pressed against was not solid, and gave way; otherwise it would have been much worse. And guess what, the driver of the car was one of their friends with whom they just had dinner!! And she, in her excitement changed gears to forward, and rammed another wall (?), badly damaging her car. I came to know about this only yesterday through Ivan and so I just called Peter and got all this information. But he also told me about something else. On that same day, Maeve's father passed way in Australia. There is quite a story around this too, but I won't say it here. The funeral is tomorrow, two days before Maeve's 60th birthday, when they had all planned a special family get together.. May we can get the best Dhamma lessons under any and every circumstance. Metta, Sukin #65252 From: JC Mendoza Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fruitions of the Abilities ... !!! jcmendoza1000 Hi is this Venerable Samahita? Ms. Nina referred me to you to ask about eating after 12 in the Uposatha. Is it okay to eat salt and butter after twelve? ANd also, can I know your background? What country are you from? What country did you ordain in? Thanks. Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: Friends: What are the Fruits of the 5 Mental Abilities? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five mental abilities. What five? <...> #65253 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:45 am Subject: Re: Transient Form ... !!! bhikkhu5 Friend Nina wrote: >I hope you are in good health. This fragile body is OK & bearable so far… It will soon & inevitably fall apart though… That is the nature of all constructions! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #65254 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:31 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 577- Understanding/pa~n~naa (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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd When we learn about the different classifications of understanding we can be reminded that understanding has to be developed in order to reach higher stages. It should be developed in whatever situation in our daily life we may be. We are inclined to think that awareness of the present moment is too difficult, but that one day in the future we may reach the goal. If we think that the present situation is not favourable for the development of right understanding, it will not develop. We should remember that each moment is in fact a new situation which is conditioned and which is beyond control, and that it is therefore useless to prefer another situation to the present one. We should not worry about the situation we are in but we should be mindful of whatever reality appears. There is for example time and again heat or cold. Usually we think of a concept of “I am hot” or “I am cold”, but heat and cold are only rúpa-elements and they can be objects of mindfulness when they appear. There is no self who experiences heat or cold, it is nåma which arises because of conditions. Through the development of understanding one will be less inclined to cling to a concept of “I feel” or “I experience”. It is only a type of nåma which experiences something, a nåma which has arisen and then falls away immediately. There can be a beginning of understanding when there is mindfulness of what has already arisen at this moment because of its appropriate conditions. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65255 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > > Sorry, it's 2 against 1 so you've lost the debate I'm afraid ;-)) That is NOT how one wins a debate- the debate is won by who presents the most compelling evidence with analysis. So far, you have presented no evidence, just speculations. > > Jon > Metta, James #65256 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:39 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > ... Hallo Ken H Ken: Rather than say "one should not try" I would say "one should understand that trying is not part of the path." J: It's my impression that this is the central point in the disagreement between those who think doing (sitting) vipassana meditation and those who don't in DSG. I also know in hardly possible to get an agreement because arguments don't work (till now) So I just repeat a remark I made to sarah some months ago. You agreed that "one has to do all aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path" One of this aspects is 'right effort'…. To me 'right effort' is not possible without trying, in fact it is 'right trying' BTW there is in my view a logical paradox in your remark "one should not try": "should" is a kind of trying too. Metta Joop #65257 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Scott, Nina, Larry In a message dated 11/12/2006 12:52:13 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Moreover, what in the world does cohesion have to do with relinquishment and the end of dukkha? My answer: Nothing. With metta, Howard I quite strongly disagree! The Path of Purification says... “The monk who is devoted to the defining of the four elements immerses himself in voidness…â€? (PP Ch. XI, 117) The Buddha says... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) The Path of Discrimination says... “eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind; are derived from the Four Great Elements...â€? (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, paragraphs 371-377) The 4 Great Elements are not an "element" in the modern scientific sense as a "substance," they are "elements" in terms of the underlying principles of conditioned phenomena. As such they are truly elements as there is no way to further reduce them. I have found in my practice that the investigation of the 4 Great Elements to be among the VERY MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS in developing "impermanence insight!" TG #65258 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin & all - In a message dated 11/12/06 6:00:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: > Dear Sarah, Jon, Nina, Azita and all, > > >I am sorry to hear about yr condition also, Sarah. I know it can be > >xtremely painful, I think the Chinese doctors call it a 'snake rash' > >or something to do with a snake because of the way it twines around > >the torso. May u get well soon. > .... > S: Yes, 'snake disease' on account of the snake-like rash entwined around > the torso, just as you say. > > Sorry to hear about this. Hope you will recover soon and not feel too much > pain along the way. > > Talking about kamma-vipaka, our friend Peter Swan met with an accident this > Tuesday under quite strange circumstance. > > ====================== I'm sorry for your friend Peter's mishap, but happy that the circumstances weren'r worse. Also, sorry to hear of the passing of the father of another friend (or relative?) of yours. A question occurs to me with regard to Peter's accident. You write of kamma-vipaka. Assuming for sake of discussion that what happened to Peter was the fruition of kamma of his, what would you say was the "mechanics" of that? Did Peter's past kamma serve as a condition that led not only to his being at that restaurant then, but also to the driver having been there, to the driver having parked where she parked, to Peter having walked behind that car when he did, and to the driver having set the gears wrongly? Most specifically, did Peter's kamma lead to the actions of another person, the driver, "enabling" the fruition of Peter's kamma? (So, was the driver a means to an end, though thankfully not Peter's end? ;-) What underlies my foregoing questioning is my very strong suspicion that we don't think properly about kamma, and most especially about kamma-vipaka. I suspect that Peter was, at the moment of the accident, not being alert, that that lack of alertness resulted in being distracted, turning towards other objects of consciousness, maybe being lost in thought, and that lack of alertness was the actual kamma-vipaka of his, and the carelessness that was the vipaka led, as carelessness often does, depending on other conditions, to unhappy results. The actions by the driver also sound like a matter of carelessness and distraction, which may well have been kamma-vipaka of hers, and the co-occurrence of those two kammic fruits (in the two different but interacting mindstreams) was like the coming together of a flame with fuel, creating a small explosion. Thus, what happened to Peter was kamma-related, specifically being conditioned by his kamma-vipaka, and indirectly by the original kamma, but was not, itself, the kamma-vipaka. My central point? I think that kamma-vipaka is an internal (i.e., private, mental) matter. With metta, Howard #65259 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and all) - In a message dated 11/12/06 12:30:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard, Scott, Nina, Larry > > In a message dated 11/12/2006 12:52:13 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Moreover, what in the world does cohesion have to do with > relinquishment and the end of dukkha? My answer: Nothing. > > With metta, > Howard > > > > I quite strongly disagree! > > The Path of Purification says... > “The monk who is devoted to the defining of the four elements immerses > himself in voidness…â€? > (PP Ch. XI, 117) > The Buddha says... > “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great > elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > rice and > porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to > dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported > by it > and bound up with it.â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, > Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) > The Path of Discrimination says... > “eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind; are derived from the Four Great > Elements...â€? > (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, > paragraphs > 371-377) > The 4 Great Elements are not an "element" in the modern scientific sense as > > a "substance," they are "elements" in terms of the underlying principles of > > conditioned phenomena. As such they are truly elements as there is no way > to > further reduce them. > I have found in my practice that the investigation of the 4 Great Elements > to be among the VERY MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS in developing "impermanence > insight!" > TG > ========================= It's not knowing water element or any other specific sort of phenomenon as to it's distinctive quality that is useful, but knowing *any* dhammas as anicca, dukkha, and anatta, weakening the spell of enchantment they have on us, relinquishing their hold on us. Attention to body-door elements is an important part of that process. With metta, Howard #65260 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:34 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 119. nilovg Dear friends, Citta is another class of dhammaaramma.na. Cittas experience different objects, aaramma.nas, but citta itself can be aaramma.na as well. Citta can have kusala cittas, akusala cittas and many other types of citta as its object. The class of dhammaaramma.na which is cetasika comprises all fifty- two cetasikas. Feeling is a cetasika. Painful feeling, for example, can be known by citta; then the object of citta is dhammaaramma.na. When one experiences hardness the object is not dhammaaramma.na but tangible object (pho.t.thabbaaramma.na), which is included in the fifth class of objects. Hardness and painful feeling can appear closely one after the other. If one does not realize that hardness and painful feeling are different aaramma.nas and if one is ignorant of the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa, one will continue taking them for self. Citta can experience all objects. Also nibbåna can be experienced by citta. Nibbåna is dhammaaramma.na, it can only be experienced through the mind-door. Thus, citta can experience both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma, which is nibbåna. The citta which experiences conditioned dhammas is lokiya citta, ``mundane''. The citta which, at the attainment of enlightenment, directly experiences nibbåna is lokuttara citta, ``supramundane citta''. Another class of dhammaaramma.na is concepts(paññatti), that is to say, both ideas and conventional terms . Thus we see that citta can know both paramattha dhammas, absolute realities, and concepts which are not real in the absolute sense. ***** Nina. #65261 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:01 am Subject: water, a reality. nilovg Hi Howard, the text you quote really convinces me that the element of water is a reality of daily life. It never was so clear to me: <> ------ N: What would we be without the element of water, we would dry out, nothing in the body would function. This is an excellent text to meditate on! We cling to the body but it consists of elements. And see, it is an object of insight: 'And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'. Would this be said of a conventional reality? Moreover, insight leads to detachment: one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property... You did not see that it would help insight, but it does. That is why I chose the satipatthanasutta; he has to see the originating and ceasing of dhammas, is said after each section. Could this be said of concepts? Why is there a special section for the four great Elements? It is meaningful, it is for the sake of insight. Each section contains objects of insight. The four great Elements are always mentioned together and are the foundation of the derived rupas, the upada rupas. Why exclude one of them, that seems very strange. ------- H:I don't know why you would think that just because it is mentioned in a sutta it is not a conventional notion. The notion of "great element of water" includes not only cohesion, but also flowingness, and they are quite different from each other. --------- N: We should not mind these words, they are means of explaining this reality. Also the word trickling, it merely is a means of explaining. --------- H: Moreover, cohesion, itself, is a relational phenomenon. I don't say it is unreal, but it does not seem to me to be directly observed as a sight or sound is, or like anger and love are. It is known conceptually, it seems to me. -------- N: Yes, the element of water has the function of cohesion of the other rupas of a group, kalapa, it arises together with. It holds them all together. The fact that you cannot experience this element now does not mean that it is not real. You do not experience nibbaana now, but it is real all the same. You do not experience eyesense, but it is real. ****** Nina. #65262 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency nilovg Hi James, We are all different individuals reacting differently. I know what you mean. At first there may not be calm, but later on it can arise. Here is a story (taken from Kh Sujin's Perfections, Truthfulness). We read in the “Basket of Conduct” III, 11, Conduct of Kaùhadípåyana, that Kaùhadípåyana became a monk and lead this life with great torments, even crying. But then after all those years with tribulation he could lead this life with calm. He spoke about his experience with great sincerity and made an act of Truth. By this a boy bitten by a snake could be cured. The text: The Commentary: We have to investigate different mind moments with good roots and with evil roots and this is a difficult task. Nina. Op 12-nov-2006, om 5:59 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > BUT THE VISM. ISN'T WRONG ABOUT THIS POINT BECAUSE I KNOW FIRST HAND > WHAT SAMVEGGA FEELS LIKE AND IT ISN'T CALM!! #65263 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. nilovg Hi TG, I am grateful for the other texts you give to support the meaning of the element of water, as being a reality, not a concept. Nina. Op 12-nov-2006, om 18:17 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > The Path of Purification says... > “The monk who is devoted to the defining of the four elements immerses > himself in voidness…” > (PP Ch. XI, 117) > The Buddha says... > “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four > great > elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of > boiled rice and > porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed > away, to > dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is > supported by it > and bound up with it.” > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, > Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) > The Path of Discrimination says... > “eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind; are derived from the Four Great > Elements...” > (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, > paragraphs > 371-377) > The 4 Great Elements are not an "element" in the modern scientific > sense as > a "substance," they are "elements" in terms of the underlying > principles of > conditioned phenomena. As such they are truly elements as there is > no way to > further reduce them. > I have found in my practice that the investigation of the 4 Great > Elements > to be among the VERY MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS in developing > "impermanence > insight!" > TG > #65264 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 119. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/12/06 2:10:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hardness and painful feeling can appear > closely one after the other. If one does not realize that hardness > and painful feeling are different aaramma.nas and if one is ignorant > of the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa, one will continue > taking them for self. > ==================== This puzzles me. I was under the impression that vedana was a universal cetasika. So why do you speak of painful feeling appearing *after* the knowing of hardness instead of simultaneously with it? When feeling of an object, say hardness, occurs, the feeling is an operation dealing with the hardness, but is not itself the object. When you speak of the feeling arising later, do you mean arising *as object* later? And if yes, when that (just passed) feeling, or a photocopy of it, as opposed to a standard memory, is the object, what is the accompanying vedana cetasika? The same as the vedana that is now object? Not identical but of the same sort (e.g., painful, when the past vedana, now the object, is painful)? Or possibly different in kind? It strikes me that vedana, the actually occurring operation, is never object of consciousness, but is "known" in exactly two ways: 1) The feeling of the object when that feeling actually occurs - this not being a knowing-of-the-feeling-as-object, but a "participative", non-dual knowing, a "taste" that flavors the mindstate, and 2) Recollection of that passed feeling, i.e., the taking as object of the sankharically-constructed memory of the entire previous mindstate with emphasis on the feeling operation that was then in effect. With metta, Howard #65265 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/12/2006 11:26:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: It's not knowing water element or any other specific sort of phenomenon as to it's distinctive quality that is useful, but knowing *any* dhammas as anicca, dukkha, and anatta, weakening the spell of enchantment they have on us, relinquishing their hold on us. Attention to body-door elements is an important part of that process. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I would say the entire scheme of the Buddha's teaching is important. Certain aspects of the Buddha's teaching reveal certain types of knowledge. They all come together in the long run to bolster insight knowledge. To discount some in favor of others, to me, indicates it has not been fully comprehended. TG #65266 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/12/06 2:22:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > the text you quote really convinces me that the element of water is a > reality of daily life. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Of course water is real. It is not like a desert mirage. But all that is talked of in the following is conventional water. ---------------------------------------- It never was so clear to me:> > > < internal > or external. What is the internal liquid property? Anything internal, > belonging to oneself, that's liquid, watery, &sustained: bile, > phlegm, pus, blood, > sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or > anything > else internal, within oneself, that's liquid, watery, &sustained: > This is > called the internal liquid property. Now both the internal liquid > property &the > external liquid property are simply liquid property. And that should > be seen as > it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, > this is not > me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is > present with > right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property and > makes the liquid property fade from the mind.>> > > ------ > > N: What would we be without the element of water, we would dry out, > nothing in the body would function. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: That's a fact. But it has nothing to do with anything other than water in the ordinary sense. --------------------------------------- This is an excellent text to > > meditate on! We cling to the body but it consists of elements. > > And see, it is an object of insight: 'And that should be seen as > it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, > this is not > me, this is not my self.'. --------------------------------------- Howard: Everything should be seen that way. ------------------------------------- > > Would this be said of a conventional reality? Moreover, insight leads > to detachment: one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property... -------------------------------------- Howard: Would *what* be called a conventional reality? There is nothing special about water or cohesion or flowing or whatever! What needs to be directly seen is that nothing lasts, nothing satisfies, and nothing is personal, substantial, or self. Lists of characteristics aren't needed for this. Cultivating the ability to *see* is needed. -------------------------------------- > > You did not see that it would help insight, but it does. That is why > I chose the satipatthanasutta; he has to see the originating and > ceasing of dhammas, is said after each section. Could this be said of > concepts? Why is there a special section for the four great Elements? --------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha knew his audience. ---------------------------------------- > It is meaningful, it is for the sake of insight. Each section > contains objects of insight. > > The four great Elements are always mentioned together and are the > foundation of the derived rupas, the upada rupas. Why exclude one of > them, that seems very strange. ------------------------------------------- Howard: You seem to assume that the Buddha made a hard and fast distinction between conventional and ultimate in his teaching. I think that is incorrect. In fact, they were typically mixed together in his teaching, the distinction most often being entirely ignored by him. (Note: I do accept the distinction, as you know.) -------------------------------------------- > > ------- > > H:I don't know why you would think that just because it is mentioned in > > a sutta it is not a conventional notion. The notion of "great element of > water" includes not only cohesion, but also flowingness, and they are > quite > different from each other. > > --------- > > N: We should not mind these words, they are means of explaining this > reality. Also the word trickling, it merely is a means of explaining. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't mind the words. I also don't ignore them. ----------------------------------------- > > --------- > > H: Moreover, cohesion, itself, is a relational phenomenon. I > don't say it is unreal, but it does not seem to me to be directly > observed as > a sight or sound is, or like anger and love are. It is known > conceptually, it > seems to me. > > -------- > > N: Yes, the element of water has the function of cohesion of the > other rupas of a group, kalapa, it arises together with. It holds > them all together. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Don't be too quick to say "yes". ;-) I described it as a matter of relation, whereas you describe it as the cause of a relation. They are not the same. ---------------------------------------- > > The fact that you cannot experience this element now does not mean > that it is not real. You do not experience nibbaana now, but it is > real all the same. You do not experience eyesense, but it is real. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe I DO experience eyesense. Also, lots of things known only conceptually are "real". Thunder is "real". It isn't a paramattha dhamma, though, consisting, as it does, of a complex of sounds viewed as a unit. ------------------------------------------- > > ****** > > Nina. > ===================== With metta, Howard P.S. I do not *know* for a fact that there is no general "water" khandha of rupas, each instance of which is a mind-door paramattha dhamma. Perhaps there is, though I doubt it. But I don't see any importance in whether there is or not. I certainly *do* however, see importance to the existence of nibbana as a reality - in fact the ultimate reality. It is a matter of what is unimportant versus what is critically important. #65267 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:04 am Subject: Realities, Paramattha Dhammas, and Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, all - The word 'real' is difficult to pin down. Paramattha dhammas are real in a very special way, namely requiring no conceptual construction for their cognizance. But there is more to what is "real" than these. Relations, are "real" and also relational patterns, though not "things", and these are not paramattha dhammas. I think for example of the matter of branching, a type of relational pattern and structure extant throughout our experience. We see it in trees. We see it in the formation of fissures in rocks. We see it in crystal formations. We see it in the branching structure of our veins and arteries. We see it in the branching off of rivers into streams, and streams into rivulets. We see it in every instance of heirarchical organization, natural and human-made, inclu ding the splitting of Buddhism into sects and the sects into subsects. It is a universal phenomenon of sorts. It is "real", and not being aware of it is missing out on a part of what is "real". If we knew *only* paramattha dhammas, we would not know branching. When we don't go beyond paramattha dhammas, we are cutting off avenues of wisdom. With metta, Howard P.S. Not one of the tilakhana is a paramattha dhamma, nor is dependent origination, nor is the Buddha, nor the Sangha, nor the Dhamma. I think it might be useful to "get real" about what is "real". #65268 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. scottduncan2 Dear Swimmers, This seems rather difficult to follow, but nonetheless: Dhammasa"nga.ni 957-961. [Great Phenomenon - Proximity] "What is that [material] form which is (i) a great phenomenon and remote? The fluid element. (ii) a great phenomenon and near? The sphere of the tangible. (iii) not a great phenomenon and remote? Sex and life. (iv) not a great phenomenon and near? The spheres of the five senses and of visible form, sound, odour and taste. [Form as Seen, Heard, Imagined, Understood.] (i) The sphere of visible shape is Form Seen, (ii) The sphere of sound is Form Heard, (iii) The sphere of odour, taste, and the tangible is [Material] Form Imagined (muta.m). (iv) All [material] form is Form Cognized by the mind (manasaa vi~n~naata.m, that is, manovi~n~na.nena jaanitabba.m)" Atthasaalinii,pp. 438-440. "At the end of the fourfold summary, owing to the absence of divisions in the last term 'what is seen,' etc., omitting the query from the beginning as it is said: 'The visible object is a thing seen, the audible object is a thing heard'. Herein it is possible to see by looking at the visible object with the eye - thus it becomes 'a thing seen.' It is possible to cognize by hearing sound-organ by the ear - thus it becomes 'a thing heard.' The three fields of odour, taste, and body, become 'considered' (muta.m) as something to be seized and considered in the sense of being known. It is said to be 'considered' by reason of the arising of knowledge when there has been contact. Thus it is said also in the Commentary. All matter should be known by means of mind-cognition - thus becomes known as 'cognized by mind'...Herein 'possible to know by visual cognition' is meant 'cognizable by eye.' 'Cognizable by mind,' i.e., possible to be known by mind-cognition. It is possible to know specifically by the 'threefold element of mind.' In all matter this is said because there is no such thing as any kind of matter not cognisable the the element of mind cognition. Indeed, the Supreme Buddha is never known to have missed the right occasion on which to use method when he came to Abhidhamma. The right occasion to use method is so-called owing to the absence of any kind of matter uncognizable by the element of mind cognition. Hence in using the method he said 'all matter.' Scott. #65269 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:52 pm Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Joop (Phil and Howard), ------------------ KH: > > Rather than say "one should not try" I would say "one should understand that trying is not part of the path." > > J: > It's my impression that this is the central point in the disagreement between those who think doing (sitting) vipassana meditation and those who don't in DSG. ------------------- Yes, I would agree with that impression. -------------------------------- J: > I also know in hardly possible to get an agreement because arguments don't work (till now) --------------------------------- No, maybe they don't work. It seems that debate (especially with me) is suddenly unfashionable at DSG. BTW, Phil and Howard; I have considered the material you posted for me, thank you. I gather you don't want to debate it at this time, which is fine by me. But I am ready when you are. :-) ---------------------------------------------------- J: > So I just repeat a remark I made to sarah some months ago. You agreed that "one has to do all aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path" One of this aspects is 'right effort'…. To me 'right effort' is not possible without trying, in fact it is 'right trying' ----------------------------------------------------- I prefer to use the word 'trying' in a way that is distinct from the word 'effort.' Sutta references to trying ("I crossed the flood, not by striving and not by standing still,") are given to denote the two extremes - eternity belief and annihilation belief. They are not talking about effort in general. Trying to remove an arrow, trying to find a cure for cancer, or trying to study the Dhamma (examples given by Howard) are not 'trying' in the sense of wrong view. They are simply effort. Effort, as you say, can be a good thing - it can even be a factor of the NEP. But 'trying' is used to denote the idea of control over ultimate reality. I see formal vipassana practices as 'trying' to make vipassana (an ultimate reality) happen. Sometimes those practices take the form of striving, and sometimes they take the form of just letting go. In either case there is the idea of control in the ultimate sense, and that is not the Middle Way. ---------------------------------------- J: > BTW there is in my view a logical paradox in your remark "one should not try": "should" is a kind of trying too. ---------------------------------------- Yes, there is a paradox in that remark. But no, it was not my remark; it was yours. It was your interpretation of something I had said. I corrected you by saying, "Rather than say "one should not try" I would say "one should understand that trying is not part of the path."" And I still say that. :-) Ken H #65270 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:29 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Joop, and Phil) - In a message dated 11/12/06 4:53:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Joop (Phil and Howard), > > ------------------ > KH: >>Rather than say "one should not try" I would say "one should > understand that trying is not part of the path." > >> > > J: >It's my impression that this is the central point in the > disagreement between those who think doing (sitting) vipassana > meditation and those who don't in DSG. > ------------------- > > Yes, I would agree with that impression. > > -------------------------------- > J: >I also know in hardly possible to get an agreement because > arguments don't work (till now) > --------------------------------- > > No, maybe they don't work. It seems that debate (especially with me) > is suddenly unfashionable at DSG. ------------------------------------ Howard: Debate, if the purpose of it is to win a position or score points, should never be fashionable, I think. As for discussion with you, I'm sure that isn't unfashionable. I hope that I'm wrong in sensing some sadness in you with regard to this. In any case, though it needn't really be said, you are much liked, Ken! :-) --------------------------------------- > > BTW, Phil and Howard; I have considered the material you posted for > me, thank you. I gather you don't want to debate it at this time, > which is fine by me. But I am ready when you are. :-) --------------------------------------- Howard: Relating this back to debate/discussion: I have come to think that when positions are held hard and fast on one or both sides and when the positions are quite opposite, better than discussion in the form of debate is simply writing things for the other to consider without reply. That was the nature of my last post to you, Ken. This would be the sort of interaction based on good will and a wishing the best for the other. There is the possibility of each learning something from the other, but without the sense of a contest of views. ---------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------- > J: >So I just repeat a remark I made to sarah some months ago. > You agreed that "one has to do all aspects of the Noble Eightfold > Path" > One of this aspects is 'right effort'…. > To me 'right effort' is not possible without trying, in fact it > is 'right trying' > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I prefer to use the word 'trying' in a way that is distinct from the > word 'effort.' Sutta references to trying ("I crossed the flood, not > by striving and not by standing still,") are given to denote the two > extremes - eternity belief and annihilation belief. They are not > talking about effort in general. Trying to remove an arrow, trying > to find a cure for cancer, or trying to study the Dhamma (examples > given by Howard) are not 'trying' in the sense of wrong view. They are > simply effort. ----------------------------------- Howard: LOL! So, the trying that you approve of you honor by bestowing the label 'effort'! -------------------------------------- > > Effort, as you say, can be a good thing - it can even be a factor of > the NEP. But 'trying' is used to denote the idea of control over > ultimate reality. I see formal vipassana practices as 'trying' to make > vipassana (an ultimate reality) happen. Sometimes those practices > take the form of striving, and sometimes they take the form of just > letting go. In either case there is the idea of control in the > ultimate sense, and that is not the Middle Way. --------------------------------------- Howard: There is no control-paramattha-dhamma, there is no self who exerts control or tries to, and even conventional control is often only attempted without full success. If this summarizes what you mean by "the idea of control in the ultimate sense" not being the middle way, then we agree on this. ---------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------- > J: >BTW there is in my view a logical paradox in your remark "one > should not try": "should" is a kind of trying too. > ---------------------------------------- > > Yes, there is a paradox in that remark. But no, it was not my remark; > it was yours. It was your interpretation of something I had said. I > corrected you by saying, "Rather than say "one should not try" I would > say "one should understand that trying is not part of the path."" > > And I still say that. :-) > > Ken H > > ====================== With metta, Howard #65271 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/12/2006 1:26:25 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: You seem to assume that the Buddha made a hard and fast distinction between conventional and ultimate in his teaching. I think that is incorrect. In fact, they were typically mixed together in his teaching, the distinction most often being entirely ignored by him. (Note: I do accept the distinction, as you know.) Hi Howard and Nina Howard, this is a good observation. IMO, the obsession of distinguishing conventional from ultimate realities is not terribly important as exemplified by the Buddha's general lack of concern for the issue. The issue of import, as you often note, is that all conditions are impermanent, suffering, no-self. Whether one has in mind what we consider conventional or ultimate conditions, deep contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and no-self will lead to detachment. TG #65272 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) m_nease Hi Sarah (and all), ----- Original Message ----- From: sarah abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 3:25 AM Subject: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) S: Yes, 'snake disease' on account of the snake-like rash entwined around the torso, just as you say. I have a 'beautiful' textbook 'snake':-) We could take a photo of it for those who are seriously into asubha practices, lol (A Thai friend mentioned that they also refer to is as snake disease). M: You probably know that 'shingles' is from 'cingula', Latin for 'girdle', so similar in a way. S: Mike N was giving us computer crash tips off-list when this 'crash' struck. I wrote in response to his sympathy: S(off-list) > Anything, anytime can happen in samsara....and yet we still go on clinging like mad to 'my body'... > No longer concerned about the computer crash - when it comes to lobha, > it's all relative! ... M (off-list): Even when that isn't happening we tend to be preoccupied with wanting pleasant feelings and wanting to avoid unpleasant ones. Do you find there are any reflections on Dhamma that seem to relieve mental unpleasantness even when feeling physically ill? Speaking conventionally, of course-- ... S: (hope you don't mind a response here...) [Not at all...mn] Speaking conventionally or non-conventionally - reflections on kamma have been helpful, any present moment reflections have been helpful -- as Ken H reminded us (that we reminded him when he was sick), what's gone really is gone. Forget the pain last night and concerns about tomorrow....one moment at a time. And the real problem is not the short, momentary unpleasant bodily feeling, but the aversion which makes it so many times worse. M: Yes, most immediately the domanaasa attending the aversion I think. S: Of course, there's not even unpleasant bodily feeling all the time. Often, as Phil has been stressing from MN19(?), it's just a matter of what is being attended to.....Usually, it's all the nimitta anupyanjanna (marks and details) about what has been experienced, but reflecting on dhamma really can be a condition for moments of awareness to arise and develop....without expectation, of course! M: Actually they can arise even 'between', that is regardless of expectations if conditions are present, seems to me. S: It's interesting - as soon as I got the 'right' diagnosis, I immediately started feeling quite cheerful about it. The symptoms are the same, but there aren't the same long stories and worries about whether I'd been unknowingly bitten by an unknown sea creature or whether I'd got some flesh-eating disease or whatever, lol:-) M: Sure--the aversion and attendant grief pertain mostly to thoughts of the future in a case like this, I think. I have a friend, an anaesthesiologist, who had minor surgery and really did get flesh-eating staph infection. Besides being a well-respected MD, she was also quite beautiful and a champion weight-lifter...her face was somewhat disfigured and this was quite a learning experience for her. I think it was her devotion to her young daughter more than anything that eclipsed the mental horror of the situation for her--she has no interest in or knowledge of Dhamma. I have two other friends dying presently of cancer and another scheduled to have half her tongue removed this week, also for cancer. The guy I do odd construction jobs for--my only income for some time now--fell thirty feet off a ladder (right next to me) a few weeks ago but aside from a couple of very painful fractures came through it amazingly well. In all these cases though, I think the worst suffering was due to concepts--aversion (with grief) to ideas of what is to come. S: How about you, Mike - any reflections you find particularly helpful at such times which you'd care to share....conventionally speaking or not? M: Well, since you ask--just realizing how much unhappiness is the result of thinking about concepts (such as the future) can be an incredible relief (for that moment) even when physical illness is present. This reminds me of something Han wrote recently, hope you don['t mind, Han, if I respond somewhat obliquely here. You said that you know that your house is your house. This is just a concept--suppose your property had been somehow seized and you didn't know it yet--your sense of security would be unchanged by the fact, as long as you didn't know it. Or suppose you thought that your property had been seized due to a bureaucratic error but it had not been--your sense of loss and insecurity would be unchanged by the facts, as long as you didn't 'know' them. If I'm sure that I'm going to die tomorrow, my mental states will be one way, even if in the actual event things work out differently. If in fact I AM going to die tomorrow--always a possibility of course--but have no idea that it's going to happen, my mental states in the meantime will be otherwise, usually heedless and unwholesome of course but happier than in the former case. I think that this kind of worry about e.g. the existence of Han's house, or of 'no Lodewick' is an example of how wrong view is always(?) dependent on existence or non-existence. The conceptual aspect of either assumption, conventionally speaking--or the momentary presence of the dhamma 'wrong view', abhidhammically speaking-- is an obstacle to understanding, I think, quite aside from and irrelevant to ontological considerations. Enough rambling--hope you're feeling better both ways, Sarah. mike #65273 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency m_nease Hi Jon, Nina and James, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency Sorry, it's 2 against 1 so you've lost the debate I'm afraid ;-)) Jon I really hate debating (yes, I know), but can't resist saying, "Make that 3 against"-- mike #65274 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. lbidd2 Hi TG, Somehow my email got garbled in cyber space so below is the version I originally sent, plus your response: TG: ""Tree" is an imagination on any level. Coalescence is an actuality that is delegated to inference." L: "I'm reading a very interesting book on this subject: "Recognizing Reality, Dharmakirti's Philosophy and its Tibetan Interpretations" by Georges Dreyfus. If coalescence is an actuality why not tree? They are both a matter of relationship. I can see that this blood is not me and that red is not blood, but perhaps it is going too far to say because red is not blood therefore there is no blood, or because blood is not me therefore there is no human being." TG: ""Tree" is just an imagination/concept referencing a group of actual states. Coalescence is an actual state. The blood analogy I don't follow." L: I don't see what is imaginary about a living tree. "Tree" is a word and "coalescence" is a word. You might say coalescence is a single ultimate reality and a tree is a formation of ultimate realities, but you seem to be saying formations are imaginary. Isn't "coalescence" grouping together into a formation? Blood is an example of coalescence (water element) that we cling to as me and mine. Larry #65275 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/12/2006 5:51:54 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: L: I don't see what is imaginary about a living tree. "Tree" is a word and "coalescence" is a word. You might say coalescence is a single ultimate reality and a tree is a formation of ultimate realities, but you seem to be saying formations are imaginary. Isn't "coalescence" grouping together into a formation? Hi Larry Formations are not imaginary. The group of states we call a tree is actual. In addition, none of the 4 Great Elements stands alone. Any of the 4 Great Elements is just a predominant activity based on the configuration of the other 3. TG #65276 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groundhog reflections, sense of urgency jonoabb Hi James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > > > Sorry, it's 2 against 1 so you've lost the debate I'm afraid ;-)) > > That is NOT how one wins a debate- the debate is won by who presents > the most compelling evidence with analysis. So far, you have presented > no evidence, just speculations. I do not see this or any dhamma issue as a matter of debate, with winners and losers. My remarks were light-hearted. Please don't take them seriously. Jon #65277 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. lbidd2 Hi TG, I think we are in agreement here, but there is something I don't quite understand. TG: "Formations are not imaginary. The group of states we call a tree is actual. In addition, none of the 4 Great Elements stands alone. Any of the 4 Great Elements is just a predominant activity based on the configuration of the other 3." L: If we say earth is not tree, water is not tree, fire is not tree, wind is not tree but we call a certain formation of these elements "tree", doesn't that mean that "certain formation" is tree? If so, how is that different from saying the khandhas are each individually not me? Does that mean a certain formation of khandhas is me? I'm not sure of the answer to this but one possibility is that the Buddha seems to say "I", "me", and "my" assume a certain lastingness, at least for a life time in the case of the annihilation view. And a formation of elements that are instantly gone can't, in a formation, last more than an instant. Therefore a "certain formation of khandhas" can't be me. Another aspect to consider is that each of the four great elements has an own nature (sabhava) but the formation of the four great elements together does not. For lack of better words we call formations concept or imaginary or, for some Tibetans, non-arising. And, according to abhidhamma, all conditioned arising is formations. It would seem that that would make ultimate reality a concept in the sense of being purely speculative. But somehow there is hardness, feeling, recognition, passion, and consciousness. How do we resolve all this? Larry #65278 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Realities, Paramattha Dhammas, and Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, all - A bit more: Pa~n~natti such as trees and people are not imagined in the same sense as unicorns and selves. There are no selves in anything, but there *are* trees. However, trees and people are "emptier" than paramattha dhammas in that they are empty in a way that goes further than the way paramattha dhammas are empty. Paramattha dhammas are empty of self in being dependent for their existence and nature on a variety of conditions, both prior and co-occurring, but not including the condition of conceptual construction. Pa~n~natti such as trees and people, on the other hand, are not only dependent on the sort of prior and co-occurring conditions as are paramattha dhammas, but also on the conceptual constructing/aggregating that imputes a sense of a unity upon a multiplicity of related paramattha dhammas (not all of which even exist at the same time). The way the Tibetans put it is that conventional objects are dependent on their parts and on the mind that imputes singleness upon those parts. Thus, it is not that trees and people are unreal, but that they are empty of self in a way that goes beyond that which applies to paramattha dhammas. They exist, but in dependence on their constituents and on mental construction, thus lacking own-being in a way that is more thoroughgoing than the lack of own-being in paramattha dhammas. If one wishes to consider that being "less real", so be it. I prefer to think of it as "emptier". But it's all empty. All dhammas are empty of self. With metta, Howard #65279 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:56 pm Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Howard, Thanks for the reassurance, but it really wasn't necessary; I hadn't taken umbrage. :-) --------------------- <. . .> H: > I have come to think that when positions are held hard and fast on one or both sides and when the positions are quite opposite, better than discussion in the form of debate is simply writing things for the other to consider without reply. -------------------- That might be a good idea in those circumstances. There can, and will, be both kusala and akusala in either format, of course: conditioned dhammas being what they are. :-) ----------------------------------- <. . .> H: > LOL! So, the trying that you approve of you honor by bestowing the label 'effort'! -------------------------------------- Yes, although I would add that arrow removal (and the other examples) could be done with either kusala or akusala effort. On the other hand, striving and not striving (to cross the flood) *always* refer to akusala cittas with wrong effort and wrong view. We can have this certainty because the Dhamma is a teaching of ultimate reality. Arrow removal and cancer cure are teachings of conventional reality. --------------------------------------- H: > There is no control-paramattha-dhamma, there is no self who exerts control or tries to, and even conventional control is often only attempted without full success. If this summarizes what you mean by "the idea of control in the ultimate sense" not being the middle way, then we agree on this. ---------------------------------------- If we keep agreeing like this we are going to run out of things to argue about! :-) Ken H #65280 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:16 pm Subject: Well Equipped ... !!! bhikkhu5 Friends: How is one well equipped with the Five Abilities? A certain, not very well known Bhikkhu once asked Blessed Buddha, Venerable Sir, it is said: One well equipped with the mental abilities! In what way, Venerable Sir, is one well equipped with these abilities? When, Bhikkhu, a Bhikkhu thoroughly trains and fully develops the: Ability of Faith which leads to stilling, which leads to enlightenment.. Ability of Energy which leads to peace, which leads to awakening.. Ability of Awareness which leads to harmony, which leads to safety.. Ability of Concentration which leads to rest, which leads to ending.. Ability of Understanding which leads to ease, which leads to bliss.. Then he becomes one who is well equipped with the 5 mental abilities! Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 203] 48 The Mental Abilities: 19 Equipped.. For Details on these five mental Abilities (indriya) see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/saddhaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/u_v/viriya.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sati.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/samaadhi.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/pannaa.htm Well Equipped ... !!! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #65281 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:11 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 578- Understanding/pa~n~naa (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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd Questions i Why can there only be direct understanding of realities when there is mindfulness of them? ii Understanding is an indriya, a controlling faculty. What does it control? iii What is the object of right understanding of the eightfold Path which is mundane, not supramundane, lokuttara? iv We may find a particular situation too difficult, not favourable for the development of understanding. What should we do when we are in such a situation? ***** Understanding(paññå) finished! Metta, Sarah ====== #65282 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:41 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 113, 114 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 113, 114. Intro: In the following sections the reasons are elaborated upon why ignorance conditions the three kinds of kamma-formations. In section 113 it is explained that someone who is ignorant does not know that death is the breaking up of the khan-dhas, the falling away of nama and rupa at the end of a lifespan. ---------- Text Vis. 112: Moreover, there is this way of explanation as well: Now when a man is ignorant Of death and rebirth and the round, The characteristics of the formed, Dependently-arisen states, And in his ignorance he forms Formations of this triple kind, Then ignorance itself will be Condition for each of the three. --------- Text Vis. 113: But how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus, 'Death in every case is break-up of aggregates', he figures that it is a [lasting] being that dies, that it is a [lasting] being's transmigration to another incarnation, and so on. ------------- N: The Tiika adds that he is truly ignorant (yaathaavato ajaananto), since he does not understand that what is called death is actually the subsequent breaking up of the khandhas of ruupa, etc. everywhere in the kinds of existence. The Tiika explains that he thinks that a being really exists. As to the words, a [lasting] being's transmigration to another incarnation, the Tiika explains: the association with another body. Thus, he figures that it is a lasting being that associates with another body at death. ----------- Conclusion: Someone who is ignorant fails to see the breaking up of the five khandhas, of naama and ruupa, at each moment. Ignorance conditions the wrong view that a being is lasting and transmigrates from one life to another life. Hence he clings to the idea of self who will be reborn and he cannot see the disadvantage of the continuation in the cycle of birth and death. As we read (§ 112): A person will embark upon the three kinds of formations when he is ignorant ‘of death and rebirth and the round, the characteristics of the formed, dependently-arisen states...’ The characteristics of the formed dhammas (sa”nkhaara) are the characteristics of conditioned dhammas, of naama and ruupa that appear at this moment. Through the development of satipa.t.thaana their arising and falling away can be realized and then wrong view of a lasting being can be eliminated. ****** Nina. #65283 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:52 am Subject: Trying not to try (Was: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Joop (Phil and Howard), > Hallo Ken, Howard, all KH: " Effort, as you say, can be a good thing - it can even be a factor of the NEP. But 'trying' is used to denote the idea of control over ultimate reality. I see formal vipassana practices as 'trying' to make vipassana (an ultimate reality) happen. Sometimes those practices take the form of striving, and sometimes they take the form of just letting go. In either case there is the idea of control in the ultimate sense, and that is not the Middle Way." Joop: I have never been talking about "control in the ultimate sense", I even never talked about "control" in a conventional way; I'm more modest: simply hope that in my meditation I can see a little bit 'things as they really are' and that this has some effect on my path. I'm glad the control-discussion between Ken H en Howard have reached agreement now, because I had no opinion. [In fact I don't like the term 'control' as such, it's a term of perfectionists: I'm more an anarchist (that's why I also don't like the term 'formal' in 'formal meditation'); but of course 'like' and 'dislike' are not important, that's one of the effects of my meditation.] But you avoid my remark on 'effort' in NEP. My question is: can you describe 'effort' as used in 'right effort' in the NEP, without using any volitional terms like 'trying', ' aspire', 'wishe', 'should', 'not being lazy' etc. ? I think this is impossible. See for example 'Right Effort' (Samma Vayama) in ' The Noble Eightfold Path The Way to the End of Suffering by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wheel 308/311, www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html ---------------------------------------- J: > BTW there is in my view a logical paradox in your remark "one should not try": "should" is a kind of trying too. ---------------------------------------- KH: Yes, there is a paradox in that remark. But no, it was not my remark; it was yours. It was your interpretation of something I had said. I corrected you by saying, "Rather than say "one should not try" I would say "one should understand that trying is not part of the path."" Joop (now): You are right, it was my remark, I better had said "there is in my view a logical paradox in your remark "one should understand that trying is not part of the path." " The paradox sits in the term 'should' But this is too much a discussion-game I will be totally serious when I say this: IT'S OUR FATE AS HUMAN BEINGS THAT TRYING NOT TO TRY IS IMPOSSIBLE No anatta-belief can change that fate, I think only somebody who is awakened (enlightened) can totally really live with this fate, has transcended this fate. A more positive formulation: IT'S NOT ONLY OUR FATE, IT'S ALSO OUR POSSIBILITY AS HUMAN BEING: TO END SAMSARA. For the rest: I agree with you that many methods of doing (formal) meditation ou useless, there are many meditation teachers that promise too much, that even are frauds. Many, but not all. Metta Joop #65284 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:59 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 578- Understanding/pa~n~naa (q) hantun1 Dear Nina and Sarah, Questions: Question (i): Why can there only be direct understanding of realities when there is mindfulness of them? Answer: Direct understanding of realities is different from thinking about them. Direct understanding can only be developed by being mindful of the nama or rupa appearing at the present moment. When there is mindfulness of one reality at the time understanding can investigate its characteristic and in that way it can gradually develop. When, for example, hardness appears there can be mindfulness of its characteristic and there is at that moment no thinking of a thing which is hard or of the place on our body where hardness impinges. If we think of the place of its impingement, such as a hand or a leg, there is an idea of "my body' to which we tend to cling. By being aware of one reality at a time we will lean that in the ultimate sense the body as a "whole" does not exist, that there are only different elements which arise and then fall away. However, for the development of direct understanding of realities it is not enough to know only the specific characteristics of realities, the characteristics by which they are distinguished from one another. Understanding has to be developed stage by stage, so that it will be able to penetrate the three general characteristics of conditioned realities: the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and non-self. ------------------------------ Question (ii): Understanding is an indriya, a controlling faculty. What does it control? Answer: Understanding is one of the wholesome faculties (indriyas), called the “spiritual controlling faculties", which has to be developed together with the other "spiritual controlling faculties" of confidence, energy, mindfulness and concentration. Through the development of these faculties the four noble Truths can be realized. Understanding is a controlling faculty, an indriya, in the sense of predominance since it overcomes ignorance. It exercises government over the associated dhammas (the citta and cetasikas it accompanies) by the characteristic of vision, that is, the realization of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. The Atthasalini states that understanding has as characteristic illuminating and understanding. It states that just as a clever surgeon knows which food is suitable and which is not, understanding knows states as "moral or immoral, serviceable or unserviceable, low or exalted, black or pure." Understanding which has been developed knows the four noble Truths. ------------------------------ Question (iii): What is the object of right understanding of the eightfold Path which is mundane, not supramundane, lokuttara? Answer: Right understanding of realities, samma-ditthi, is a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path which has to be developed together with the other factors of the Noble Eightfold Path so that it can penetrate the Four Noble Truths. The object of right understanding, which is of lokiya or mundane level, is the nama or rupa appearing at the present moment. However, the object of right understanding, which is of lokuttara or supramundane level, is Nibbana. The shifting of the focus of attention from nama or rupa to Nibbana occurs during Magga Vithi, when one of the four nana-sampayuttam maha-kusala cittas, observing one of the three characteristics of existence, functions three times as parikamma, upacaara, and anuloma, and then when it functions as gotrabhu, the focus of attention shifts from one of the three characteristics of existence to Nibbana. ------------------------------ Question (iv): We may find a particular situation too difficult, not favourable for the development of understanding. What should we do when we are in such a situation? Answer: We should not worry about the situation we are in but we should be mindful of whatever reality appears. When we learn about the different classifications of understanding we can be reminded that understanding has to be developed in order to reach higher stages. It should be developed in whatever situation in our daily life we may be. We are inclined to think that awareness of the present moment is too difficult, but that one day in the future we may reach the goal. If we think that the present situation is not favourable for the development of right understanding, it will not develop. We should remember that each moment is in fact a new situation which is conditioned and which is beyond control, and that it is therefore useless to prefer another situation to the present one. Therefore, we should not worry about the too difficult or unfavourable situation we are in, but we just have to be diligently mindful of whatever reality appears here and now. ------------------------------ Respectfully, Han #65285 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Hi Mike, (Han* & all), --- "m. nease" wrote: > S: Yes, 'snake disease' on account of the snake-like rash entwined > around > the torso, just as you say. <...> ... > M: You probably know that 'shingles' is from 'cingula', Latin for > 'girdle', > so similar in a way. .... S: Interesting - I had wondered and not known. Both terms are apt not only appearance-wise - 'entwined around the torso' as Azita put it (and with an appearance of snake-skin or beach shingles too!), but also the pressure is like having a large snake or old-fashioned girdle around one's middle. (Very fortunately, it's not the head variety which sounds v.nasty indeed.....). Anyway, the snake's on the run, I slept almost all yesterday and am bouncing back to life:-)I liked the good reminder in the sutta Nina and Scott quoted about right effort and mindfulness when shooting pains come.....anytime is the time for mindfuleness, understanding and right effort to arise without any idea of a self doing anything or changing any object. .... >S:<..>Forget the > pain last night and concerns about tomorrow....one moment at a time. And > the real problem is not the short, momentary unpleasant bodily feeling, > but the aversion which makes it so many times worse. > > M: Yes, most immediately the domanaasa attending the aversion I think. ... S: Yes, we mind so very much about the feelings, don't we? .... > > S: Of course, there's not even unpleasant bodily feeling all the time. > Often, > as Phil has been stressing from MN19(?), it's just a matter of what is > being attended to.....Usually, it's all the nimitta anupyanjanna (marks > and details) about what has been experienced, but reflecting on dhamma > really can be a condition for moments of awareness to arise and > develop....without expectation, of course! > > M: Actually they can arise even 'between', that is regardless of > expectations if conditions are present, seems to me. .... S: Especially when there is the confidence that this is so. The confidence that anytime is the right time for awareness to develop - dhammas are just as real when one is sick or in pain and unable to do anything. .... > S: It's interesting - as soon as I got the 'right' diagnosis, I > immediately > started feeling quite cheerful about it. The symptoms are the same, but > there aren't the same long stories and worries about whether I'd been > unknowingly bitten by an unknown sea creature or whether I'd got some > flesh-eating disease or whatever, lol:-) > > M: Sure--the aversion and attendant grief pertain mostly to thoughts of > the > future in a case like this, I think. I have a friend, an > anaesthesiologist, > who had minor surgery and really did get flesh-eating staph infection. > Besides being a well-respected MD, she was also quite beautiful and a > champion weight-lifter...her face was somewhat disfigured and this was > quite > a learning experience for her. I think it was her devotion to her young > daughter more than anything that eclipsed the mental horror of the > situation > for her--she has no interest in or knowledge of Dhamma. .... S: I hope she's doing well. Really, anything can happen.... .... > > I have two other friends dying presently of cancer and another > scheduled > to have half her tongue removed this week, also for cancer. The guy I > do > odd construction jobs for--my only income for some time now--fell thirty > feet off a ladder (right next to me) a few weeks ago but aside from a > couple > of very painful fractures came through it amazingly well. > > In all these cases though, I think the worst suffering was due to > concepts--aversion (with grief) to ideas of what is to come. ..... S: I'm sorry to hear about your friends, Mike. I think what you say is usually true too. We build our own nightmare scenarios. This is why all dhammas are 'bad', but namas are said to be the worst. One moment of experiencing unpleasant tangible object with unpleasant feeling, followed by 7 javanas 'running through' in the sense door process, usually with akusala, followed by countless mind door javanas 'running through' with usually lots more akusala. .... > S: How about you, Mike - any reflections you find particularly helpful > at > such times which you'd care to share....conventionally speaking or not? > > M: Well, since you ask--just realizing how much unhappiness is the > result > of thinking about concepts (such as the future) can be an incredible > relief > (for that moment) even when physical illness is present. ... S: Yes and not only when physical illness is present. ... *>M: This reminds > me of > something Han wrote recently, hope you don['t mind, Han, if I respond > somewhat obliquely here. You said that you know that your house is your > house. This is just a concept--suppose your property had been somehow > seized and you didn't know it yet--your sense of security would be > unchanged > by the fact, as long as you didn't know it. Or suppose you thought that > your property had been seized due to a bureaucratic error but it had not > been--your sense of loss and insecurity would be unchanged by the facts, > as > long as you didn't 'know' them. > > If I'm sure that I'm going to die tomorrow, my mental states will be > one > way, even if in the actual event things work out differently. If in > fact I > AM going to die tomorrow--always a possibility of course--but have no > idea > that it's going to happen, my mental states in the meantime will be > otherwise, usually heedless and unwholesome of course but happier than > in > the former case. > > I think that this kind of worry about e.g. the existence of Han's > house, > or of 'no Lodewick' is an example of how wrong view is always(?) > dependent > on existence or non-existence. The conceptual aspect of either > assumption, > conventionally speaking--or the momentary presence of the dhamma 'wrong > view', abhidhammically speaking-- is an obstacle to understanding, I > think, > quite aside from and irrelevant to ontological considerations. ..... S: I'd be interested to hear Han's comments on this. So, Han, how does it sound to you? Always good to chat to you, Mike! Wishing your friends well. Take care whilst climbing those ladders meanwhile. Metta, Sarah ======= #65286 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:00 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Sukin (and Jon) > I am still trying to catch up with the posts here. Since generally you do > not like to debate, I think I can make some comments without fear of > having to continue the discussion for long. That's for sure! You never have to fear perseverence from me! > > You wrote to Shennica: > > <<< I too have started using the Mahadi Sayadaw method at home. > Personally, I think the basic exercises are great - noting what's coming > and going (whether it is just thinking rather than real awareness or not) > conditions more of the same in daily life, I find. > > One thing I am dubious about is that there seems to be an > encouragement in the book I have for meditators to expect stages of > insight such as knowing body from mind, rising and falling, > conditionality quite soon. I think this is dangerous. There is a > natural tendency for people (especially Westerners, I think, but > that's just my opinion) to want too much too soon. Being told that > this or that stage of insight is availbale to one who practices > diligently is dangerous, I think. It'll throw us off so that we > don't even get the real benefits available from the basic "bare > awareness" exercises. I think just having a little more awareness of > the way the mind prolfierates, a little bit more watchfulness, a > little bit less mental chaos, a little bit more mental clarity - > these "little bits" add up to something very real. If we aim for the > big stages we lose even the little bits, possibly. On the other > hand, aspiring to the higher stages could be helpful, I don't know. > I just think we have to be very careful. My opinion. > > Phil > p.s I think I have heard that some retreats promise attainment of > sotapanna to meditators who diligently do the retreat. I don't know > if that is the Mahadi Sayadaw policy. That sounds a bit nutty to me.>>> > > > Sukin: > Putting aside the fact that some meditators may "want too much too > soon", do you believe that under ideal conditions, the Mahasi method > could deliver what it says it can? If so, is this because you see the > method of practice, in part confirmed by your own experiences, as > being the right cause for the right result, namely, Vipassana nana? Ph: Sukin, I have absolutely no idea about how viapasanna nana comes about. It certainly won't come about if people are led to expect it by the sort of thing I write about above. There is also the beautiful subtle and difficult-to-grasp-even-intellectually description of the way it happens given by Acharn Sujin. About the mind door that has been obscured becoming an object of awareness or something. Beyond me. The description given in the Mahasi book is too simplistic. It had me trying to differentiate mind from matter in the breath and the nostril, which is ridiculous, I think. But meditators - especially busy westerners - will always be seduced by the promise of attainments. I had a couple of blissful experiences when meditating last week unlike any other I had when I used to meditate, so I am certainly at risk of getting sucked into the vortex. Hopefully I will keep things simple. I do find meditating in order to see what is going on in the mind with a bit more clarity is helpful and I'll continue to do it. I often think of an experience I have at work, teaching English as a second language. Anyone who has learned a language knows this. There is dramatic progress at the beginning which gives us confidence and we press on. But there comes a plateau when there is no more dramatic progress - I guess this is called the learning curve or something. Some students get frustrated, and insist on being promoted to higher level classes at our school, in which they are in over their heads, no longer patiently working on the things they should be working on, not capable of producing at the new level either, just making a lot of crappy language. I think something like that could happen with Dhamma. These days I am feeling invigorating progress in terms of heedfullness, the releasing of akusala proliferation, that kind of thing. It's happening. Unquestionable, undeniable. No argument there. It is good for my mental life, my home life, my work life, and I believe it is producing an uncluttered state of mind (or states of mind, to be more accurate) in which deeper understanding might be cultivated in some way I don't understand yet. But what will probably happen is that I will not be content with this and will blunder ahead in an attempt to get higher attainments and will... ...anyways, never mind. Just babbling again. > > As you know, I don't believe *any* `intentional noting' or `meditation > method' can lead anywhere good in terms of Dhamma. I disagree here. When one begins to see more clearly where akusala proliferation leads, and watches it, and it subsides more often than not it is a good thing - a very good thing - and only someone who has a much less toxis citta stream than my own could say otherwise. I will not bother discussing this point, because it is indisputable. (Says I) This being that > they are *not* the right cause for the result aimed at. If what is aimed > at is vipassana, and cause and result don't match, then wrong > understanding is being encouraged. Vipassana, seeing into dhammas, into the characteristics - this is not what I'm talking about. Bhikkhu Bodhi points out in one of his talks that what is called vipassana meditating in the west is not actually vipassana, but is more like the sort of thing I talk about above, a tidying of the conceptual content of the mind stream. > > Of course, every `method', `line of thought', has its own path and > consequence. It is these illusions of result that are blinding, after all, > when one reasons that the cause (one's chosen practice) is what lead > to the result, who can argue with the lobha accompanying the > associated wrong view? > > Phil, you appreciate the precision of Abhidhamma. You know what > satipatthana is and what other levels of kusala are. It is good to be > reminded that the purpose of the Teachings is to realize dhamma as > dhamma, i.e. conditioned realities with the characteristic of anicca, > dukkha and anatta. Other `understandings' are concerned with the > development of kusala with no appreciation about conditionality. Yes, this is the goal. But it is beyond me, and I won't rely on rare moments of it arising to @revent further decline from wholesome states. I don't understand the "do good" side of the formula, but I have come to see that there *is* a reason that "avoid evil" is always mentionned first. Always. Invariably. I disagree that abstaining from evil without panna just gives rise to other akusala. Well, if there is lobha, there is lobha, if there is mana, there is mana. There will be anyways. > > The Dhamma student, once he has understood the aim of the Teachings > and the practice (satipatthana) associated, cannot grow to be overly > concerned about the development of other forms of kusala without > coming to a wrong conclusion somewhere, about the Dhamma itself. > After all, when there is opportunity to understand each moment, no > matter what dhamma, as being conditioned, why choose to believe in > the particular script dictated by the `intention to do something else'? I cannot understand each moment. Moments are too fast to arise and fall. I can understand situations, concepts. Acahrn Sujin's emphasis on awareness of momentary realities must be for people of sharper panna. I learned a lot from the two years plus of appreciating the importance of understanding momentary realities in theory, but I know longer believe that I can risk that approach. But I will keep reading posts here, reading Nina's books now and then, listening to Acharn Sujin now and then, to keep in touch with her approach which I still think is very pure, very admirable. But beyond me. And it does not contain enough warnings against the danger of akusala, warnings which I think are very explicit in the Buddha's teaching and can be applied even without penetrative panna. (snip, sorry sukin it was too long I couldn't read it all! :) However I think that > it better at such times, to remember Azita's "patience, courage and > good cheer" and not be fooled into undertaking some wrong practice. Yes, I often think of this, and I feel such respect for Nina and others who carry on without such patience. Sometimes I suspect that *everyone* has ways of cheating a bit in the secrecy of their mind - otherwise, that patience seems superhuman. Oh yes, as James pointed out, Nina is divine, so I guess that's where the patience comes from! We'll see what happens Sukin. Oh, another reason for me turning to more conventional, popular approaches is that I am easing Naomi into Dhamma - her getting into Dhamma is the most important thing for me - and Acharn Sujin's approach is hard to get across to beginner's. I want her to have ease of mind, to tell the truth, peace, joy, and all those other cozy things - that will come first. That must come first. Even as pop psychology, Dhamma is heads and tails above anything else on the book shelf! Thanks for your concern, Sukin, and the time you took to write. You're a good friend. I've really enjoyed listening to you and hope we can meet some day. Phil p.s Jon, I haven't read your post - I said I'd leave the last word to you, but I imagine what I babbled above contains anything I would have said in response. p.p.s last word to you Sukin. I am hoping to gradually shift to discussing only re paramattha dhammas and not the "practice" thing. I still believe it is essential for me to build my understanding of paramattha dhammas even though I doubt that I can understand them directly. "Understand more about" dhammas, gradually, rather than "understand" or "be aware of the characteristics of" dhammas, for me, it seems. I hate to say "understand in theory", because it suggests that is the only way they can be understood, which is not the case, of course. p.p.s no correction of typos to come. If anything doesn't make sense, please take a guess! :) #65287 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:25 am Subject: Re: Realities, Paramattha Dhammas, and Concepts jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > A bit more: Pa~n~natti such as trees and people are not imagined in > the same sense as unicorns and selves. There are no selves in anything, but > there *are* trees. However, trees and people are "emptier" than paramattha dhammas > in that they are empty in a way that goes further than the way paramattha > dhammas are empty. Paramattha dhammas are empty of self in being dependent for ....... ... Hallo Howard, all Howard, I think you are right in your statement "Paramattha dhammas are real in a very special way, namely requiring no conceptual construction for their cognizance", as you stated in #65267. But to be honest, in my life history I first read about them and thought to understand them and recognize: that are conceptual constructions. And now I think some moment of the day there is cognizance without conceptual construction but as long as I'm not yet awakened I'm not sure if this is not an illusion too. So you are right only in an abstract way: they don't require a conceptual construction And I'm also not sure if you state correct "Not one of the tilakhana is a paramattha dhamma" 'Dukkha' and 'anatta' are of another level (more abstract) but 'anicca' (impermanence) is a paramattha dhamma, I find this as the last of the 28 rupas: aniccata; nr 27, 'jarata' (decay) has to with it too. (Okay, how a property of a material phenomena can be a rupa itself is a little bit difficult to understand, but it occurs in the Abhidhamma- list) I agree with most of your message #65278, but I'm not so happy with the conclusion of it: " Thus, it is not that trees and people are unreal, but that they are empty of self in a way that goes beyond that which applies to paramattha dhammas. They exist, but … I prefer to think of it as "emptier". But it's all empty. All dhammas are empty of self." Joop: I prefer to say: First: we cannot know 'realities' itself, only make a theory of it, a model of it in our brains Second: in reality-testing (à la Popper): - some simply fail (for example unicorns and selves); - some like trees and people are as you described (I like the term 'emptier'); they fail partly. - paramattha dhamma are also empty of self, but the theory of them (plus that of the processes, vitthi, of them) is ultimate because it is a theory with build-in anatta. Till now the last 2200 years this ultimate theory of Abhidhamma did not fail in reality testing, that is: in different kinds of vipassana (except in some details but that's a personal opinion of me and another discussion). Do you think it's possible to give a description like you did without using the expression "the lack of own-being"? Because even this negative use of the expression already gives misunderstandings (many of us translate 'own-being' immediate in 'sabhava') , I think. Metta Joop #65288 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. nilovg Hi Howard, Here are some texts: Conventional truth and ultimate truth: I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about paramatthadesana, I shall translate: Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa caa ti. There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. ******************** I quote Sarah: I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of conventional speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these references which are useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: ....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,‚ (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe‚s translation adds: Œ...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: „Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who‚s skilled in this world‚s speech , can use it, and not lie. ******* N: There are many kinds of Concepts and if you like you could check Survey: p. 248. ***** Nina. Op 12-nov-2006, om 21:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You seem to assume that the Buddha made a hard and fast distinction > between conventional and ultimate in his teaching. I think that is > incorrect. In > fact, they were typically mixed together in his teaching, the > distinction > most often being entirely ignored by him. (Note: I do accept the > distinction, as > you know.) #65289 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:08 am Subject: Q. and Answers certasikas, Understanding. nilovg Dear Han, I appreciate the way you have answered the Questions, you have really thought over them. I just like to add something to Q. 3: Question (iii): What is the object of right understanding of the eightfold Path which is mundane, not supramundane, lokuttara? Answer: Right understanding of realities, samma-ditthi, is a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path... (snipped) H: The shifting of the focus of attention from nama or rupa to Nibbana occurs during Magga Vithi, when one of the four nana-sampayuttam maha-kusala cittas, observing one of the three characteristics of existence, functions three times as parikamma, upacaara, and anuloma, and then when it functions as gotrabhu, the focus of attention shifts from one of the three characteristics of existence to Nibbana. ------------------------------ N: I would like to add: instead of the three characteristics of existence I think it is: the object is a nama or rupa seen as either impermanent, or dukkha or anattaa. A charactereistic is always a characteristic of a dhamma. If we do not mention this people may think of some abstraction, a characteristic by itself. Until the gotrabhu the object is any dhamma appearing through one of the six doors. It can even be lobha or dosa! But it is seen with developed wisdom, as a conditioned dhamma that is impermanent, etc. This understanding leads to more and more turning away from conditioned dhammas and then at Gotrabhu, the object is the unconditioned dhamma, nibbaana. I think detachment until the end should be stressed. Now we do not turn away from conditioned dhammas, but when the stages of insight are reached there will be more understanding of their true nature. Only at the higher stages their danger is seen and there will be turning away (pahaana). ****** Thank you for your answers, Nina. #65290 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) hantun1 Dear Sarah, How are you? I hope you are feeling alright now. According to your description it is most likely that it is shingles or also called herpes zoster. It is viral infection and I am sure you must be taking anti-viral medications. I pray for your complete recovery. As regards the discussion: Sarah: You said that you know that your house is your house. This is just a concept--suppose your property had been somehow seized and you didn't know it yet--your sense of security would be unchanged by the fact, as long as you didn't know it. Or suppose you thought that your property had been seized due to a bureaucratic error but it had not been--your sense of loss and insecurity would be unchanged by the facts, as long as you didn't 'know' them. Han: Yes, as long as I do not know I will not feel the loss. The same thing with death. If I know for sure that I AM going to die tomorrow my mental state may be different from just knowing of the ‘possibility’ that I might die tomorrow. That’s why I always wonder how the prisoner would feel when he was told that he would be executed the next day. Sometimes, when I went to bed, I told myself that this would be the last night for me. I would not wake up for tomorrow. But it lacks the real ‘punch.’ --------------------- Sarah: I think that this kind of worry about e.g. the existence of Han's house, or of 'no Lodewick' is an example of how wrong view is always (?) dependent on existence or non-existence. The conceptual aspect of either assumption, conventionally speaking--or the momentary presence of the dhamma 'wrong view', abhidhammically speaking-- is an obstacle to understanding, I think, quite aside from and irrelevant to ontological considerations. Han: I was only discussing based on the text that I read. But actually, I have no such worries. If everything is gone, it’s gone. I will just ask myself, “So what?” I started from zero in my life during the War. I would not mind going back to zero any time. Whether it is a wrong view from dhamma point of view is another matter. During the discussions I write this thing and that thing and all sorts of things. Actually, what I am doing is only three things. Sabbapaapassa akaranam kusalassa upasampadaa sacittapariyodapanam etam buddhaana saasanam. Wishing you all the best, Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Mike, (Han* & all), > *>M: This reminds > > me of > > something Han wrote recently, hope you don't > mind, Han, if I respond > > somewhat obliquely here. > > I think that this kind of worry about e.g. the > existence of Han's > === message truncated === #65291 From: "sukinder" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:42 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sukinderpal Hi Howard, Thank you for your response. > Talking about kamma-vipaka, our friend Peter Swan met with an accident this > Tuesday under quite strange circumstance. ====================== I'm sorry for your friend Peter's mishap, but happy that the circumstances weren'r worse. Also, sorry to hear of the passing of the father of another friend (or relative?) of yours. I think that you may have misunderstood the above, perhaps the "our friend" part? Peter, I know only from about two years and only recently has he been quite regular at the Saturday discussions. Maeve (and her husband John) I met for the first time only last year during the India trip with K. Sujin. Peter and Maeve were husband and wife once. The "our" in my message was a reference to both of them being Jon's and Sarah's long time friends, since the 1970s in fact. So indeed the sympathy should be directed more to them. ;-) Now some comments on the main part of the post. ----------------------------- Howard: A question occurs to me with regard to Peter's accident. You write of kamma-vipaka. Assuming for sake of discussion that what happened to Peter was the fruition of kamma of his, what would you say was the "mechanics" of that? Sukin: I brought up kamma-vipaka because Peter talked about it, saying that it was useful for him to think of this at such times. In effect, he had wise consideration about the subject, distinguishing between moments of actual sense door experience and any thinking which follows, and this helped make his condition much more bearable. I find myself thinking less and less in terms of situations, (though I was aware of being dramatic in this case ;-) ) especially when it comes to matters of mind moments, which is what kamma and vipaka ultimately are. I think it is so easy to get lost in speculation when thinking in terms of people and situations. The Buddha knew the exact kamma of each person and so he was able to refer to conventional situations without getting lost. The rest of us, not able to know the kind of cause effect relationship, we end up trying to fit a Dhamma principle with a preferred story line. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Did Peter's past kamma serve as a condition that led not only to his being at that restaurant then, but also to the driver having been there, to the driver having parked where she parked, to Peter having walked behind that car when he did, and to the driver having set the gears wrongly? Sukin: No, and I think you agree. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Most specifically, did Peter's kamma lead to the actions of another person, the driver, "enabling" the fruition of Peter's kamma? (So, was the driver a means to an end, though thankfully not Peter's end? ;-) Sukin: No, and better not try to figure out. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What underlies my foregoing questioning is my very strong suspicion that we don't think properly about kamma, and most especially about kamma-vipaka. Sukin: We need to understand what kamma is and what vipaka, first conceptually and later in experience. Theorizing very easily leads to speculation, and this is far from helpful, imo. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I suspect that Peter was, at the moment of the accident, not being alert, that that lack of alertness resulted in being distracted, turning towards other objects of consciousness, maybe being lost in thought, and that lack of alertness was the actual kamma-vipaka of his, and the carelessness that was the vipaka led, as carelessness often does, depending on other conditions, to unhappy results. Sukin: Distracted he surely was, as it is with all of us most of the time. Other akusala including lobha, dosa, and mana were also there, I'm sure. But I wouldn't think that this was essentially different from any other time. Also being hit by the car is no different from being hit by a falling tree, and hit or miss could be in any conventional situation. Leaving out the stories, I think what we can be sure about is that there were many moments of akusala kamma, and here too, very few may have been of the level of kamma pattha, and in between, there were many, many vipaka cittas. Also that there are in fact 24 conditions in all and a few of these could be in effect at any time. So I wouldn't make the connection between akusala/kusala with any subsequent happening/state of mind, as you seem to be doing in; "and that lack of alertness was the actual kamma-vipaka of his, and the carelessness that was the vipaka led, as carelessness often does, depending on other conditions, to unhappy results." 'Careless' could have led to only being scraped by the car as it went on to hit the wall, and the ugly sight of the dented car and bodily unpleasant feelings were vipaka of don't know which kammas. So better not to speculate, I think. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The actions by the driver also sound like a matter of carelessness and distraction, which may well have been kamma-vipaka of hers, and the co-occurrence of those two kammic fruits (in the two different but interacting mindstreams) was like the coming together of a flame with fuel, creating a small explosion. Sukin: Again, better not think in terms of stories, otherwise we may spin out new theories. ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thus, what happened to Peter was kamma-related, specifically being conditioned by his kamma-vipaka, and indirectly by the original kamma, but was not, itself, the kamma-vipaka. Sukin: Surely there are many conditions at play, natural decisive support being one, all the more reason not to speculate. My central point? I think that kamma-vipaka is an internal (i.e., private, mental) matter. Sukin: I must have misunderstood some of what you wrote above, because I do agree with your final conclusion. :-) Metta, Sukin #65292 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. and Answers certasikas, Understanding. hantun1 Dear Nina, > > Han: The shifting of the focus of attention from nama or rupa to Nibbana occurs during Magga Vithi, when one of the four nana-sampayuttam maha-kusala cittas, observing one of the three characteristics of existence, functions three times as parikamma, upacaara, and anuloma, and then when it functions as gotrabhu, the focus of attention shifts from one of the three characteristics of existence to Nibbana. ------------------------------ > Nina: I would like to add: instead of the three characteristics of existence I think it is: the object is a nama or rupa seen as either impermanent, or dukkha or anattaa. A charactereistic is always a characteristic of a dhamma. If we do not mention this people may think of some abstraction, a characteristic by itself. Until the gotrabhu the object is any dhamma appearing through one of the six doors. It can even be lobha or dosa! But it is seen with developed wisdom, as a conditioned dhamma that is impermanent, etc. This understanding leads to more and more turning away from conditioned dhammas and then at Gotrabhu, the object is the unconditioned dhamma, nibbaana. I think detachment until the end should be stressed. Now we do not turn away from conditioned dhammas, but when the stages of insight are reached there will be more understanding of their true nature. Only at the higher stages their danger is seen and there will be turning away (pahaana). ------------------------------ Han: Your comments are very helpful. Yes, if we do not mention the object as nama or rupa, people may think some abstraction, a characteristic by itself. I myself was thinking that way until I read your note. Thank you very much. Your comment: “[I think detachment until the end should be stressed. Now we do not turn away from conditioned dhammas, but when the stages of insight are reached there will be more understanding of their true nature. Only at the higher stages their danger is seen and there will be turning away (pahaana)]” is also new to me. And I like it very much. With metta and deepest respect, Han #65293 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities, Paramattha Dhammas, and Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 11/13/06 8:33:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, all - > > > > A bit more: Pa~n~natti such as trees and people are not > imagined in > >the same sense as unicorns and selves. There are no selves in > anything, but > >there *are* trees. However, trees and people are "emptier" than > paramattha dhammas > >in that they are empty in a way that goes further than the way > paramattha > >dhammas are empty. Paramattha dhammas are empty of self in being > dependent for ....... > ... > > Hallo Howard, all > > Howard, I think you are right in your statement "Paramattha dhammas > are real in a very special way, namely requiring no conceptual > construction for their cognizance", as you stated in #65267. > But to be honest, in my life history I first read about them and > thought to understand them and recognize: that are conceptual > constructions. > And now I think some moment of the day there is cognizance without > conceptual construction but as long as I'm not yet awakened I'm not > sure if this is not an illusion too. > So you are right only in an abstract way: they don't require a > conceptual construction --------------------------------------- Howard: We sadly and consistently impose conceptual elaboration (papa~nca) even on paramattha dhammas, reifying them and viewing them as separate, self-existent entities. But our doing that is doing "something extra". Hardness is just hardness, and sound is just sound, fleeting, utterly contingent phenomena. -------------------------------------- > > And I'm also not sure if you state correct "Not one of the tilakhana > is a paramattha dhamma" > 'Dukkha' and 'anatta' are of another level (more abstract) > but 'anicca' (impermanence) is a paramattha dhamma, I find this as > the last of the 28 rupas: aniccata; nr 27, 'jarata' (decay) has to > with it too. ---------------------------------- Howard: Dukkha as suffering (i.e., mental pain) is a paramattha dhamma, but dukkha as not being a source of satisfaction (pertaining to conditioned dhammas) is not. Aniccata as the fact of not remaining (pertaining to conditioned dhammas) is not a paramattha dhamma. It is a fact that no conditioned dhammas remain, and we can observe that none of them remain. But there is no paramattha dhamma that is that characteristic of not remaining. We need to stop "thing making". It is the philosopher's illness. ---------------------------------- > (Okay, how a property of a material phenomena can be a rupa itself is > a little bit difficult to understand, but it occurs in the Abhidhamma- > list) ---------------------------------- Howard: That has no impact on me. ( Sorry ;-) ---------------------------------- > > > I agree with most of your message #65278, but I'm not so happy with > the conclusion of it: > " Thus, it is not that trees and people are unreal, but that they are > empty of self in a way that goes beyond that which applies to > paramattha dhammas. They exist, but … I prefer to think of it > as "emptier". But it's all empty. All dhammas are empty of self." > > Joop: I prefer to say: > First: we cannot know 'realities' itself, only make a theory of it, a > model of it in our brains --------------------------------- Howard: IMO, when we see a sight, hear a sound, taste a flavor, smell an odor, feel a bodily sensation, or cognize a mental phenomenon, at that very moment, before jumping on it with mental proliferation, we are knowing realities. --------------------------------- > Second: in reality-testing (à la Popper): > - some simply fail (for example unicorns and selves); > - some like trees and people are as you described (I like the > term 'emptier'); they fail partly. > - paramattha dhamma are also empty of self, but the theory of them > (plus that of the processes, vitthi, of them) is ultimate because it > is a theory with build-in anatta. Till now the last 2200 years this > ultimate theory of Abhidhamma did not fail in reality testing, that > is: in different kinds of vipassana (except in some details but > that's a personal opinion of me and another discussion). > > Do you think it's possible to give a description like you did without > using the expression "the lack of own-being"? Because even this > negative use of the expression already gives misunderstandings (many > of us translate 'own-being' immediate in 'sabhava') , I think. > > Metta > > Joop > ======================= Wity metta, Howard #65294 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 11/13/06 10:03:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: > My central point? I think that kamma-vipaka is an internal (i.e., > private, mental) matter. > > > > > Sukin: > > I must have misunderstood some of what you wrote above, because I do agree > with your final conclusion. :-) > ========================= Good. We agree on my central point! With metta, Howard #65295 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:01 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily LIfe 120 nilovg Dear friends, Another class of dhammåramma.na is concepts(paññatti), that is to say, both ideas and conventional terms . Thus we see that citta can know both paramattha dhammas, absolute realities, and concepts which are not real in the absolute sense. A concept or a conventional truth is not a paramattha dhamma. We can think of a person, an animal or a thing because of remembrance of past experiences, but these are not paramattha dhammas, realities which each have their own unchangeable characteristic, no matter how one names them. When there is thinking about a concept, it is nåma which thinks; thinking is a paramattha dhamma but the concept which is the object of thinking is not real in the absolute sense. Paññatti can mean a concept or idea which is not real in the absolute sense as well as a conventional term. Conventional terms can denote both realities and things which are not real. A term which in itself is not a paramattha dhamma, can denote a paramattha dhamma. For instance, the terms ``nåma'' and ``rúpa'' are paññatti, but they denote paramattha dhammas. It is essential to know the difference between paramattha dhamma and paññatti. If we cling to the terms ``nåma'' and ``rúpa'' and continue thinking about nåma and rúpa, instead of being aware of their characteristics when they appear, we will know only paññattis instead of realities. Summarizing the objects which citta can experience: five classes of objects which are rúpas, namely, visible object, sound, smell, taste and tangible object ; the sixth class, dhammåramma.na, which is again subdivided into six classes, including: citta, cetasika, the rúpas which are the five senses, subtle rúpas, nibbåna and also paññatti. Different objects can be experienced through different doorways (in Påli: dvåra). For example, the eyesense, the pasåda-rúpa which has the capacity to receive visible object, is a necessary condition for citta to experience visible object. If there were no pasåda-rúpa in the eye, citta could not experience visible object. This rúpa is the means, the doorway, through which citta experiences visible object. Cittas arising in the sense-door processes know their objects through the doors of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue and the bodysense. As regards the door of the bodysense, the pasåda-rúpa which has the capacity to receive tangible object such as hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure, is any part of the body where there is sensitivity for such impressions. Thus, any part of the body can be body-door, except those parts which have no sensitivity. ***** Nina. #65296 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:57 am Subject: Re: Abh. in D.L. 119 nilovg Hi Howard, --------- Hardness and painful feeling can appear > closely one after the other. If one does not realize that hardness > and painful feeling are different aaramma.nas and if one is ignorant > of the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa, one will continue > taking them for self. > ==================== This puzzles me. I was under the impression that vedana was a universal cetasika. So why do you speak of painful feeling appearing *after* the knowing of hardness instead of simultaneously with it? ------- N: I did not say: arising, but appearing, appearing to the citta that cognizes them (only one at a time, since citta only takes one object at a time). Indeed, vedana is a universal cetasika. When it appears as an object, it does not occur in the same processas as the citta that cognizes it and is accompanied by another feeling. The citta that cognizes arises later on, in another process. -------- H: When feeling of an object, say hardness, occurs, the feeling is an operation dealing with the hardness, but is not itself the object. ------- N: When hardness is the object of citta, feeling isn't. --------- H: When you speak of the feeling arising later, do you mean arising *as object* later? And if yes, when that (just passed) feeling, or a photocopy of it, as opposed to a standard memory, is the object, what is the accompanying vedana cetasika? The same as the vedana that is now object? ----- N: I meant the feeling appearing as object later (after hardness had been an object). The citta and the accompanying feeling that have another feeling as object arise later, in another process. The feeling is in that case different. -------- H: Not identical but of the same sort (e.g., painful, when the past vedana, now the object, is painful)? Or possibly different in kind? ------ N: We have to differentiate the types of citta: vipaakacitta accompanied by painful feeling, and a javanacitta (kusala citta or akusala citta)that has a former painful feeling as object. This javanacitta is likely to be accompanied by mental unhappy feeling. Perhaps you see that if we do not distinguish paramattha dhammas from concepts we get into an awful tangle. It is all very intricate. -------- H: It strikes me that vedana, the actually occurring operation, is never object of consciousness, but is "known" in exactly two ways: 1) The feeling of the object when that feeling actually occurs - this not being a knowing-of-the-feeling-as-object, but a "participative", non-dual knowing, a "taste" that flavors the mindstate, ------- N: When citta takes whatever object (such as just past feeling) all cetasikas share that object, also the accompanyinf feeling shares that object. As you say, it experiences the flavour of that object. It does not flavour the citta, but conditions the citta by conascence. -------- H: and 2) Recollection of that passed feeling, i.e., the taking as object of the sankharically-constructed memory of the entire previous mindstate with emphasis on the feeling operation that was then in effect. ---------- N: It takes only one object, which can be rupa, feeling, citta, anything that occurred previously. Not all together. Nina. #65297 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. nilovg Hi Howard and TG, Op 12-nov-2006, om 23:15 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > IMO, the obsession of distinguishing > conventional from ultimate realities is not terribly important as > exemplified > by the Buddha's general lack of concern for the issue. The issue of > import, > as you often note, is that all conditions are impermanent, > suffering, no-self. > Whether one has in mind what we consider conventional or ultimate > conditions, deep contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and no- > self will lead to > detachment. ----------- N: , here we have to be careful not to fall into abstractions. What exactly are these conditioned dhammas that are impermanent, suffering, and no-self? They cannot be concepts. One cannot be mindful of a tree in order to understand arising and falling away. We know by inference that a tree decays, but this is not as convincing as the momentary arising and falling away of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound. Paramattha dhammas have characteristics that can be known by direct understanding, without having to think about them. In that way insight develops in stages. Detachment grows gradually by direct understanding, not by thinking of impermanence. When the Buddha used conventional language, he did so in order to point out to us the truth of conditioned dhammas, he spoke about dhammas appearing one at a time, he repeated the truth of dhammas appearing through the six doors and taught us to develop understanding of exactly those dhammas when they appeared, at this very moment. Thus there could eventually be a turning away. The Six Sixes: < Seeing this thus, monks, the instructed disciple of the ariyans turns away from eye, turns away from material shapes, turns away from visual consciousness, turns away from impact on the eye, turns away from feeling, turns away from craving. He turns away from ear, he turns away from sounds... He turns away from nose, he turns away from smells... He turns away from tongue... he turns away from tastes... He turns away from body, he turns away from touches... He turns away from mind, he turns away from mental states, he turns away from mental consciousness, he turns away from impact on the mind, he turns away from feeling, he turns away from craving. Turning away he is dispassionate; by dispassion he is freed; in freedom is the knowledge that he is freed, and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the Brahma-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or so.'> I just quote from Kh sujin's Survey, Concepts: ****** Nina. #65298 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abh. in D.L. 119 upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/13/06 3:06:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --------- > Hardness and painful feeling can appear > >closely one after the other. If one does not realize that hardness > >and painful feeling are different aaramma.nas and if one is ignorant > >of the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa, one will continue > >taking them for self. > > > ==================== > This puzzles me. I was under the impression that vedana was a > universal cetasika. So why do you speak of painful feeling appearing > *after* the > knowing of hardness instead of simultaneously with it? > ------- > N: I did not say: arising, but appearing, appearing to the citta that > cognizes them (only one at a time, since citta only takes one object > at a time). Indeed, vedana is a > universal cetasika. When it appears as an object, it does not occur > in the same processas as the citta that cognizes it and is > accompanied by another feeling. The citta that cognizes arises later > on, in another process. -------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, yes. As you see a little later on, that is what I surmised. ------------------------------------ > -------- > > H: When feeling of an object, say hardness, occurs, the feeling is an > operation dealing with the hardness, but is not itself the object. > ------- > N: When hardness is the object of citta, feeling isn't. > --------- > H: When you speak > of the feeling arising later, do you mean arising *as object* later? > And if > yes, when that (just passed) feeling, or a photocopy of it, as > opposed to a > standard memory, is the object, what is the accompanying vedana > cetasika? The > same as the vedana that is now object? > ----- > N: I meant the feeling appearing as object later (after hardness had > been an object). The citta and the accompanying feeling that have > another feeling as object arise later, in another process. The > feeling is in that case different. > -------- > > H: Not identical but of the same sort (e.g., > painful, when the past vedana, now the object, is painful)? Or possibly > different in kind? > ------ > N: We have to differentiate the types of citta: vipaakacitta > accompanied by painful feeling, and a javanacitta (kusala citta or > akusala citta)that has a former painful feeling as object. This > javanacitta is likely to be accompanied by mental unhappy feeling. --------------------------------------- Howard: That's what I would suspect. ---------------------------------------- > > Perhaps you see that if we do not distinguish paramattha dhammas from > concepts we get into an awful tangle. It is all very intricate. ----------------------------------------- Howard: This is only a discussion of paramattha dhammas here, so pa~n~natti are irrelevant. In any case, as I have said, and as you know, I DO distinguish paramattha dhammas from mere objects of convention. ------------------------------------------- > -------- > H: It strikes me that vedana, the actually occurring operation, is never > object of consciousness, but is "known" in exactly two ways: 1) The > feeling of > the object when that feeling actually occurs - this not being a > knowing-of-the-feeling-as-object, but a "participative", non-dual > knowing, a "taste" that > flavors the mindstate, > ------- > N: When citta takes whatever object (such as just past feeling) all > cetasikas share that object, also the accompanyinf feeling shares > that object. > ------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely. ------------------------------------ As you say, it experiences the flavour of that object. > > It does not flavour the citta, but conditions the citta by conascence. ----------------------------------- Howard: The feeling is known, however. Not as an object - there is only one object, but it is known. Subsequently, that feeling is remembered (as object). ---------------------------------- > -------- > > H: and 2) Recollection of that passed feeling, i.e., the > taking as object of the sankharically-constructed memory of the > entire previous > mindstate with emphasis on the feeling operation that was then in > effect. > ---------- > N: It takes only one object, which can be rupa, feeling, citta, > anything that occurred previously. Not all together. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Possibly so. Possibly the elements of that previous mindstate are recalled one by one in some order through a series of states. But it also seems possible to me that there may be taken as object a (new) mental construct that is a constructed memory of all or part of that past mindstate, with some aspects missing, some "fuzzed up", some accentuated, some diminished, and additional spurious elements typically added. The original mindstate was multi-faceted, and the memory as a multi-faceted construct seems likely to me. In any case, whether the prior state is recalled sequentially or synchronically, the actual prior feeling itself is never the literal object; it cannot be, because it no longer is occurring - it no longer exists. Only a constructed reproduction of it could be a future object. When we say that the feeling is recalled, it sounds like the past feeling is object, but that is only a manner of speaking. ---------------------------------------- > Nina. > ==================== With metta, Howard #65299 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and TG) - In a message dated 11/13/06 3:28:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard and TG, > > Op 12-nov-2006, om 23:15 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende > geschreven: > > >IMO, the obsession of distinguishing > >conventional from ultimate realities is not terribly important as > >exemplified > >by the Buddha's general lack of concern for the issue. The issue of > >import, > >as you often note, is that all conditions are impermanent, > >suffering, no-self. > >Whether one has in mind what we consider conventional or ultimate > >conditions, deep contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and no- > >self will lead to > >detachment. > ----------- > N: , here we have > to be careful not to fall into abstractions. What exactly are these > conditioned dhammas that are impermanent, suffering, and no-self? > They cannot be concepts. One cannot be mindful of a tree in order to > understand arising and falling away. We know by inference that a tree > decays, but this is not as convincing as the momentary arising and > falling away of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound. > Paramattha dhammas have characteristics that can be known by direct > understanding, without having to think about them. In that way > insight develops in stages. > Detachment grows gradually by direct understanding, not by thinking > of impermanence. > When the Buddha used conventional language, he did so in order to > point out to us the truth of conditioned dhammas, he spoke about > dhammas appearing one at a time, he repeated the truth of dhammas > appearing through the six doors and taught us to develop > understanding of exactly those dhammas when they appeared, at this > very moment. Thus there could eventually be a turning away. The Six > Sixes: > > turns away from eye, turns away from material shapes, turns away from > visual consciousness, turns away from impact on the eye, turns away > from feeling, turns away from craving. He turns away from ear, he > turns away from sounds... He turns away from nose, he turns away from > smells... He turns away from tongue... he turns away from tastes... > He turns away from body, he turns away from touches... He turns away > from mind, he turns away from mental states, he turns away from > mental consciousness, he turns away from impact on the mind, he turns > away from feeling, he turns away from craving. Turning away he is > dispassionate; by dispassion he is freed; in freedom is the knowledge > that he is freed, and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to > a close the Brahma-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no > more of being such or so.'> > > I just quote from Kh sujin's Survey, Concepts: > understanding of nama (mentality) and rupa (physical phenomena), > realities appear as if they do not arise and fall away. It seems that > we see things, beings, and people. We may touch a cup, a plate, a > spoon or fork, but in reality it is just the element of earth or > hardness that is touched. What do we see or touch in daily life? When > we touch something we are not used to realizing that the reality of > hardness can be touched. We have the feeling that we touch a spoon, a > fork, a plate, a cup. Since realities arise and fall away and succeed > one another very rapidly we cling to the shape and form of things, to > a conglomeration or mass. It seems that the spoon is hard, the fork > is hard, the cup is hard, the plate is hard. In reality, what is > touched is only the rupa (physical phenomena) which is hardness, the > element of hardness. Since we remember the different shapes and forms > of things we know that a cup is not a dish, a spoon is not a fork. > What is real in the absolute sense is rupa dhamma, which has the > characteristic of hardness, but we remember only what is real in the > conventional sense. We remember that a dish is for serving rice, a > bowl for curry and a spoon for serving food.> > ****** > Nina. > > ======================= One of the first steps towards liberation is to see the dependence of conventional objects on their constituents and on mental imputation of "thingness" upon the aggregate of constituents. This is the reason for the Buddha's chariot example and for his khandhic breakdown. That is an important beginning - the seeing through of concepts. It is an essential area of direct examination that constitutes an important step. But it's just an early step and isn't sufficient. I agree with you that liberation does not come about, for example, by just seeing people die and clothes wear out, undeniable instances, by the way, of the (conventional) impermanence of conventional objects, nor even by seeing that persons are just conventionally imputed upon the five khandhas, but by also seeing the contingent status and moment-by-moment disintegration of sense-door phenomena. To see all the foregoing is why I meditate instead of just memorizing lists of elements and characteristics. With metta, Howard #65300 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:41 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling kelvin_lwin Hi Phil, A more appropriate translation is to "overcome vedana" but it doesn't mean all feeling. "Vedana" in typical Burmese is just pain, not feeling so expression is to "overcome pain/unpleasant sensations". This mostly stems from Mogok Sayadaw's and used by a few teachers. Here you can also see someone from Mahasi's lineage use the expression: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/sadama2a.htm It is general description of vedananupassana in Burma. - Kelvin #65301 From: JC Mendoza Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Well Equipped ... !!! jcmendoza1000 Hi is this Bhikkhu Samahita? Did you receive my questions? Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: Friends: How is one well equipped with the Five Abilities? A certain, not very well known Bhikkhu once asked Blessed Buddha, Venerable Sir, it is said: One well equipped with the mental abilities! In what way, Venerable Sir, is one well equipped with these abilities? When, Bhikkhu, a Bhikkhu thoroughly trains and fully develops the: Ability of Faith which leads to stilling, which leads to enlightenment.. <....> #65302 From: "jcmendoza1000" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:15 am Subject: Only this is true anything else is worthless? jcmendoza1000 To all: In Majjhima Nikaya 95 Canki Sutta (With Canki), it is said that "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something ... holds an unbroken tradition ... has something reasoned through analogy ... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth..." Why can't one come to the conclusion that "Only this is true, anything else is worthless?" before a truth one learned is safeguarded? : "But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth." Isn't our conviction in the Dhamma likewise in holding and safeguarding its truth? Though not to the extent of saying anything else is worthless, it does require that some things be considered worthless. Or did I misinterpret the meaning of the sutta? -JC #65303 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:09 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Mind - What is it? dacostacharles Hi Nina, My head is finally coming out of the sand (a period of depressed activity). When you say cittas, what do you mean? Charles DaCosta _____ From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:vangorko@...] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 20:45 To: Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind - What is it? Dear Charles D, Let us say: there are only cittas arising and falling away, succeeding one another, that arise in processes and also cittas that do not arise in processes, namely the rebirth-consciousness, the bhavangacitta and the dying-consciousness. When in swoon, there are still cittas, bhavangacittas. I think you want to know this? Nina. <...> #65304 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only this is true anything else is worthless? upasaka_howard Hi, JC - In a message dated 11/13/06 6:27:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, jcmendoza1000@... writes: > To all: > In Majjhima Nikaya 95 Canki Sutta (With Canki), it is said that "But > to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? > To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama > about the safeguarding of the truth." > "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' > safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite > conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To > this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To > this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the > safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. > "If a person likes something ... holds an unbroken tradition ... has > something reasoned through analogy ... has something he agrees to, > having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having > pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the > definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is > worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of > the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as > the safeguarding of the truth..." > > Why can't one come to the conclusion that "Only this is true, anything > else is worthless?" before a truth one learned is safeguarded? : > "But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is > true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there > is the safeguarding of the truth." > Isn't our conviction in the Dhamma likewise in holding and > safeguarding its truth? Though not to the extent of saying anything > else is worthless, it does require that some things be considered > worthless. Or did I misinterpret the meaning of the sutta? > -JC > ======================= In this sutta, the Buddha distinguished safeguarding the truth from having awakened to the truth. One who has awakened to the truth - knows. But for one who has not awakened to the truth, s/he has merely a conviction or belief of some degree of certainty. For such a one to say that what s/he believes is truth and that all else is falsehood is not only arrogant, but is playing fast and loose with reality, for, after all, only believing and not truly knowing, his/her assertion is quite possibly false, and thus not safeguarding truth. But a person who merely has a conviction, and *says* only that s/he has that conviction speaks truly and therby safeguards the truth. This is why the words "I believe" should be an important part of our speech. We may even say "I am certain" and safeguard the truth. But to say "It is so, and not otherwise" if one does not uncontestable know is to not act quite as one should. That is my understanding. With metta, Howard #65305 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:03 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi Kelvin Thanks. I've enjoyed listening to several Sayadaws recently. I like the emphasis on Abhidhamma. I also heard Bhikkhu Bodhi talk about this - up to and including feeling, there is no hint of an opening to stop things from arising. Between feeling, and craving, there is sometimes an opportunity. I found this in his introduction to the Great Discourse on Causation. "For if dependent arising described a series in which each factor necessitated the next, the series could never be broken. All human effort directed to liberation would be futile and the round would have to turn forever. But a relationship of conditionality, unlike a necessitarian one, allows for a margin of freedom in responding to the condition. The place in the sequence of conditions where that margin takes on the greatest importance is the link between feeling and craving. It is at that brief moment when the present resultant phase has come to a culmination in feeling, but the present causal phase has not yet begun, that the issue of bondage and liberation is decided. If the response to feeling is governed by ignorance and craving, the round continues to revolve; if the response replaces craving with restraint, mindfulness and methodical attention, a movement is made in the direction of cessation." Obviously this margin of freedom is very, very narrow and it would be unwise for the beginning meditator to seek or expect to spend all but the rarest moments there. But I'm afraid we (well, most of us) all have so much hunger for results that there is a desire to establish/explore that margin much too soon. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > A more appropriate translation is to "overcome vedana" but it > doesn't mean all feeling. "Vedana" in typical Burmese is just pain, > not feeling so expression is to "overcome pain/unpleasant > sensations". This mostly stems from Mogok Sayadaw's and used by a few > teachers. Here you can also see someone from Mahasi's lineage use the > expression: > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/sadama2a.htm > > It is general description of vedananupassana in Burma. > > - Kelvin > #65306 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Water. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/12/2006 9:01:58 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: L: If we say earth is not tree, water is not tree, fire is not tree, wind is not tree but we call a certain formation of these elements "tree", doesn't that mean that "certain formation" is tree? If so, how is that different from saying the khandhas are each individually not me? Does that mean a certain formation of khandhas is me? I'm not sure of the answer to this but one possibility is that the Buddha seems to say "I", "me", and "my" assume a certain lastingness, at least for a life time in the case of the annihilation view. And a formation of elements that are instantly gone can't, in a formation, last more than an instant. Therefore a "certain formation of khandhas" can't be me. Another aspect to consider is that each of the four great elements has an own nature (sabhava) but the formation of the four great elements together does not. For lack of better words we call formations concept or imaginary or, for some Tibetans, non-arising. And, according to abhidhamma, all conditioned arising is formations. It would seem that that would make ultimate reality a concept in the sense of being purely speculative. But somehow there is hardness, feeling, recognition, passion, and consciousness. How do we resolve all this? Larry Hi Larry That's all too complicated for me. All I can say is things are continually altering due to cause and effect -- conditionality. What arises due to something else cannot therefore be a self. Minds that desire for continuance or to hold on to things -- that are impermanent -- will inevitably suffer. TG #65307 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Realities, Paramattha Dhammas, and Concepts lbidd2 Hi Howard and TG, H: "Thus, it is not that trees and people are unreal, but that they are empty of self in a way that goes beyond that which applies to paramattha dhammas." L: Very good analysis. The Visuddhimagga tackles this problem by means of the resolution of the compact which destroys the assumption of a whole. It cites this passage in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta as example: Vism.XI,28: "It is given in brief in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, for one of quick understanding whose meditation subject is elements, as follows: 'Bhikkhus, just as though a skilled butcher or butcher's apprentice had killed a cow and were seated at the cross-roads with it cut up into pieces, so too, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reviews this body however placed, however disposed, as consisting of elements: In this body there are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, and the air element' (D.ii,294).20 30. "What is meant? Just as the butcher, while feeding the cow, bringing it to shambles, keeping it tied up after bringing it there, slaughtering it, and seeing it slaughtered and dead, does not lose the perception 'cow' so long as he has not carved it up and divided it into parts; but when he has divided it up and is sitting there, he loses the perception 'cow' and the perception 'meat' occurs; he does not think 'I am selling cow' or 'They are carrying cow away', but rather he thinks 'I am selling meat' or 'They are carrying meat away'; so too this bhikkhu, while still a foolish ordinary person--both formerly as a layman and as one gone forth into homelessness--does not lose the perception 'living being' or 'man' or 'person' so long as he does not, by resolution of the compact into elements, review this body, however placed, however disposed, as consisting of elements. But when he does review it as consisting of elements, he loses the perception 'living being' and his mind establishes itself upon elements. That is why the Blessed One said: 'Bhikkhus, just as though a skilled butcher ... were seated at the cross-roads ... so too, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu ... air element'. Note 20. 'Herein, as regards 'earth element', etc., the meaning of element is the meaning of individual essence, the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness, the meaning of voidness is the meaning of not-a-living-being. So it is just earth in the sense of individual essence, voidness and not-a-living-being that is the element; hence it is earth element. So too in the case of the water element, and the rest. The earth element is the element that is the foothold for the conascent material states. Likewise the water element is the element of their cohesion; the fire element is the element of their ripening; and the air element is the element of their conveyance and distension' (Pm. 345). "To avoid confusion, it might be mentioned here that in 'physical' earth, fire, water, and air, it would be held that all four elements are present in each equally, but that in 'physical' earth the earth element is dominant in efficacy as the mode of hardness; and correspondingly with water and the rest." L: This comes up again as an insight knowledge: contemplation of destruction. What is destroyed is the sense of a compact whole. Larry #65308 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:00 pm Subject: Trying not to try (Was: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Joop, -------- <. . .> j: > I have never been talking about "control in the ultimate sense", I even never talked about "control" in a conventional way; -------- No, and it might not be a term that is found in the texts, I don't know. Some of us, however, like to talk in terms of no-control because it helps us to understand no-self. ------------------ J: > I'm more modest: simply hope that in my meditation I can see a little bit 'things as they really are' and that this has some effect on my path. ------------------ According to the texts, study and wise consideration are the factors that lead to satipatthana and to enlightenment. But, as I said before (and I think you agreed) anything done with the aim of getting some benefit for oneself is not a factor leading to enlightenment. So, if we read books and take part in DSG for the wrong reasons, there is no study or wise consideration (within the meaning of the texts). As for formal meditation: it doesn't even get a mention in the texts. So I don't see how it could ever be a factor for enlightenment. --------------------------- J: > I'm glad the control-discussion between Ken H en Howard have reached agreement now, because I had no opinion. ---------------------------- Howard and I will never reach agreement on control/no-control, but we do seem to have found some common ground. ----------------------------------------- J: > [In fact I don't like the term 'control' as such, it's a term of perfectionists: I'm more an anarchist (that's why I also don't like the term 'formal' in 'formal meditation'); but of course 'like' and 'dislike' are not important, that's one of the effects of my meditation.] ------------------------------------------ I too believe that likes and dislikes are not important. That's one of the effects of my study. :-) ------------------------------- J: > But you avoid my remark on 'effort' in NEP. ------------------------------- I thought I had addressed that remark. I said that the term 'trying' did not refer to effort (viriya-cetasika) so much as to the wrong view that can arise with effort. Viriya accompanies every kusala and akusala citta. It performs pretty much the same functions in all cases. The difference between kusala viriya and akusala viriya would be almost impossible to notice unless one knew the nature of the citta. Right effort (sama-viriya), of course, is different from other viriya cetasikas in that it performs functions of kilesa-destruction. -------------------- J: > My question is: can you describe 'effort' as used in 'right effort' in the NEP, without using any volitional terms like 'trying', 'aspire', 'wishe', 'should', 'not being lazy' etc. ? I think this is impossible. See for example 'Right Effort' (Samma Vayama) in ' The Noble Eightfold Path The Way to the End of Suffering by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wheel 308/311, www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html ---------------------- Sorry, but I am not sure I understand the question. Would you mind putting it another way? --------------- J: > The paradox sits in the term 'should' But this is too much a discussion-game -------------- No, no, there can never be too much Dhamma discussion. :-) "Should" is always a good word to discuss. ---------------------- J: > I will be totally serious when I say this: IT'S OUR FATE AS HUMAN BEINGS THAT TRYING NOT TO TRY IS IMPOSSIBLE ----------------------- Because we use terms differently, I don't know what you mean by that statement. Why would anyone try not to try? ------------------------------- J: > No anatta-belief can change that fate, I think only somebody who is awakened (enlightened) can totally really live with this fate, has transcended this fate. A more positive formulation: IT'S NOT ONLY OUR FATE, IT'S ALSO OUR POSSIBILITY AS HUMAN BEING: TO END SAMSARA. -------------------------------- Again, your meaning is lost on me. I need more information. ---------------------------------------------- J: > For the rest: I agree with you that many methods of doing (formal) meditation ou useless, there are many meditation teachers that promise too much, that even are frauds. Many, but not all. ----------------------------------------------- I agree that not all of them are frauds. Some of them are very sincere, but they have all nonetheless missed the point. The Buddha did not teach formal meditation and there is a very good reason for that: Formal meditation is inconsistent with the 'not-self' Dhamma that he did teach. Ken H #65309 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:00 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 579 - The Stages of Insight(a) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Chapter 35 The Stages of Insight The realities which appear in our daily life are impermanent, dukkha and anattå. We may have theoretical understanding of these three characteristics of realities, but does understanding directly know the truth? There may not be understanding which directly knows the arising and falling away of seeing which appears now or of visible object which appears now. We learn about “arising and falling away of realities”, but instead of directly knowing the truth we can only think of the truth. The realization of the impermanence of realities is not thinking, “It does not last”. The impermanence of realities cannot be realized in the beginning of the development of understanding. First understanding should clearly know the nåma which appears as nåma and the rúpa which appears as rúpa. Nåma and rúpa are different realities and they can only be object of mindfulness one at a time, but we are still likely to confuse their characteristics. In theory we know that nåma experiences an object and that rúpa does not experience anything, but theoretical understanding is only superficial. In order to develop direct understanding of realities we should first know the difference between the moments that there is thinking about concepts such as a person, body or house, and the moments that there is mindfulness of only one reality at a time, such as visible object, hardness or seeing. These are ultimate realities, each with their own characteristic, which does not change, no matter how we name it. One reality at a time impinges on one of the six doors and when mindfulness arises it can be directly aware of that object, and at that moment understanding can investigate its nature. In this way understanding of realities can develop. ***** The Stages of Insight to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65310 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:36 am Subject: Trying not to try (Was: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > .... Hallo Ken H Several times in your message to me you asked for more information because you did not understanmd my question or statement. This makes our discussion taken much energy. I prefer to concentrate on one topic: 'right effort' KenH: "I said that the term 'trying' did not refer to effort (viriya- cetasika) so much as to the wrong view that can arise with effort. Viriya accompanies every kusala and akusala citta. It performs pretty much the same functions in all cases. The difference between kusala viriya and akusala viriya would be almost impossible to notice unless one knew the nature of the citta. Right effort (sama-viriya), of course, is different from other viriya cetasikas in that it performs functions of kilesa-destruction." Joop: To me 'right effort' as used in the NEP the Buddha teached, is 'Samma Vayama' (as explained by Bikkhu Bodhi) not 'sama-viriya'. BB further says: "Energy (viriya), the mental factor behind right effort"; he continues: " Time and again the Buddha has stressed the need for effort, for diligence, exertion, and unflagging perseverance. The reason why effort is so crucial is that each person has to work out his or her own deliverance. The Buddha does what he can by pointing out the path to liberation; the rest involves putting the path into practice, a task that demands energy. This energy is to be applied to the cultivation of the mind, which forms the focus of the entire path. The starting point is the defiled mind, afflicted and deluded; the goal is the liberated mind, purified and illuminated by wisdom. What comes in between is the unremitting effort to transform the defiled mind into the liberated mind. The work of self-cultivation is not easy — there is no one who can do it for us but ourselves — but it is not impossible. The Buddha himself and his accomplished disciples provide the living proof that the task is not beyond our reach. They assure us, too, that anyone who follows the path can accomplish the same goal. But what is needed is effort, the work of practice taken up with the determination: "I shall not give up my efforts until I have attained whatever is attainable by manly perseverance, energy, and endeavor." (MN 70) " I'm afraid you don't agree with Bihikkhu Bodhi either. Metta Joop #65311 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop .... Hallo Jon, Jon: "My meaning was, unless ignorance has been completely eradicated by the time death comes, there will still be conditions for the continuation of becoming." Joop: Yes, in the 'three lifetimes' application of DO. But, as you know, I'm more using the 'one lifetime' application in which death and birth are not used in literal-physical way but metaphorical. Joop: > But Theravada doesn't like any more even the > possibility of sudden awakenings, is my impression. Jon: "Not at all. There are plenty of instances in the Theravada teachings of sudden awakenings" Joop: You can not read, I think because you cannot imagine that there is any dynamics in Theravada I wrote "any more", so about Theravava in this century. And I did that after I described the sudden awakening of Sariputta as can be read in the Suttas, so there was no reason to teach me that "there are plenty of instances in the Theravada teachings of sudden awakenings" Jon: "(but all have a rational explanation in terms of insight knowledge gained in previous lifetimes)" Joop: I forgive you the use of the term 'rational': funny use of the term by somebody who states that 'discursive thinking' is not important. But more central: I think these explanations are given in commentaries, not in the Suttas. And less important: I think Sariputta and others got this insight knowledge in this lifetime: one lifetime is enough to get enough insight to awaken. So my question to you: do you think, one lifetime is nog enough to awaken? Jon: "… contemplating on the 'this, that' formula must involve a kind of discursive thinking, whereas insight is the direct experiencing by panna of the characteristic of a presently arisen dhamma." Joop: I think we had to do both. Metta Joop #65312 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling sarahprocter... Hi Phil (Kel, Shakti, Chris & all), --- Phil wrote: > This is another thing I've wanted to discuss for a few years and > never seem to get around to it. It relates to one of the older talks > I heard, maybe from Myanmar, in which a woman asks about cutting off > at feeling, something she'd heard from a meditation teacher. .... S: I remember both Shakti and Christine bringing this topic up at various times - how nice if they'd care to join in the thread as well! As Kel says, it's quite a common idea..... .... > Sarah acknowledges that it is a popular idea (maybe popularized > especially by Goenka) but says how could it be possible? There is > feeling with every citta, so... > > I forget exactly what you said, Sarah, but it gets at something I > wonder about a lot but can't put my finger on. It also ties in with > this desire I write of to stamp out akusala. .... S: Yes, exactly. Conventionally speaking we can all talk about and remind each other not to react angrily, not to speak unkindly, not to be lost in our pleasant feelings or whatever. We know what we mean. But, in the context of D.O. (when the expression 'cutting off at feeling' is often used), or when discussing paramattha dhammas or the path of satipatthana, it makes no sense to me at all. Feeling does arise with every single citta and whether the pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feelings are a condition for kusala or akusala to arise depends on yoniso manasikara, on accumulated sati and other wholesome mental factors. I think part of the point being made is that usually we are obsessed or overwhelmed by feelings that arise. We attribute great significance to them. Even so, who is there to 'stamp them out' or 'cut off' at any point? ... >Techncially speaking, > there is a moment of akusala which has already fallen away, so how > can it be stamped out. There is a citta with an associated feeling, > and then it's gone, so how can it be "cut"? But it seems to me the > point is not doing somehting about the individual citta, but the > situation that has developed. A feeling has developed that is not a > single citta but thousands or millions of them or whatever spreading > over 5 seconds or 5 minutes or whatever. .... S: So this is an idea of a situation, an idea about a kind of lasting feeling, surely? .... >And craving is developing > that is not one citta of craving but thousands or millions of them > arising in response to all the many moments of feeling. The > undeveloped mind experiences this as one feeling conditioning one > craving - and I think the undeveloped mind can "cut off" craving in > response to sati remembering the teaching about the dangers of > akusala or whatever. .... S:It seems this way, I understand. It always seems that there is some kind of control, but actually the conditions at such a time are very complex. Yes, wise reflection of the teachings can be a condition for craving not to arise. On the other hand, there can be wise reflection one moment and then craving the next. .... >A feeling situation is handled wisely by > awareness of the danger of a craving situation, or something like > that. This is nowhere near the depths of sati and panna arising to > penetrate the present arisen citta, but I think that kind of insight > is still foreign to undevelped minds and it would be an error to > count on it to help one out of dangerous situations. (Even mildly > dangerous situations.) ..... S: Certainly, when awareness arises at any level, the other cetasikas (including the associated feeling) will be affected/conditioned. Generally, isn't the idea of 'cutting feeling' or 'stamping out akusala' one of attachment rather than detachment though? .... > I don't know if I've made this clear. But I do think there can be > a valuable "cutting off" at feeling. Not saying that a practice > should be built around it (I think that is the Goenka way, isn't > it?) but I do think this cutting off can happen. And should happen. ..... S: You or any of the others would have to help me see more sense in this idea and how it's not conditioned by an idea of Self making its mark. .... > Kel:A more appropriate translation is to "overcome vedana" but it doesn't mean all feeling. "Vedana" in typical Burmese is just pain, not feeling so expression is to "overcome pain/unpleasant sensations". This mostly stems from Mogok Sayadaw's and used by a few teachers. .... S: So it is to overcome unpleasant/painful bodily feelings? Who can stop these when the time is right? Even the Buddha experienced painful bodily feelings. They are conditioned by kamma and no one can stop the results of kamma from arising when the conditions are in place, surely? Back to D.O and the various conditions included there. The feelings are an inevitable part of the cycle in samsara. With the development of insight, the kilesa on account of such (vipaka) feelings are gradually eradicated, but not by any 'stopping' or 'overcoming' of vedana, only by understanding with detachment whatever is conditioned to appear. Wouldn't you agree? ... >Kel:Here you can also see someone from Mahasi's lineage use the expression: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/sadama2a.htm It is general description of vedananupassana in Burma.< .... S: Any dhamma, any dhamma at all, which appears can be the object of awareness, including any kind of feeling. If we focus on feelings or try to have them arise/not arise, it is not the Middle Way and will not lead to the development of vipassana. ..... Phil to Kel: >I also heard Bhikkhu Bodhi talk about this - up to and including feeling, there is no hint of an opening to stop things from arising. Between feeling, and craving, there is sometimes an opportunity. .... S: This is a dangerous view as I see it. The teachings are about anatta, not about 'Let me stop the things I don't like from arising'. .... P: I found this in his introduction to the Great Discourse on Causation. "For if dependent arising described a series in which each factor necessitated the next, the series could never be broken. All human effort directed to liberation would be futile and the round would have to turn forever. But a relationship of conditionality, unlike a necessitarian one, allows for a margin of freedom in responding to the condition. The place in the sequence of conditions where that margin takes on the greatest importance is the link between feeling and craving. It is at that brief moment when the present resultant phase has come to a culmination in feeling, but the present causal phase has not yet begun, that the issue of bondage and liberation is decided. If the response to feeling is governed by ignorance and craving, the round continues to revolve; if the response replaces craving with restraint, mindfulness and methodical attention, a movement is made in the direction of cessation." .... S: As long as the 'margin of freedom' isn't taken for anything other than another conditioned dhamma..... .... P: Obviously this margin of freedom is very, very narrow and it would be unwise for the beginning meditator to seek or expect to spend all but the rarest moments there. .... S: Sorry, Phil, but this 'margin of freedom' sounds like 'please leave me a little Atta to manoeuvre'. In other words, not enough confidence in the power of panna. .... P:But I'm afraid we (well, most of us) all have so much hunger for results that there is a desire to establish/explore that margin much too soon. .... S: Yes, a great hunger for results and a great desire to be able to bring them about and desperately look for any 'margin of freedom' one can find in the texts. I know you don't like to continue these discussions - no need. I hope any of the others do at least and let me know if I've misunderstood any of your comments. I see it as a very important topic for further discussion. Metta, Sarah p.s Kel, I didn't look at your link (a bit behind with reading), pls quote any short passages of significance if it helps. ========= #65313 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn A typo in my recent post to Jon In stead of: So my question to you: do you think, one lifetime is nog enough to awaken? One (especially Jon) has to read: So my question to you: do you think, one lifetime is not enough to awaken? Metta Joop #65314 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Hi E.C Shennieaca, A belated welcome to the group from me! You already got many replies to your first message and I'm wondering how these sounded to you? We'd be glad to hear. --- E C wrote: > Hello all, > I'm a 'newbie' Buddhist and new to this dhammastudygroup. .... S: How about telling us a little more about your background and where you live. Also please let us know what your (preferably real) name is that you'd like to be addressed by. A few of my comments on your question below to add to the others: .... >This topic > about being a Sotapanna is interesting. I was wondering how 'easy' or > 'difficult' is it to achieve Sotapanna hood in this life? .... S: Better not to have any expectations or wishes of any attainment - such wishes merely take us away from the present moment, the present realities to be known and make the path harder still. .... >I've always > fantasized about going for 60 days intensive retreat but I cannot go > because I have no time and have other family responsibilities. ... S: I think fantasies about other places or retreats are just that - fantasies. I see and hear about people leaving their families and responsibilities just to follow such fantasies and I don't believe this is the way. The path always comes back to the present reality now. .... >I > meditate using Mahasi Sayadaw's method at home for about an hour a day. > Will the daily meditation help towards the path to being a Sotapanna in > this life? .... S: I doubt it. (Just my opinion! Again, it's not the Middle Way). .... >Or will I see the result only in the next life? Do people who > go to intensive retreat achieve Sotapanna more easily from the guidance > of meditation teachers? > Hoping to hear your replies. Thank you. .... S: According to the teachings, the conditions for becoming a sotapanna all relate to associating with right understanding of the teachings, hearing, considering. reflecting and developing such understanding. The first question should be not 'where should I go to get results?', but 'what is the reality of life now at this very moment?'. Hope to hear more from you, E.C. Please also take a look in the files section under: a) Useful Posts - scroll down to 'New to the list....', 'Abhidhamma - beginners', 'Vipassana' and other topics b) Pali glossary - print it out is best. Best wishes with your practice, Metta, Sarah ======= #65315 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:00 am Subject: Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 11/11/06 8:46:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > >> In a later post you urge us to consider the question of *where* any >> non-experienced rupas would arise. I'm afraid I don't see the >> significance of this. Are you suggesting that the 'where' for >> non-experienced rupas would have to be different from the 'where' for >> experienced rupas? I don't see why, but perhaps you have some >> particular views on the 'where' of experienced rupas, and I'd be >> interested to hear you further on this. >> > ===================== > The hardness I feel (i.e., encounter by touch) is part of the > namarupic stream we call "Howard". It is not something that is anywhere else. The > hardness I feel is not the same as the hardness you feel, though there may be a > correspondence. Other than in experiential (namarupic) streams, I don't know > where any conditioned dhammas are. > Ah, I think I now see where you're coming from. You see the experienced rupas as being a part (an integral part) of the 'namarupic stream' that constitutes the individual, and which include the body and the various sense organs. You I think acknowledge the existence of rupas that are the object of other individuals' present experience. The locus of such "experienced" rupas (wherever that may be) is not an issue for you. But as you see it if there were to be rupas arising that were not the object of an individual's experience, this would require a locus of a different order/realm. (I hope that is a fair summary; my apologies for any mis-attribution). It won't come as any surprise to you that I would approach this by asking whether this is the way things are explained (or is consistent with the way things are explained) in the teachings ;-)). So here goes. To my reading of the texts, rupas that are experienced through one or other of the sense-doors are said to have arisen prior to becoming the object of that experience. In other words, every rupa that is the object of a 5 sense-door consciousness was an "unexperienced rupa" a short moment beforehand. All rupas, whether presently the object of experience or otherwise, arise by one or more of the same (limited) set of conditions, and these conditions do not include the arising of the consciousness by which they may be experienced, or the existence of a 'namarupic stream'. Under these circumstances, there is no question of there having to be a separate realm for rupas that are not presently the object of experience. All rupas of the kamavacara realm arise in the kamavacara realm, the same realm as the consciousness by which they are or may be (but are not) experienced. So my conclusion would be that the basic proposition from which you proceed (stated as: The hardness I feel (i.e., encounter by touch) is part of the namarupic stream we call "Howard") is not consistent with the texts. There is no suggestion of "experienced" rupas being an integral part of a being's stream of namas and rupas, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case. Furthermore, I'm not sure the texts even talk about a 'namarupic stream', in the sense of an single stream of (mixed) namas and rupas. There is certainly reference to a stream of cittas, but the rupas that we call our body are not similarly described as far as I can think off-hand. After all, at the end of this lifespan the stream of namas continues without interruption, whereas the rupas taken as the body cease to continue to arise and fall away (except as a corpse, perhaps). > I don't believe in hardnesses that exist in a > separate "realm of rupas". > The idea of a separate "realm of rupas" is not something that I have seen suggested by anyone. It is something you impute to those (like me) who contemplate the possibility of rupas arising by conditions other than their being the object of an individual's experience. But that possibility only arises if one accepts in the first place the idea of "experienced" rupas being part and parcel of an individual's "namarupic stream". > An unfelt hardness is close to an oxymoron to me, > but in any case is not only something that I don't believe in, but is also > something for which there is no basis for verifying or disproving its alleged > existence. I have no reason to presume it, and so I don't. But I DO have a reason > for presuming felt hardnesses, namely the very fact that they are felt. > As far as the development of the path is concerned, only presently-experienced rupas are potential objects of panna, so to this extent it is not necessary to contemplate any others. However, the role of the sense-bases is an important one, I feel, and we do need to accept the possibility of these. > I > cannot do better than this, Jon. I don't expect to alter your perspective on this, > and so I won't try to - actually, I feel no need to. (Do you feel a need to > alter my perspective on it?) > I was responding to your urging (in a post to Nina, #65020) to consider the question of 'where' as being of very considerable importance. You have mentioned or alluded to this in previous posts over the years and I have often wondered about its significance to the way you see things. Jon #65316 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) sarahprocter... Hi Andrew T (James, Nina, Jon, Phil, Scott & all), I think your further comments on the use of appamada (to Phil, but could have been to anyone) were very good: --- Andrew wrote: > I wonder if you are feeling some friction or discord between > conventional and ultimate language, between conceptual-composite words > like 'appamada' and conceptual-singular words like 'sati'? > > Is appamada "an ongoing state of extended awareness" or "a succession > of moments involving awareness" or "a single moment involving a > specific set of citta-cetasikas"? Is this question mere semantics? > Insofar as appamada is a concept describing realities, it must refer to > the present moment (because realities only exist in the present > moment). But appamada may also be a concept describing another concept > e.g. a 'behaviour' over time when it is believed appamada is arising in > all or many of the moments involved. In either case, I think it's > important to know that there are concepts and realities involved. I > suspect you are mixing it up with the thought 'how can we develop > appamada' - by putting in place all the requisite conditions for its > arising? Among other things, such a question presupposes a complete > understanding of conditionality - which is way out of my league. > > But my best guess is: "Right Understanding" comes first. BB seems to > agree: Right Understanding (panna) "is the primary instrument in the > quest for enlightenment and the attainment of deliverance" [Intro to > Brahmajala Sutta]. .... S: [As Phil pointed out, there may have been something of a change of tune since the Brahmajala intro was written...] Of course, I agree with your 'best guess'. Without right understanding there won't be any growth in appamada. Why should there be? The discussions on samvega remind me that this is probably another 'composite' term for your collection - referring to rt understanding and other beautiful mental factors, I think. I just looked at a couple of verses in the Theri-Theragatha and one would never know that anything 'beautiful' was being referred to by them, so James is by no means alone in his interpretations. For one example from Therigatha 111, 'Another Saamaa': Norman PTS transl: "Twenty-five years (have passed) for me since going forth. I am not aware of peace of mind obtained at any time. Not having obtained peace of mind, being without self-mastery over the mind, then I reached a state of religious excitement (SAMVEGA), having remembered the teaching of the conqueror. By me delighting in vigilance because of many painful objects, the annihilation of craving has been obtained. The Buddha's teaching has been done. Today is the seventh day since my craving was dried up." **** For SAMVEGA, Mrs Rhys Davids uses 'with anguish thrilled' in the above. According to the commentary, by this time, Saamaa was an old lady and it was on hearing a 'timely sermon' that 'her insight expanded' and she became an arahant trhrough complete understanding of the Dhamma 'in form and meaning'. The Nyantiloka and PTS dictionaries also refer to 'sources of emotion', agitation, fear, anxiety, thrill, religious emotion and so on for this term. It's not an easy one to translate - even 'sense of urgency' can have different meanings. I remember somewhere in Dhammasangani it refers to samvega as being the proximate cause for the 4 right efforts, but can't quickly find the reference. Perhaps we can think of it as being like the 'fire on our heads', the wise realizations, which condition the other path factors to develop. Perhaps you have some further comments? Scott may have more including the reference I referred to as well. (Btw, Scott, I liked your 'boredom' comments and refs very much and also you swimmers' contributions:-)). Metta, Sarah ========== #65317 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Dear Han & Mike, Thnak you for you kind concern and yes I'm taking the anti-viral medications you also recommend. I'm mostly quite comfortable now. Thank you also for your prompt and excellent response to the Cetasikas Qus as usual. With regard to the following, they were actually Mike N's comments. Mike is an old member of DSG (living in Seattle) and you'll do us all a favour if you can encourage him to continue the discussion with you here:-) So let me thank you for responding and wait for Mike's further feedback as it's time for me to take more medicine and lie down again:-)). Metta, Sarah --- han tun wrote: > As regards the discussion: > Sarah: > You said that you know that your house is your house. > This is just a concept--suppose your property had been > somehow seized and you didn't know it yet--your sense > of security would be unchanged by the fact, as long as > you didn't know it. Or suppose you thought that your > property had been seized due to a bureaucratic error > but it had not been--your sense of loss and insecurity > would be unchanged by the facts, as long as you didn't > 'know' them. > > Han: > Yes, as long as I do not know I will not feel the > loss. The same thing with death. If I know for sure > that I AM going to die tomorrow my mental state may be > different from just knowing of the ‘possibility’ that > I might die tomorrow. That’s why I always wonder how > the prisoner would feel when he was told that he would > be executed the next day. Sometimes, when I went to > bed, I told myself that this would be the last night > for me. I would not wake up for tomorrow. But it lacks > the real ‘punch.’ > > --------------------- > > Sarah: > I think that this kind of worry about e.g. the > existence of Han's house, or of 'no Lodewick' is an > example of how wrong view is always (?) dependent on > existence or non-existence. The conceptual aspect of > either assumption, conventionally speaking--or the > momentary presence of the dhamma 'wrong view', > abhidhammically speaking-- is an obstacle to > understanding, I think, quite aside from and > irrelevant to ontological considerations. > > Han: > I was only discussing based on the text that I read. > But actually, I have no such worries. If everything is > gone, it’s gone. I will just ask myself, “So what?” I > started from zero in my life during the War. I would > not mind going back to zero any time. Whether it is a > wrong view from dhamma point of view is another > matter. During the discussions I write this thing and > that thing and all sorts of things. Actually, what I > am doing is only three things. > > Sabbapaapassa akaranam > kusalassa upasampadaa > sacittapariyodapanam > etam buddhaana saasanam. > > Wishing you all the best, > Respectfully, > Han #65318 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, I was reading last night and thought of this: Howard: "...I believe I DO experience eyesense. Also, lots of things known only conceptually are 'real'. Thunder is 'real'. It isn't a paramattha dhamma, though, consisting, as it does, of a complex of sounds viewed as a unit..." Visuddhimagga, XVIII, 33 "[Interdependence of Mentality and Materiality] "...For just as when two sheaves of reeds are propped one against the other, each one gives the other consolidating support, and when one falls the other falls, so too, in the five-constituent becoming mentality occurs as an interdependent state, each of its components giving the other consolidating support, and when one falls owing to death, the other falls too. Hence the Ancients said: 'The mental and the material Are twins and each supports the other; When one breaks up they both break up Throught interconditionality'. "And just as when sound occurs having as its support a drum that is beaten by a stick, then the drum is one and the sound another, the drum and the sound are not mixed up together, the drum is void of the sound and the sound is void of the drum, so too, when mentality occurs having as its support the materiality called the physical basis, the door and the object, then the materiality is one and the mentality is another, the mentality and the materiality are not mixed up together, the mentality is void of the materiality and the materiality is void of the mentality; yet the mentality occurs due to the materiality as the sound occurs due to the drum. Hence the Ancients said: 'The pentad based on contact comes not from the eye, Or from things seen, or something that is in between; Due to a cause it comes to be, and formed as well, Just as the sound that issues from a beaten drum... 'Being formed, it does not come from the material basis, Nor does is issue from the mental-datum base; Due to a cause it comes to be, and formed as well, Just as the sound that issues from a beaten drum.' Howard, I may have misconstued your statement that you can 'experience eyesense', and my apologies if I have. I enjoyed reading the above and have learned something in the transcription. Thanks. With loving kindness, Scott. #65319 From: s.billard@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:08 am Subject: Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 sbillard2000 Hi all, Pursuing my translation of ADL, I would like to know if my translation of this excerpt of Atthasåliní is correct, and if you knew of alternate ones (online), has different versions sometimes help to a better translation. Especially, I would like to know how "effects" and "actions" have to be understood. Is effect result or action (or both) ? Also what means "specific or generic" in this context ? The original english in ADL : "How is consciousness (i.e. mind) capable of producing a variety or diversity of effects in action? There is no art in the world more variegated than the art of painting. In painting, the painter’s masterpiece is more artistic than the rest of his pictures. An artistic design occurs to the painters of masterpieces that such and such pictures should be drawn in such and such a way. Through this artistic design there arise operations of the mind (or artistic operations) accomplishing such things as sketching the outline, putting on the paint, touching up, and embellishing… Thus all classes of arts in the world, specific or generic, are achieved by the mind. And owing to its capacity thus to produce a variety or diversity of effects in action, the mind, which achieves all these arts, is in itself artistic like the arts themselves. Nay, it is even more artistic than the art itself, because the latter cannot execute every design perfectly. For that reason the Blessed One has said, “Monks, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?” “Yes, Lord.” “Monks, that masterpiece of art is designed by the mind. Indeed, monks, the mind is even more artistic than that masterpiece.”" My translation : "Comment la conscience (c'est à dire le mental) est-elle capable de produire une telle variété ou diversité d'actions ? Il n'y pas dans le monde d'art plus diversifié que celui de la peinture. Et, dans la peinture, le chef-d'oeuvre du peintre est lui-même plus artistique que le reste de sa production. Une inspiration artistique survient chez les peintres de chefs-d'oeuvre, qui les pousse à agencer les formes de telle ou telle façon. Lors de cette conception apparaissent des opérations du mental (ou opérations artistiques) accomplissant des tâches telles que le dessin des contours, l'application de la peinture, les retouches et embellissements [...] Ainsi toutes les classes d'art dans le monde, spécifiques ou génériques sont accomplies par le mental. Et en vertu de sa capacité à produire une telle variété ou diversité d'actions, le mental qui accomplit tous ces arts est en lui-même artistique. Non : il est même plus artistique que l'art lui-même, parce que ce dernier ne peut exécuter parfaitement chaque oeuvre. C'est pourquoi le Béni à dit : "Moines, avez-vous vu un chef-d'oeuvre de peinture ?" "Oui, Seigneur." "Moines, ce chef-d'oeuvre artistique est une conception du mental. Vraiment, moines, le mental est plus artistique que ce chef-d'oeuvre."" Sebastien http://s.billard.free.fr #65320 From: s.billard@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 sbillard2000 BTW is Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 the sutta named "Gaddulla Sutta" ? Sébastien #65321 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) hantun1 Dear Mike (and Sarah), I am so sorry I got mixed up. Please ignore my last message. When I write to Sarah I write differently, something like an idle talk without any substance. I am now writing a new one. >Mike: This reminds me of something Han wrote recently, hope you don't mind, Han, if I respond somewhat obliquely here. You said that you know that your house is your house. This is just a concept--suppose your property had been somehow seized and you didn't know it yet--your sense of security would be unchanged by the fact, as long as you didn't know it. Or suppose you thought that your property had been seized due to a bureaucratic error but it had not been--your sense of loss and insecurity would be unchanged by the facts, as long as you didn't 'know' them. Han: Yes, Mike, as long as I do not know I will not feel the loss. ------------------------------ > Mike: If I'm sure that I'm going to die tomorrow, my mental states will be one way, even if in the actual event things work out differently. If in fact I AM going to die tomorrow--always a possibility of course--but have no idea that it's going to happen, my mental states in the meantime will be otherwise, usually heedless and unwholesome of course but happier than in the former case. Han: Yes, Mike, I also agree with your above comments. ----------------------------- > Mike: I think that this kind of worry about e.g. the existence of Han's house, or of 'no Lodewick' is an example of how wrong view is always (?) dependent on existence or non-existence. The conceptual aspect of either assumption, conventionally speaking--or the momentary presence of the dhamma 'wrong view', abhidhammically speaking-- is an obstacle to understanding, I think, quite aside from and irrelevant to ontological considerations. Han: This is also correct, Mike. When I cannot even own myself, how can I own my house or any other property or person. This is indeed a wrong view. It surely is an obstacle to understanding. One of my favourite Dhammapada verses is the following. Verse 62 Puttaa ma’tthi dhanam ma’tthi iti baalo viha~n~nati attaa hi attano natthi kuto puttaa kuto dhanam. “I have sons, I have wealth”; with this (feeling of attachment) the fool is afflicted. Indeed, he himself is not his own, how can sons and wealth be his? As a matter of fact, I do not have much attachment to material possessions. I started from zero during the War. I had to fend for myself. My parents were dead towards the end of the War and I had no other siblings. I had half-brothers but they won’t lift a finger for me. At that time, to live for one more day was a bonus! With this background, I won’t feel anything even if I loose everything. However, my wife, my children and my grand-children are a different matter altogether. I have too much attachment for them. So I have to constantly warn myself not to have that much attachment. For this purpose, my favourite Dhammapada verse is: Verse 212 Piyato jaayati soko piyato jaayati bhayam piyato vippamuttassa natthi soko kuto bhayam. Affection begets sorrow, affection begets fear. For him who is free from affection there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him? Kind regards, Han P.S. to Sarah: I am glad to know that you are taking anti-viral medications and you are mostly quite comfortable now. But please be careful. The virus may not go away completely and it might flare up again anytime. So if you have the slightest itchiness or pain in these affected areas, please apply anti-viral cream immediately before any blisters appear. #65322 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:07 am Subject: Re: Heedfulness (Appamada) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for your kind words. I may disappoint in the reference search but I keep running into references to viriya (as well as other mental factors) hence samvega may indeed be a composite state: S: "Scott may have more including the reference I referred to as well." Dhammasa.nganii, pp. 158-159: "Viriya is the state of an energetic man, or it is the action of the energetic, or it is that which should be effected, carried out by method or by suitable means. From its overcoming idleness it is a controlling faculty in the sense of predominance. Or, it exercises government with the characteristic of grasp. Combined with faculty we get the compound: 'energy-faculty.' Its characteristic is strengthening, and grasp, or support...Another view is that energy has exerting as its characteristic, strengthening the co-existent states as function, and opposition to giving way as its manifestation. It has been said: 'He being agitated, makes a rational effort,' hence it has agitation, or the basic condition of making energy as proximate cause. Right energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments." Or, Visuddhimagga, IV, 63: "How does he encourage the mind on an occasion when it should be encouraged? When his mind is listless owing to sluggishness in the exercise of understanding or the failure to attain the bliss of peace, then he should stimulate it by reviewing the eight grounds for a sense of urgency. These are the four, namely, birth, ageing, sickness, and death, with the suffering of the states of loss as the fifth, and also the suffering in the past rooted in the round [of rebirths], and the suffering in the present rooted in the search for nutriment. And he creates confidence by recollecting the special qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. This is how he encourages the mind on an occasion when it should be encouraged." I'll keep reading... With loving kindness, Scott. #65323 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/14/06 6:14:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > upasaka@... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > > > >In a message dated 11/11/06 8:46:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >jonabbott@... writes: > > > > > >>In a later post you urge us to consider the question of *where* any > >>non-experienced rupas would arise. I'm afraid I don't see the > >>significance of this. Are you suggesting that the 'where' for > >>non-experienced rupas would have to be different from the 'where' for > >>experienced rupas? I don't see why, but perhaps you have some > >>particular views on the 'where' of experienced rupas, and I'd be > >>interested to hear you further on this. > >> > >===================== > > The hardness I feel (i.e., encounter by touch) is part of the > >namarupic stream we call "Howard". It is not something that is anywhere > else. The > >hardness I feel is not the same as the hardness you feel, though there may > be a > >correspondence. Other than in experiential (namarupic) streams, I don't > know > >where any conditioned dhammas are. > > > > Ah, I think I now see where you're coming from. You see the experienced > rupas as being a part (an integral part) of the 'namarupic stream' that > constitutes the individual, and which include the body and the various > sense organs. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. I hasten to add, however, that it is the elements (mutually related in the way that enables us to think of that cross-temporal aggregate as a stream) that are primary, and not the stream. The stream is a conventional object imputed upon that series of psycho-physical states. -------------------------------------- You I think acknowledge the existence of rupas that are > > the object of other individuals' present experience. The locus of such > "experienced" rupas (wherever that may be) is not an issue for you. > -------------------------------------- Howard: No more than the experienced rupas that constitute the physical experiential elements "my stream". For me, of course, the "other streams" are inferred rather than directly experienced, but my own experience includes representations of other streams that appear to be much the same as "mine", and so I *do* presume them, and am not a solopsist in belief. I admit, however, to that being (extremely plausible) presumption rather than outright knowledge. I do not, first hand, no it to be fact, though the Buddha did claim to be directly aware of the workings of other mindstreams. ------------------------------------------ But > > as you see it if there were to be rupas arising that were not the object > of an individual's experience, this would require a locus of a different > order/realm. (I hope that is a fair summary; my apologies for any > mis-attribution). ------------------------------------------- Howard: It would require a realm (actually five realms) of self-existent [with respect to experience] arising & ceasing things, called rupas, like the quarks and gravitons or, more so, the strings, of midern physics, among which are billions of eye doors (to be associated with billions of differing "sentient beings"), billions of ear doors, etc, all arising & ceasing with various ones of these meeting the same rupa [BTW, what sort of rupas are the sense doors? Visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory, or a sixth type?], producing corresponding moments of consciousness in a realm (one of six) of vi~n~nanas, the coming together of that rupa (as object), the sense door, and the sense consciousness constituting "contact". The virtue in such a scheme is the commonality of the mind-independent rupic objects. The deficit is the extreme complexity of the scheme and the extreme category distinction between the rupa & sense door, on the one hand, existing momentarily in Rupa Land, independent of consciousness, and the produced consciousness in Citta Land that contacts that rupa as object. --------------------------------------------- > > It won't come as any surprise to you that I would approach this by > asking whether this is the way things are explained (or is consistent > with the way things are explained) in the teachings ;-)). So here goes. > > To my reading of the texts, rupas that are experienced through one or > other of the sense-doors are said to have arisen prior to becoming the > object of that experience. In other words, every rupa that is the > object of a 5 sense-door consciousness was an "unexperienced rupa" a > short moment beforehand. All rupas, whether presently the object of > experience or otherwise, arise by one or more of the same (limited) set > of conditions, and these conditions do not include the arising of the > consciousness by which they may be experienced, or the existence of a > 'namarupic stream'. > > Under these circumstances, there is no question of there having to be a > separate realm for rupas that are not presently the object of > experience. All rupas of the kamavacara realm arise in the kamavacara > realm, the same realm as the consciousness by which they are or may be > (but are not) experienced. > > So my conclusion would be that the basic proposition from which you > proceed (stated as: The hardness I feel (i.e., encounter by touch) is > part of the namarupic stream we call "Howard") is not consistent with > the texts. There is no suggestion of "experienced" rupas being an > integral part of a being's stream of namas and rupas, and in fact the > opposite seems to be the case. > > Furthermore, I'm not sure the texts even talk about a 'namarupic > stream', in the sense of an single stream of (mixed) namas and rupas. > There is certainly reference to a stream of cittas, but the rupas that > we call our body are not similarly described as far as I can think > off-hand. After all, at the end of this lifespan the stream of namas > continues without interruption, whereas the rupas taken as the body > cease to continue to arise and fall away (except as a corpse, perhaps). > > >I don't believe in hardnesses that exist in a > >separate "realm of rupas". > > > > The idea of a separate "realm of rupas" is not something that I have > seen suggested by anyone. It is something you impute to those (like me) > who contemplate the possibility of rupas arising by conditions other > than their being the object of an individual's experience. But that > possibility only arises if one accepts in the first place the idea of > "experienced" rupas being part and parcel of an individual's "namarupic > stream". > > >An unfelt hardness is close to an oxymoron to me, > >but in any case is not only something that I don't believe in, but is also > >something for which there is no basis for verifying or disproving its > alleged > >existence. I have no reason to presume it, and so I don't. But I DO have a > reason > >for presuming felt hardnesses, namely the very fact that they are felt. > > > > As far as the development of the path is concerned, only > presently-experienced rupas are potential objects of panna, so to this > extent it is not necessary to contemplate any others. However, the role > of the sense-bases is an important one, I feel, and we do need to accept > the possibility of these. > > >I > >cannot do better than this, Jon. I don't expect to alter your perspective > on this, > >and so I won't try to - actually, I feel no need to. (Do you feel a need to > > >alter my perspective on it?) > > > > I was responding to your urging (in a post to Nina, #65020) to consider > the question of 'where' as being of very considerable importance. You > have mentioned or alluded to this in previous posts over the years and I > have often wondered about its significance to the way you see things. ----------------------------------------- Howard: The bottom line on all this, without all the details of one scheme or another, is that all we can know of as existent is what is observed. anything else is at best presumed. My pragmati8c perspective is to presume as little as possible ontologically, a la Occam. In any case, what is of fundamental importance with repect to the Dhammic quest is that we not cling to any scheme. ------------------------------------------ > > Jon > > ====================== With metta, Howard #65324 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - An aside: One might think of each stream of becoming (bhavangasota), a term that *does* occur and has the same sense as my term 'namarupic stream', as a world/realm. I view it as such, and I view the great totality of streams, mutually interacting/reflecting, as constituting an overarching realm that is the whole of "existence". With metta, Howard #65325 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/14/06 7:17:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > I was reading last night and thought of this: > > Howard: "...I believe I DO experience eyesense. Also, lots of things > known only conceptually are 'real'. Thunder is 'real'. It isn't a > paramattha dhamma, though, consisting, as it does, of a complex of > sounds viewed as a unit..." > > Visuddhimagga, XVIII, 33 > > "[Interdependence of Mentality and Materiality] > > "...For just as when two sheaves of reeds are propped one against the > other, each one gives the other consolidating support, and when one > falls the other falls, so too, in the five-constituent becoming > mentality occurs as an interdependent state, each of its components > giving the other consolidating support, and when one falls owing to > death, the other falls too. Hence the Ancients said: > > 'The mental and the material > Are twins and each supports the other; > When one breaks up they both break up > Throught interconditionality'. > > "And just as when sound occurs having as its support a drum that is > beaten by a stick, then the drum is one and the sound another, the > drum and the sound are not mixed up together, the drum is void of the > sound and the sound is void of the drum, so too, when mentality occurs > having as its support the materiality called the physical basis, the > door and the object, then the materiality is one and the mentality is > another, the mentality and the materiality are not mixed up together, > the mentality is void of the materiality and the materiality is void > of the mentality; yet the mentality occurs due to the materiality as > the sound occurs due to the drum. Hence the Ancients said: > > 'The pentad based on contact comes not from the eye, > Or from things seen, or something that is in between; > Due to a cause it comes to be, and formed as well, > Just as the sound that issues from a beaten drum... > > 'Being formed, it does not come from the material basis, > Nor does is issue from the mental-datum base; > Due to a cause it comes to be, and formed as well, > Just as the sound that issues from a beaten drum.' > > Howard, I may have misconstued your statement that you can 'experience > eyesense', and my apologies if I have. I enjoyed reading the above > and have learned something in the transcription. Thanks. > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > ======================== I'm glad that what I had said somehow triggered your reading this material that I also think is valuable. I don't quite understand why you see it is as related to my saying that I believe I do experience (the rupa of) eye sense. But, in any case, I'm glad that this has led to reading material of benefit to you. BTW, let me explain in what way I "experience" eyesense and other sense doors. I view the sense doors as "locational rupas". Physically, according to biologists, actual sensing is done in the brain. And, conceptually, sights and sounds etc are "out there". But experientially, phenomenologically, we may also say that seeing seems to occur in a "location" associated with a "space" extending outward from the physical eye area, hearing seems to occur based in the ear area, smelling in the nose area, touch on bodily locations. The awareness of the sight "area"/"locus" is an awareness of eye door as I view the matter. I view this matter phenomenologically. With metta, Howard With metta, Howard #65326 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] water, a reality. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Ahhh. H: "...I view the sense doors as "locational rupas". Physically, according to biologists, actual sensing is done in the brain. And, conceptually, sights and sounds etc are "out there". But experientially, phenomenologically, we may also say that seeing seems to occur in a "location" associated with a "space" extending outward from the physical eye area, hearing seems to occur based in the ear area, smelling in the nose area, touch on bodily locations. The awareness of the sight "area"/"locus" is an awareness of eye door as I view the matter. I view this matter phenomenologically." I had visions of you getting extremely cross-eyed as you gazed at the eye-sense itself. Thanks, Howard. With loving kindness, Scott. #65327 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:01 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 121. nilovg Dear friends, Five doors are rúpa and one door is nåma. The mind-door is nåma. The cittas of the mind-door process experience an object through the mind- door. Before the mind-door-adverting-consciousness, mano-dvåråvajjana- citta, arises, there are the bhavanga-calana (vibrating bhavanga) and the bhavangupaccheda (arrest-bhavanga). The bhavangupaccheda, the citta preceding the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta, is the mind-door. It is the ``doorway'' through which the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta and the succeeding cittas of the mind-door process experience the object. It is useful to know through which door cittas experience different objects. For example, visible object, rúpårammaùa, can be experienced both through the eye-door and through the mind-door. It is experienced through the eye-door when it has not fallen away yet. When it is experienced by the cittas in the mind-door process following upon that eye-door process, it has just fallen away. When visible object is experienced through the mind-door the cittas only know visible object, they do not pay attention to shape and form or think of a person or a thing. But time and again there are also mind- door processes of cittas which think of people or things and then the object is a concept, not visible object. The experience of visible object conditions the thinking of concepts which arises later on. In both the sense-door process and the mind-door process javana- cittas arise; these javana-cittas are, if one is not an arahat, either kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When visible object is experienced through the eye-door, one does not yet perceive a person or a thing, but, already in the sense-door process, attachment to what is seen can arise, or aversion towards it, or ignorance. Defilements are deeply rooted, they can arise in the sense-door processes and in the mind-door processes. We may think that the enslavement to objects which are experienced through the different doorways is caused by the objects. Defilements, however, are not caused by objects, they are accumulated in the citta which experiences the object. ******* Nina. #65328 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:20 am Subject: (No subject) nilovg Dear Sebastien, you did very well with this difficult part. ------ Especially, I would like to know how "effects" and "actions" have to be understood. Is effect result or action (or both) ? ----- N: effect is used here not in the sense of vipaaka, but more generally used as result of what one is doing. diversity d'effects d'action? Something like that? ------- S: Also what means "specific or generic" in this context ? ---------- N: specifique ou général. ------- The original english in ADL : "How is consciousness (i.e. mind) capable of producing a variety or diversity of effects in action? .... translation :inspiration artistique: it is more a plan he conceives: conception artisitique. Lors de cette conception: par cette conception... He puts on the paint: is paint: peinture? The mind: le mental, I do not know whether there is a better word. Conscience? Esprit sounds strange. Nina. ---------- "Comment la conscience (c'est à dire le mental) est-elle capable de produire une telle variété ou diversité d'actions ? Il n'y pas dans le monde d'art plus diversifié que celui de la peinture. Et, dans la peinture, le chef- d'oeuvre du peintre est lui-même plus artistique que le reste de sa production. Une inspiration artistique survient chez les peintres de chefs-d'oeuvre, qui les pousse à agencer les formes de telle ou telle façon. Lors de cette conception apparaissent des opérations du mental (ou opérations artistiques) accomplissant des tâches telles que le dessin des contours, l'application de la peinture, les retouches et embellissements [...] Ainsi toutes les classes d'art dans le monde, spécifiques ou génériques sont accomplies par le mental. Et en vertu de sa capacité à produire une telle variété ou diversité d'actions, le mental qui accomplit tous ces arts est en lui-même artistique. Non : il est même plus artistique que l'art lui-même, parce que ce dernier ne peut exécuter parfaitement chaque oeuvre. C'est pourquoi le Béni à dit : "Moines, avez-vous vu un chef-d'oeuvre de peinture ?" "Oui, Seigneur." "Moines, ce chef- d'oeuvre artistique est une conception du mental. Vraiment, moines, le mental est plus artistique que ce chef-d'oeuvre."" #65329 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) nilovg Dear Han, thank you for your good post. Only the anaagaami does not have attachment. It arises because of conditions, and this shows how anattaa it is. When it arises we can gradually learn its characteristic and also see that metta is better than attachment. This can condition more metta. We cannot help others by attachment. As to no Lodewijk: I read to him from Milinda's Q. about: there is no Nagasena, and he found that the way it is so carefully explained clear. I wanted to quote here, but I have no time to type. I do not know whether it is on list. Nina. Op 14-nov-2006, om 14:00 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > However, my wife, my children and my grand-children > are a different matter altogether. I have too much > attachment for them. So I have to constantly warn > myself not to have that much attachment. #65330 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 nilovg Dear Sebastien, Yes, the Leash, gaddulasutta. For the mind you could use citta, or put citta between brackets. Nina. Op 14-nov-2006, om 13:29 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > BTW is Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 the sutta > named > "Gaddulla Sutta" ? #65331 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/14/06 8:51:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > > Hi again, Jon - > > An aside: One might think of each stream of becoming (bhavangasota), a > term that *does* occur and has the same sense as my term 'namarupic stream', > as a world/realm. I view it as such, and I view the great totality of > streams, mutually interacting/reflecting, as constituting an overarching realm that > is the whole of "existence". > > With metta, > Howard > ======================== With regard to the foregoing, one might consider the following sutta: __________________ SN 35.82 Loka Sutta The World Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: S iv 52 CDB ii 1162 Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. Copyright © 1997 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 1997 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates."The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate..."The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate..."The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate..."The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate..."The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates."Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" _________________________ There is another sutta I cannot locate that speaks of "the world" as being this very body along with mentality, and a sutta that I also can't locate that speaks about reaching the end of the world, saying something along the lines of the end of the world not being reachable by traveling, but by uprooting craving, aversion, and delusion. With metta, Howard #65332 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 nilovg Dear Sebastien, I think for le mental: l'âme, what about it? Proust can also help us. Nina. #65333 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:46 am Subject: re:Abh D L 119 nilovg Hi Howard, -------- N: We have to differentiate the types of citta: vipaakacitta > accompanied by painful feeling, and a javanacitta (kusala citta or > akusala citta)that has a former painful feeling as object. This > javanacitta is likely to be accompanied by mental unhappy feeling. --------------------------------------- Howard: That's what I would suspect. ---------------------------------------- N: Perhaps you see that if we do not distinguish paramattha dhammas from > concepts we get into an awful tangle. It is all very intricate. ----------------------------------------- Howard: This is only a discussion of paramattha dhammas here, so pa~n~natti are irrelevant. In any case, as I have said, and as you know, I DO distinguish paramattha dhammas from mere objects of convention. ------------------------------------------- N: I am sorry, the discussion was on paramattha dhammas but I deviated from this subject. I tell you why. I realize how difficult it is to distinguish vipaaka feeling from akusala feeling. Then I thought of Sukin's post on vipaaka, warning us that kamma and its result is a very difficult subject. I am inclined when I hear about a story of an accident to think: what a vipaka. But as Sukin reminds us: that vipaakacitta is so short, just experiencing an object say through the bodysense and then gone. I am entangled by my thinking about the situation instead of discerning different cittas, vipaakacittas and akusala cittas in abundance. N: When citta takes whatever object (such as just past feeling) all > cetasikas share that object, also the accompanyinf feeling shares > that object. > ------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely. ------------------------------------ As you say, it experiences the flavour of that object. > > It does not flavour the citta, but conditions the citta by conascence. ----------------------------------- Howard: The feeling is known, however. Not as an object - there is only one object, but it is known. Subsequently, that feeling is remembered (as object). ------- N: According to the Abh. feeling is only known when it is an object. When citta has another object, it certainly is accompanied by feeling that shares the object and experiences it in its own way: experiencing the flavour. But it is not so that citta knows, cognizes its accompanying feeling. This is according to the Abh. -------- > N: It takes only one object, which can be rupa, feeling, citta, > anything that occurred previously. Not all together. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Possibly so. Possibly the elements of that previous mindstate are recalled one by one in some order through a series of states. --- N: I think Sariputta did. Anupadasutta. -------- H: But it also seems possible to me that there may be taken as object a (new) mental construct that is a constructed memory of all or part of that past mindstate, with some aspects missing, some "fuzzed up", some accentuated, some diminished, and additional spurious elements typically added. The original mindstate was multi- faceted, and the memory as a multi-faceted construct seems likely to me. In any case, whether the prior state is recalled sequentially or synchronically, the actual prior feeling itself is never the literal object; it cannot be, because it no longer is occurring - it no longer exists. Only a constructed reproduction of it could be a future object. When we say that the feeling is recalled, it sounds like the past feeling is object, but that is only a manner of speaking. ----- N: I cannot follow all you say here. Feeling that is just passed can be an object, why not? Its characteristic can appear to a citta arising later on. How otherwise could there be awareness of feeling? But there has to be. We cling very much to feeling and take it for self. If there never is mindfulness of feeling there will not be detachment from it. ------ Nina. ------- #65334 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind - What is it? nilovg Dear Charles D, I am sorry to hear you had depressed activity, but I am glad you are over it. What is it, that is depressed or that is over it now? It is citta. We think of mental activities as mine, but in reality there is a great variety of cittas arising one at a time and then passing away. Also now there is citta but before you can realize what it is like it has already fallen away. Nina. Op 13-nov-2006, om 18:09 heeft Charles DaCosta het volgende geschreven: > My head is finally coming out of the sand (a period of depressed > activity). > > When you say cittas, what do you mean? #65335 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 sbillard2000 I would not use "âme" in a buddhist context except to explain that there is no "âme" as this word is rendered in english as "soul". "Mental" is correct to render "mind" in the buddhist context, "esprit" would be correct too. Sorry I don't understand your allusion to Proust ? Are you talkin about the author ? And concerning "effects" and "actions" in the excerpt, is my transaltion correct ? Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr >I think for le mental: l'âme, what about it? >Proust can also help us. #65336 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re:Abh D L 119 upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/14/06 1:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > the actual > prior feeling itself is never the literal object; it cannot be, > because it no > longer is occurring - it no longer exists. Only a constructed > reproduction of > it could be a future object. When we say that the feeling is > recalled, it > sounds like the past feeling is object, but that is only a manner of > speaking. > ----- > N: I cannot follow all you say here. Feeling that is just passed can > be an object, why not? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Because it does not exist! What is passed is *gone* and nonexistent. It *did* exist in the past but is no longer a reality. To think that what once was, still is in some fashion was exactly the eternalism of the Sarvastivadins. What can be known now is only what exists now. The recalling of something from the past is a present operation that involves only presently existing phenomena including possibly a constructed facsimile of a prior reality. ---------------------------------- It's> > characteristic can appear to a citta arising later on. --------------------------------- Howard: Only as a reconstruction, not the original. -------------------------------- How otherwise > > could there be awareness of feeling? But there has to be. We cling > very much to feeling and take it for self. If there never is > mindfulness of feeling there will not be detachment from it. --------------------------------- Howard: Either the mindfulness of the feeling occurs while the feeling is in effect, or later when examining a mentally constructed memory of that feeling. Anything else seems utterly incoherent. Mindfulness hasn't mastered time travel. --------------------------------- > ------ > Nina. > =================== With metta, Howard #65337 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) hantun1 Dear Nina (Sarah, Mike), Nina: Only the anaagaami does not have attachment. It arises because of conditions, and this shows how anattaa it is. When it arises we can gradually learn its characteristic and also see that metta is better than attachment. This can condition more metta. We cannot help others by attachment. Han: Thank you very much for your good advice. I know I cannot help them by attachment. One way to pacify myself is to remember the Buddha’s instruction on five things to contemplate everyday, and one of them is: “I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.” [AN 5.57] So also my wife, my children, my grandchildren, they all have their own kamma, and I cannot help them unless they help themselves. So I ask them to do meritorious deeds as much as they can. -------------------- Nina: As to no Lodewijk: I read to him from Milinda's Q. about: there is no Nagasena, and he found that the way it is so carefully explained clear. I wanted to quote here, but I have no time to type. I do not know whether it is on list. Han: If it is about the King asking Ven. Nagasena, “What is your name?”, and later on, Ven. Nagasena asking the King to show him the chariot, I have it. It is “pannatti panha” in Milinda Panha. Yes, it is a good reminder of anattaa. Respectfully, Han #65338 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - In SN 35.82 (Loka Sutta, The World, the Buddha), in detailing what "the world" consists of, in addition to the sense doors, the corresponding acts of consiousness, contact, and corresponding feeling, he mentions (visual) forms [or what I call "sights"], sounds, aromas, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas [or mental objects]. To help clarify my phenomenalist viewpoint: As far as I am concerned, there are no unseen sights, unheard sounds (N.B. The "waveform vibrations" of physics are not sounds in the Dhamma), unsmelled aromas (N.B. The fine particles of material substance in the air constituting the odors of chemistry are not aromas in the Dhamma), untasted tastes, unfelt tactile sensations, and uncognized ideas. With metta, Howard #65339 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:35 pm Subject: Bhikkhu Samahita needs help christine_fo... Hello all, A little while ago I wrote to Bhikkhu Samahita and asked if there was any thing, or any service, or any assistance which could be provided for him (by lay supporters) which would be acceptable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ He has responded: Dear friend,, Thanx quite much for your outmost kind & open-handed invitation! There is no electricity at my forest meditation hut. So far I have used a generator, but my knees are not exactly screaming happy after having carried kerosene fuel 3 miles uphill. It is too remote to connect to grid, but 12-24 volt battery off-grid will also do. Best energy source here is a creek nearby. A micro-hydro-power-generator (Canadian seen below) is thus needed. Total cost incl. stream-machine, cable and tubing = ~2500$ Such gift is completely out of reach, even in a life-time, for my local Tamil friends here, which otherwise support me quite generously with daily food… Any even minor contribution will do well. As Buddhist monk I am not allowed to use/receive money myself, but one can wire the funds to the US dealer & email me a scanned copy of the receipt from the bank. Account is given below. Inform the bank to give your name and bhikkhu samâhita with the transfer. Thanx quite much in advance for whatever! May much merit be yours. J [ ] … PS: You are naturally very welcome to visit me any future day & see it spinning! May all beings cross beyond doubt and find assured ease thereby! Friendship is the Greatest J Bhikkhu Samahita ] Ceylon [ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As I removed the account details for security reasons, ny members who are able to assist with a donation, whatever the amount, please contact Bhikkhu Samahita for details at: bhikkhu.samahita@... metta Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #65340 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhikkhu Samahita needs help hantun1 Dear Christine and all, I also wanted to donate some amount for that purpose. I contacted the person who is the Agent of Bhikkhu Samahita for this purchase of a micro-hydro-power-generator. I asked him whether I could send my donation by bank transfer (bank cheque) instead of wire transfer, as the wire transfer is expensive and un-necessary amount of money wasted by wire transfer. The gentleman replied that he would feel unconformable in receiving a bank check, however once they have a total worked out in regards to the order he would contact me with the balance due. But the problem is I may not be able to meet the whole amount of balance due. Kind regards, Han PS The name and email address of the Agent may be obtaioned from Bhikkhu Samahita. --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hello all, > A micro-hydro-power-generator > (Canadian seen > below) > is thus needed. Total cost incl. stream-machine, > cable and tubing = > ~2500$ Account is > given below. > Inform the bank to give your name and bhikkhu > samâhita with the > transfer. > Thanx quite much in advance for whatever! #65341 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi Sarah > Phil to Kel: >I also heard Bhikkhu Bodhi talk about this - up to and > including feeling, there is no hint of an opening to stop things > from arising. Between feeling, and craving, there is sometimes an > opportunity. > .... > S: This is a dangerous view as I see it. The teachings are about anatta, > not about 'Let me stop the things I don't like from arising'. Thanks for your response, Sarah. I'm in a bit of a quandary.(Is that a word?) I don't want to find myself in endless debates, but I'm sure I will if I continue in this vein, because I disagree with what you've written above. The teachings are about avoiding evil and cultivating good and developing wisdom. It's not "let me stop the things I don't like from arising" - nobody can do that. But there are situations that have arisen and are continuing and there can be a dropping of them whether one understands anatta or not. You are putting the devlopment of wisdom before everything else - I no longer think it can work that way - and it's not the way Dhamma was expounded by the Buddha. Certainly we will have to come to see that all conditioned dhammas are anatta - but now I am more about "we start where we are, not where we want to be." I think that *is* the way expounded by the Buddha. Sarah, you had your several years of practice before you came across Acharn Sujin's teaching. I imagine you benefited in ways from the intentional practices you had in those early years which helped to lay the ground for the focus on panna and anatta that you have now. I imagine you developed wholesome habits of mind in those early years that have carried on. Now I am developing wholesome habits of mind that don't have anything to do with wisdom that penetrates dhammas to the degree of seeing anatta. What should I do? I really don't want to debate on and on and on...but I am the one who raised the point! Please forgive me and let me drop this. Thanks especially for writing when you are feeling poorly. I really *will* stick to discussion of paramattha dhammas, building my theoretical understanding of what is enlightened by those of advanced understanding. I will keep off the topic of what "I" (I think they are processes conditioned by the Buddha's teaching) am doing to avoid akusala proliferation, and why. This is not the place to discuss it for one who wants to avoid debates! :) Phil #65342 From: mlnease@... Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:14 pm Subject: Away m_nease Hi DSG, I'm away from my computer for a week or so and have been unable to read new messages for a couple of days. Please excuse any tardy replies, I will respond as soon as it's practical. Cheers, mke #65343 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi again I wrote: > What should I do? I really don't want to debate on and on and > on...but I am the one who raised the point! All my references to debating suggests that I think there is something aggressive about the way discussion is carried on here, but that's not what I mean. It's always so courteous - well, almost always. For some reason I don't want to work things out by discussing with others, want to work things out myself. Don't know why that is. Could be that my time on the computer is limited to begin with so I get in a bit of a panic when there are posts to respond to. Never mind. Thanks again, Sarah, and Sukin, and Nina and Jon and anyone else who has written to me only to have your post dropped by me like a hot potato. Yes, I think it comes down to time constraints. Cutting off at Phil-ing. haha. Phil #65344 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:09 pm Subject: Naughty Buddhaghosa sarahprocter... Message from James which he says I may f/w to DSG ================================================== Hi Sarah, I had posted to DSG before that I knew, through psychic ability, that Buddhaghosa had purposefully mistranslated documents in Sri Lanka and had destroyed the originals. I hadn’t read this anywhere, I just knew it through psychic ability. Just today, I came across an article which states the same thing: “He goes to Sri Lanka, proves his ability by writing Vissuddhimagga, and undertakes the work of writing Attakathas, the work which was started by Buddhadatta and left unfinished. The Attakathas which were translated into Sinhalese by Mahinda are retranslated into Pali. So far so good. But then he burns the old Attakathas of Mahinda and leaves no trace of verifying the correctness of his translations. The surprising part is that Sri Lankans allow him to do that. As is well known these Attakathas are full of miracles and superhuman ideas, not in consonance with the original ideas of the Buddha.” http://www.sikhspectrum.com/012003/k_jamanadas.htm I just thought I would share with you. I won't post this to DSG as I am no longer a member. However, if you want to forward the information to the group to invite debate, be my guest. Metta, James #65345 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cutting off at feeling sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- Phil wrote: > > What should I do? I really don't want to debate on and on and > > on...but I am the one who raised the point! > > All my references to debating suggests that I think there is > something aggressive about the way discussion is carried on here, > but that's not what I mean. It's always so courteous - well, almost > always. For some reason I don't want to work things out by > discussing with others, want to work things out myself. Don't know > why that is. Could be that my time on the computer is limited to > begin with so I get in a bit of a panic when there are posts to > respond to. .... S: It's OK. I'm sure we all understand. No need to continue any thread or feel any pressure or panic about doing so (but then those accumulations are just oh so anatta once more....:-)). Anyway, I'm sure none of us mind threads being dropped like hot potatoes anytime...sometimes someone else picks up that potato and sometimes they don't - either way is cool by me (and I'm sure by Nina, Jon, Sukin and anyone else...). There are other people I've written dozens of posts to in the past, only to have all threads dropped like hot potatoes, lol. As you say, sometimes we need to work things out on our own. It doesn't mean we don't go on reflecting on those hot potatoes. Often they re-surface years later in a different skin:-). .... > > Cutting off at Phil-ing. haha. .... S: Haha - famous last words:-)). NO NEED TO RESPOND!!! We all just enjoy your ramblings and reflections, Phil. No need to use your precious computer time in courteous responses to messages you agree or disagree with. I'm interested to hear more about Naomi's growing interest in dhamma and the route you're taking with her - so keep rambling on this too as well on all your listening and reading. Feel very free to disagree as much as you like with anything I or anyone else says - will keep lots of folk here happy and I'll try not to respond unless particularly asked to, lol! Metta, Sarah ============ #65346 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:46 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling corvus121 Hi Phil Don't mind me butting in. You put some interesting points up, a few of which I'd like to comment on. No need to reply or debate. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: The teachings are about avoiding evil and > cultivating good and developing wisdom. It's not "let me stop the > things I don't like from arising" - nobody can do that. But there > are situations that have arisen and are continuing and there can be > a dropping of them whether one understands anatta or not. You are > putting the devlopment of wisdom before everything else - I no > longer think it can work that way - and it's not the way Dhamma was > expounded by the Buddha. Certainly we will have to come to see that > all conditioned dhammas are anatta - but now I am more about "we > start where we are, not where we want to be." I think that *is* the > way expounded by the Buddha. The way expounded by the Buddha is a way that does not, in truth and reality, involve a permanent lasting "self". This is incredibly difficult to realise because we see so much through the tainted spectacles of "self". When those spectacles are removed, our vision goes all blurry and we hurry to put them back on again. "We start where we are, not where we want to be" has become a cliche on DSG, IMHO. In one sense, it is a perfectly valid observation equivalent to "things are as they are". We can add to that another valid observation: "the process works the way the process works". And another: "volition/cetana is involved in the process". However, things go off the rails when we start to see volition as something lasting that can recognise wisdom and wholesomeness and makes choices to go out and collect them. This is the free will "gymnasium" view of the process - we choose to go to Dhamma gym, pump away at doing good and avoiding evil and, lo and behold, we end up with big, wisdom muscles. What about the Viking who stopped ravaging beautiful foreign women because he thought they might be trolls in disguise? He was "avoiding evil" but did he end up with lots of wisdom as a consequence? Do you see what I'm saying - the link between doing good/avoiding evil and wisdom isn't a straightforward causative one like pumping iron. What the link is, I'm still trying to work out precisely. But we know from our Abhidhamma studies that not all kusala involves panna. Now I am developing wholesome habits of > mind that don't have anything to do with wisdom that penetrates > dhammas to the degree of seeing anatta. What I think you're saying here is - I am exercising free will by choosing to do kusala instead of akusala (even though I'm not all- wise). A quote from Bh. Dhammapala: "Choice ... is always conditioned and is therefore never free. Choice is a resultant action, conditioned by lack of understanding, for in full comprehension and insight, there cannot be the possibility of two contradictory courses of action, methods or means. If there is an apparent choice between contradictions, it is an imaginary choice, because contradictions cannot co-exist. Such imaginary choice is thus nothing but a misconception." Some food for thought! Corrections & additions welcome. Best wishes Andrew #65347 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fruitions of the Abilities ... !!! sarahprocter... Hi JC, --- JC Mendoza wrote: > Hi is this Venerable Samahita? Ms. Nina referred me to you to ask about > eating after 12 in the Uposatha. Is it okay to eat salt and butter > after twelve? .... S: I don't know if Ven Samahita is going to add more. Of course, as lay people we can follow as many precepts as we like (or are able) on Uposatha. Pls tell us where you live and why you wish to follow at least 8 precepts. The rule in the Vinaya says: "If any bhikkhu should chew or consume solid food or soft food at the wrong time, there is an offence entailing expiation." {yo pana bhikkhu vikaale khaadaniiya.m vaa bhojaniiya.m vaa khaadeyya vaa bhu~njeyya vaa, paacittiya.m [Vin 1V 85, 33f]) Certainly butter cannot be eaten by bhikkhus after 12 and as Nina said, salt would have to be fully dissolved so that it's not eaten. .... >ANd also, can I know your background? What country are > you from? What country did you ordain in? Thanks. .... S: Quite recently, Ven Samahita said here he was from Denmark and he resides in Sri Lanka. Metta, Sarah ========= #65348 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:00 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Hi Sukin, --- sukinder wrote: > Talking about kamma-vipaka, our friend Peter Swan met with an accident > this > Tuesday under quite strange circumstance. > .... S: Thanks for your good wishes and I'm appreciating your discussion with Howard that has followed on kamma-vipaka. Perhaps you can help encourage Peter to participate here directly as well! (We've tried of course....) Jon wrote to him and in his reply he said that he found it a 'timely reminder that life is very fragile and out of control!'. It helps when we can see anything that comes our way as a 'timely reminder':-). Thanks again for thinking of us. Metta, Sarah ======= #65349 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:06 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 580 - The Stages of Insight(b) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== The Stages of Insight The realization of the truth of impermanence, dukkha and anattå does not occur all of a sudden, it is the result of the development of direct understanding in different stages. All through the different stages of development of understanding the object is the same: nåma and rúpa which appear at the present moment, in daily life. The object is the same but understanding develops and sees realities more clearly. Thus doubt about realities and the wrong view of them are eliminated. ***** The Stages of Insight to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65350 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:55 am Subject: Re: Naughty Buddhaghosa jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, James, all The idea that Buddhaghosa not just was a commentary on the Teachings of the Buddha but changed them a little bit, is not new to me. I say "a little bit" and not "mistranslated" and "destroyed" because I don't know that and I also look at the source of this information: don't know anything of 'SikhSpectrum' but it will not surprise me if Sikhs have their own reasons to dislike Brahmins (or 'Hinduism'). That the so-called commentaries sometimes are not just comments, in the meaning of explanations, is evident; they are also a way of making a system of the Teachings: scholasticism. But to me commentaries are not part of the Tipitaka. This process is one of the reasons we had to go back again and again tot the Suttas itself and not trust totally the commentaries. I have several times stated that Buddhaghosa at least in two topics changed a bit the Teachings: in the topic of the decline of Buddhasasana in 5000 years and in making a cycle of the chain of DO. This attack is a bit exaggerated and also a bit too personal: the forces to re-hinduize or re-brahmanize buddhism had been permanent. The books of for example David Kalupahana describe many aspects of it. It happened especially in Mahayana but also in aspects of Theravada. A question for example is if some parts of the Abhidhamma-texts, composed long before Buddhaghosa lived are not a product of re- brahmanization ? Especially the 'two truth theory' build in it is an example of it (I even am not sure the 'two truth theory' occurs in one of the 7 Abhidhamma-books itself, I vaguely remember to have read this aspects did appear centuries later) So my advise: we had to try to understand the Suttas ourselves, use old and use new (for example BB) guides but decide ourselves what they mean. BTW James (if you read): I didn't know you were no longer of member of DSG; you mean you don't post any longer? And why, did I miss something? I hope and think you come back as many of us do. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Message from James which he says I may f/w to DSG > ================================================== > > Hi Sarah, > > I had posted to DSG before that I knew, through psychic ability, that > Buddhaghosa had purposefully mistranslated documents in Sri Lanka and had > destroyed the originals. I hadn't read this anywhere, I just knew it > through psychic ability. Just today, I came across an article which > states the same thing: > "He goes to Sri Lanka, proves his ability by writing Vissuddhimagga, and > undertakes the work of writing Attakathas, the work which was started by > Buddhadatta and left unfinished. The Attakathas which were translated into > Sinhalese by Mahinda are retranslated into Pali. So far so good. But then > he burns the old Attakathas of Mahinda and leaves no trace of verifying > the correctness of his translations. > The surprising part is that Sri Lankans allow him to do that. As is well > known these Attakathas are full of miracles and superhuman ideas, not in > consonance with the original ideas of the Buddha." > http://www.sikhspectrum.com/012003/k_jamanadas.htm > I just thought I would share with you. I won't post this to DSG as I am > no longer a member. However, if you want to forward the information to > the group to invite debate, be my guest. > > Metta, > James > #65351 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:05 am Subject: Trying not to try (Was: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Joop, ---------------- <. . .> Joop: To me 'right effort' as used in the NEP the Buddha teached, is 'Samma Vayama' (as explained by Bikkhu Bodhi) not 'sama-viriya'. ----------------- Oh yes, thanks for the correction. Samma is right. However, I think you will find that vayama and viriya are interchangeable. ----------------------------- J: > BB further says: "Energy (viriya), the mental factor behind right effort"; ----------------------------- As I said, I thought vayama and viriya were two names for the same cetasika. So I don't know what BB means by that. Do you? ----------------------------------- J: > he continues: " Time and again the Buddha has stressed the need for effort, for diligence, exertion, and unflagging perseverance. The reason why effort is so crucial is that each person has to work out his or her own deliverance. The Buddha does what he can by pointing out the path to liberation; the rest involves putting the path into practice, a task that demands energy. This energy is to be applied to the cultivation of the mind, which forms the focus of the entire path. The starting point is the defiled mind, afflicted and deluded; the goal is the liberated mind, purified and illuminated by wisdom. What comes in between is the unremitting effort to transform the defiled mind into the liberated mind. The work of self-cultivation is not easy — there is no one who can do it for us but ourselves — but it is not impossible. The Buddha himself and his accomplished disciples provide the living proof that the task is not beyond our reach. They assure us, too, that anyone who follows the path can accomplish the same goal. But what is needed is effort, the work of practice taken up with the determination: "I shall not give up my efforts until I have attained whatever is attainable by manly perseverance, energy, and endeavor." (MN 70) " I'm afraid you don't agree with Bihikkhu Bodhi either. -------------------------------- I do and I don't. The words he uses could be understood in a way that is consistent with the texts. He could be talking about paramattha dhammas rather than stories and sentient beings. In that case I would agree with him. However, I suspect he is saying something very different. I suspect he is saying, "Don't let the teaching of no self prevent you from practising vipassana as if it were just an ordinary, conventional, teaching." Therefore, I think Bhikkhu Bodhi is missing the point of anatta. Ken H #65352 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions sarahprocter... Hi JC, (Leo & all), You asked some difficult number-crunching questions which I don't think anyone responded to. Here are a couple of ideas: --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > To everyone: > Concerning lifespan of devas in the heavens and the realm of humans > (Manuṣyaloka). In Buddhist Cosmology in Wikipedia > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology) it says the > Vibhajyav¨¡da tradition which it says is the Theravada tradition > believes > that the devas of the Four Great Kings live for 90,000 human years > while the Mahayana believes they live for 9,000,000 human years. But > in the Theravadin Access to Insight website > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an3-70.html) it holds > that they live for 9,000,000 human years. The same goes for the > lifespan of the other devas in higher heavens, Access to Insight seems > to hold the belief of the Sarvastivadin tradition mentioned in the > Wiki article. So which is which? .... S: What it says in AN 3s, 70 (PTS tranls) is: "...fifty years of human life are a single night and day to the Devas of the Four Great Kings. Thirty such days and nights make a month. Twelve of such months make a year. Five hundred of such years make up the life period of the Devas of the Four Great Kings." I'll leave you to do the caluculation. .... > And also, concerning Manusyaloka, the article says: > * Manuṣyaloka (Tib: mi) ¨C This is the world of humans and > human-like > beings who live on the surface of the earth. <...> > Now, we all know now that the earth is round unlike what is mentioned > in the article of it having horizontal limits and that there are many > continents in it but all can be reached by boat and that none of the > people living there are more that 8 feet tall. People who grow 5 to 6 > feet not only live in Jambudipa but also in all other continents that > make up the world as we know today ( and why aren't these other > continents named in Manusyaloka), are people mentioned in the article > being 12 -48 feet tall myths or do they really exist and we still have > no means to reach them? And why is Manusyaloka represented as > horizontal instead of it being round? .... S: I didn't check the article, but is this based on Tibetan sources? If you give me a reference to a Theravada/Pali source, I'll follow up:-). We do read various accounts of changing life spans and heights in the Pali sources, but I'll let you give me the exact references here first. In any case, why not tell us why you are interested or concerned. > To Leo: > You said, > I found the following: > In Anggutarra Nikaya 8.51,(Refer also to The First Sangha Council-The > Thera Mahakassapa has made the blessed Buddha's message to endure 500 > years - from the Mahavamsa book) the Buddha warned that the true > Dhamma would remain unadulterated for 500 years after his passing into > Nibb¨¢na. Thereafter, it will become very difficult to distinguish the > true teachings from the false. Why? Because although many of these > later books contain a lot of Dhamma, some adhamma (i.e. what is > contrary to the Dhamma) are added here and there. These alterations > scattered throughout these texts are only noticeable if one is sharp > and very well versed in the earliest suttas. Otherwise, one would find > it very difficult to distinguish the later books from the earlier ones. > > It was on a website: http://geocities. com/allbuddhism/ > Is this Theravadin or not? .... S: See 'Sasana - decline of the teachings' in 'Useful Posts' in the files section of DSG for a lot more detail from the Theravadin perspective. Metta, Sarah ======== #65353 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 nilovg Dear Sébastien, You are right about âme. Never mind, the author Proust has a rich vocabulary for the subject of mind. We can leave this. You had: Comment la conscience (c'est à dire le mental) est-elle capable de produire une telle variété ou diversité d'actions ? .. telle variété d'effects par ses actions. What about this? Nina. Op 14-nov-2006, om 20:17 heeft Sebastien Billard het volgende geschreven: > I would not use "âme" in a buddhist context except to explain that > there is > no "âme" as this word is rendered in english as "soul". "Mental" is > correct > to render "mind" in the buddhist context, "esprit" would be correct > too. > > Sorry I don't understand your allusion to Proust ? Are you talkin > about the > author ? > > And concerning "effects" and "actions" in the excerpt, is my > transaltion > correct ? > >> . > > #65354 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:09 am Subject: re: ADL 119. nilovg Hi Howard, --------- N: I cannot follow all you say here. Feeling that is just passed can > be an object, why not? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Because it does not exist! What is passed is *gone* and nonexistent. It *did* exist in the past but is no longer a reality. To think that what once was, still is in some fashion was exactly the eternalism of the Sarvastivadins. What can be known now is only what exists now. The recalling of something from the past is a present operation that involves only presently existing phenomena including possibly a constructed facsimile of a prior reality. ---------------------------------- N: Yes, I know what you mean. Kh Sujin said: dhammas are arising and falling away very quickly and only the nimitta, the sign remains. There is the nimitta of rupakkhandha, saññakkhandha, of all khandhas. ----------- N: It's> > characteristic can appear to a citta arising later on. How otherwise > > could there be awareness of feeling? But there has to be. We cling > very much to feeling and take it for self. If there never is > mindfulness of feeling there will not be detachment from it. --------------------------------- Howard: Only as a reconstruction, not the original. Either the mindfulness of the feeling occurs while the feeling is in effect, ---------- N: This is not possible, because it always has to be a citta arising afterwards that cognizes the feeling. Suppose citta arises with its accompanying feeling, and citta and feeling attend to the same object; at that moment citta cannot attend to its accompanying feeling. Citta is too busy with that object. --------- H: or later when examining a mentally constructed memory of that feeling. Anything else seems utterly incoherent. Mindfulness hasn't mastered time travel. --------------------------------- N: Suppose akusala citta arises. We read in the satipatthanasutta that also akusala citta is the object of sati-sampaja~n~na. Surely this is not possible in the same process, because mindfulness arises with kusala citta. Mindfulness attends to the characteristic of akusala, and we can still speak of the present reality. We have learnt about the different processes of cittas, sense-door processes and mind-door processes. It is helpful to have such foundation knowledge, it enables us to understand that cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. But now, when we speak about mindfulness, we do not count the processes, it is too fast anyway. We do not think of doorways. Can we not experience a characteristic that appears, such as seeing or unpleasant feeling? There is no need to think: this is a constructed memory, or: it has fallen away already. As you said, you do not need to memorize a list, and this is not the aim of the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma reminds us: these are elements arising because of conditions, they are already there when the conditions are present, and "we" cannot make them different from what they are, we do not create them. An example how the Abhidhamma can be of assistance: I find it helpful to consider more that seeing is vipaaka, produced by kamma. It has nothing to do with me, when kamma produces it it arises already, just for an extremely short moment. It is past immediately, but seeing arises again and again. We do not count in which processes, but is there no characteristic of seeing when our eyes are open? No need to think of seeing. Nina. #65355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cutting off at feeling nilovg Hi Andrew and Phil, Kh Sujin would place the purifying of the mind first of all. I understand this, because without understanding we can perform kusala and avoid akusala to a certain extent, conditioned by our accumulated inclinations, but never very effectively. When I say: understanding, I am also thinking of the degree that knows: this is kusala, this is akusala. This can also be known outside Buddhism, but the Buddha taught in detail about all the kusala cittas and akusala cittas and their conditions. Pa~n~na to the degree of satipatthana is the condition most of all to perform kusala and avoid akusala. Nina. Op 15-nov-2006, om 5:46 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > Do you see what I'm saying - the link between doing > good/avoiding evil and wisdom isn't a straightforward causative one > like pumping iron. What the link is, I'm still trying to work out > precisely. But we know from our Abhidhamma studies that not all > kusala involves panna. #65356 From: s.billard@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Atthasåliní Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64 sbillard2000 Hi Nina, > You had: Comment la conscience (c'est à dire le mental) est-elle > capable de produire une > telle variété ou diversité d'actions ? > .. telle variété d'effects par ses actions. > What about this? It makes sense...so the "effects" you are talking about are the product of "actions" right ? (want to be sure). What about the meaning of "specific or generic" ? Is this related to "artistic art" opposed to "know-how art" like cooking, growing vegetables and so on ? I got difficulties also with "Nay, it is even more artistic than the art itself, because the latter cannot execute every design perfectly" as an art cannot execute anything. Or is it that every piece of art can't be perfect whereas masterpieces are ? Sébastien #65357 From: s.billard@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:12 am Subject: "Vipaka" and "result" sbillard2000 Hi Nina, sorry to bother you again :) For a better understanding by readers, I tweaked one phrase in ADL chapter 3 about vipaka and I would like you input Original version : "When the word “result” is used, people may think of the consequences of their deeds for other people, but “result” in the sense of vipåka has a different meaning. Vipåkacitta is a citta which experiences an unpleasant object or a pleasant object and this citta is the result of a deed we did ourselves." My version : "Parce que le mot "résultat" est utilisé, certains peuvent penser que vipaka designe les conséquences de leurs actions pour les autres individus. Mais le mot "résultat" dans le contexte de vipaka a une signification différente. Vipakacitta est un citta qui expérimente un objet plaisant ou déplaisant, et ce citta est le résultat d'actions que nous avons nous même accompli, pas le résultat d'actions accomplies par d'autres individus." What I tweaked is "ce citta est le résultat d'actions que nous avons nous même accompli, pas le résultat d'actions accomplies par d'autres individus" wich translates in english as "this citta is the result of the deeds we performed ourselves, not the result of the deeds performed by other people". Is it correct ? Sébastien #65358 From: "jcmendoza1000" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:30 am Subject: Questions again jcmendoza1000 To all: Does any one know why the Awakened One taught us that even if a monk has achieveed the goal of the contemplative life, he is still worthy of criticism (Digha Nikaya 12 Lohicca Sutta ) and he implies there that only a Tathagatha is worthy and completely beyond criticism that is factual. Does this mean that even arhats can be criticized? Won't we beget much demerit for that even if it is factual? - JC #65359 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:12 am Subject: Trying not to try (Was: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > ---------------- > <. . .> > Joop: To me 'right effort' as used in the NEP the Buddha teached, > is 'Samma Vayama' (as explained by Bikkhu Bodhi) not 'sama-viriya'. > ----------------- > > Oh yes, thanks for the correction. Samma is right. However, I think > you will find that vayama and viriya are interchangeable. ... Hallo KenH J: > BB further says: "Energy (viriya), the mental factor behind right effort"; ----------------------------- K: "As I said, I thought vayama and viriya were two names for the same cetasika. So I don't know what BB means by that. Do you?" J: Yes, I do: he did not use 'vayama' as a cetasika but as a path factor! The 8 path factors can not be translated or reduced to cetasikas because they are not dhammas that 'happen' but things to do, that's my opinion and I think BB's too. (I already know this is not your opinion and not Jon's for example because I discussed with him about this too) K: "I suspect he is saying, "Don't let the teaching of no self prevent you from practising vipassana as if it were just an ordinary, conventional, teaching." Therefore, I think Bhikkhu Bodhi is missing the point of anatta." J: Bhikkhu Bodhi is perhaps still a wordling and failable in explaining the Dhamma. But saying that he is missing the point of anatta is not very modest said. Perhaps you (and some other DSG-participants) and forgetting the middle-way-idea and making 'anatta' an absolute doctrine. Two arguments for that idea: - anatta is only one of the three 'marks', anicca and dukkha are forgotten for the "anatta-yanas" or "anatta-vadas" (followers of anatta, a term I made myself) - the Buddha used 'anatta' not as an absolute, a metaphysical, an ontological principle; He used it as a means, soteriological: contemplating it and expiencing it helps in the process in awakening If you don't mind: I think this is the right moment to stop this thread, with you getting the last word of course. Metta Joop #65360 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/15/06 6:18:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > --------- > N: I cannot follow all you say here. Feeling that is just passed can > >be an object, why not? > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > Because it does not exist! What is passed is *gone* and nonexistent. > It *did* exist in the past but is no longer a reality. To think that > what once > was, still is in some fashion was exactly the eternalism of the > Sarvastivadins. What can be known now is only what exists now. The > recalling of something > from the past is a present operation that involves only presently > existing > phenomena including possibly a constructed facsimile of a prior reality. > ---------------------------------- > N: Yes, I know what you mean. Kh Sujin said: dhammas are arising and > falling away very quickly and only the nimitta, the sign remains. > There is the nimitta of rupakkhandha, saññakkhandha, of all khandhas. > ======================== What khandha do nimittas fall under? If the sign is something that remains, what is it? Nama or rupa, of what exact sort, and how long does it last? (Or do nimittas constitute a 6th khandha?) With metta, Howard #65361 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/15/06 6:18:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > H: or later when examining a mentally constructed memory of that > feeling. > Anything else seems utterly incoherent. Mindfulness hasn't mastered time > travel. > --------------------------------- > N: Suppose akusala citta arises. We read in the satipatthanasutta > that also akusala citta is the object of sati-sampaja~n~na. Surely > this is not possible in the same process, because mindfulness arises > with kusala citta. ------------------------------------ Howard: Surely not possible when no longer in existence either! ------------------------------------- > Mindfulness attends to the characteristic of akusala, and we can > still speak of the present reality. ------------------------------------ Howard: WHAT present reality? Also, when examining a feeling, it is not just its wholesomeness or unwholesomeness that is examined. The feeling is examined. The feeling is the paramattha dhamma. ----------------------------------- > We have learnt about the different processes of cittas, sense-door > processes and mind-door processes. It is helpful to have such > foundation knowledge, it enables us to understand that cittas arise > and fall away extremely fast. > ------------------------------------ Howard: A truism, but not one which bears on the question at hand. ------------------------------------ But now, when we speak about > > mindfulness, we do not count the processes, it is too fast anyway. We > do not think of doorways. Can we not experience a characteristic that > appears, such as seeing or unpleasant feeling? There is no need to > think: this is a constructed memory, or: it has fallen away already. -------------------------------------- Howard: Well, there's no NEED to consider any of this. But we are looking at claims and examining what sense to make of them. ------------------------------------- > As you said, you do not need to memorize a list, and this is not the > aim of the Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------- Howard: Nonetheless, if Abhidhamma, or any other body of thought, is to be examined, it needs to be done fastidiously, not shrugging off matters that are uncomfortably amorphous. ----------------------------------------- > The Abhidhamma reminds us: these are elements arising because of > conditions, they are already there when the conditions are present, > and "we" cannot make them different from what they are, we do not > create them. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it does. But that is unrelated to the issue under discussion. ---------------------------------------- > An example how the Abhidhamma can be of assistance: I find it helpful > to consider more that seeing is vipaaka, produced by kamma. It has > nothing to do with me, when kamma produces it it arises already, just > for an extremely short moment. It is past immediately, but seeing > arises again and again. We do not count in which processes, but is > there no characteristic of seeing when our eyes are open? No need to > think of seeing. --------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that there are many ways that Abhidhamma can be of assistance. --------------------------------------- > Nina. > > ==================== With metta, Howard #65362 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 11/15/06 6:18:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > > H: or later when examining a mentally constructed memory of that > > feeling. > > Anything else seems utterly incoherent. Mindfulness hasn't mastered time > > travel. > > --------------------------------- > > N: Suppose akusala citta arises. We read in the satipatthanasutta > > that also akusala citta is the object of sati-sampaja~n~na. Surely > > this is not possible in the same process, because mindfulness arises > > with kusala citta. > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Surely not possible when no longer in existence either! > ------------------------------------- Dear Howard Every moment once it has passed has absolutely ceased according to the Theravada. However, this doesn't mean that it can't be known. If that was the case then we would be like newborn babies, only worse, and know nothing. Direct seeing should be distinguished from thinking about past events but it doesn't mean that direct seeing doesn't need sanna. Sanna arises with every citta and thus it arises also in cittas associated with panna. It is so complex how it all comes together, just for a moment, to understand. Here are some brief quotes: QUOTE Abhidhammattha sangaha (Anuruddha) translated as A comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi: Guide (note by Bodhi) p. 136 "although citta experiences objects, citta in turn can become an object. It should be noted that a citta in its immediacy cannot become an its own object, for the cognizer cannot cognize itself; but a citta in an individual mental continuum can experience earlier cittas in that same continuum as well as the cittas of other beings" p. 137 "Mind-door cittas can also cognise an object belonging to any of the three periods of time- past present and future" p. 138 "the Vibhavani tika explains: according to whether the cittas are sense sphere javanas, direct knowledge javanas , the remaining smile- producing javanas etc. For the sense sphere javanas...take objects of the three times[past, present, future] and timeless objects (nibbana and concepts]. The smile producing consciousness takes only objects of the three times[past, present, future]. The direct knowledge cittas take objects of the three times as well as the timeless" p. 138 The door freed consciousness (ie. patisandhicitta, cuti citta and bhavanga citta ) "can be of six kinds: it can be any of the five sense objects, either past or present, or it can be a mental object" Robert #65363 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:41 am Subject: Attempt at Closing the Gap Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 11/15/06 9:47:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > >N: Suppose akusala citta arises. We read in the satipatthanasutta > >that also akusala citta is the object of sati-sampaja~n~na. Surely > >this is not possible in the same process, because mindfulness arises > >with kusala citta. > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Surely not possible when no longer in existence either! > ------------------------------------- > > >Mindfulness attends to the characteristic of akusala, and we can > >still speak of the present reality. > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > WHAT present reality? Also, when examining a feeling, it is not just > its wholesomeness or unwholesomeness that is examined. The feeling is > examined. > The feeling is the paramattha dhamma. > =========================== In an attempt to harmonize our understandings: I have said that awareness, with or without insight, of something such as a mindstate or the feeling in a mindstate that has passed must, in fact, have a mentally constructed reproduction as the actual present object, for the original is nonexistent. You, however, have spoken of a nimitta that lasts. In Ven. Nyanaponika's definition of 'nimitta', the first reading he gives pertains to meditation sign. In that definition, he describes a nimitta using the words 'mental (reflex-) image'. Those words carry much of the sense I intend when I speak of a mentally contructed reproduction. If we were to identify those two notions, that would bring our understandings closer into harmony. With metta, Howard #65364 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - Thank you for joining in. :-) In a message dated 11/15/06 10:32:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Howard > Every moment once it has passed has absolutely ceased according to > the Theravada. However, this doesn't mean that it can't be known. If > that was the case then we would be like newborn babies, only worse, > and know nothing. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Of course we know what has passed, but by recollection. And recollection is always indirect as regards what is being recalled. In a manner of speaking, it is that past event or state that is the object, but what the actual current object is has to be a currently existing phenomenon/construct. One can remember the no-longer-present nausea, say, of a minute ago, but the actual current object of consciousness is something currently existing, a "memory" or some such construct. The confusion, as I see it, comes in when we *think* about something in the past. We *speak* of that passed event as "what we are thinking about", but that language is quite conventional. The reality is a matter of current processing, and it involves only currently existing phenomena, all of which, of course, are conditioned by past phenomena. ---------------------------------------------- Direct seeing should be distinguished from > > thinking about past events but it doesn't mean that direct seeing > doesn't need sanna. Sanna arises with every citta and thus it arises > also in cittas associated with panna. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: And sa~n~na, though separated out for emphasis from the sankharakkhandha, is, in fact, a sankharic operation, a fabricating operation. ---------------------------------------------- It is so complex how it all > > comes together, just for a moment, to understand. Here are some > brief quotes: > > > QUOTE > Abhidhammattha sangaha (Anuruddha) translated as A comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > Guide (note by Bodhi) p. 136 > > "although citta experiences objects, citta in turn can become an > object. It should be noted that a citta in its immediacy cannot > become an its own object, for the cognizer cannot cognize itself; > but a citta in an individual mental continuum can experience earlier > cittas in that same continuum as well as the cittas of other beings" ---------------------------------- Howard: Sure, but I consider it conventional speech to talk of cognizing prior cognizing. ----------------------------------- > > p. 137 > > "Mind-door cittas can also cognise an object belonging to any of the > three periods of time- past present and future" ------------------------------------ Howard: Speaking of cognizing a future object is certainly conventional speech. One may imagine and project all sorts of things, but such processing is, in all its aspects, current. ------------------------------------- > > p. 138 > > "the Vibhavani tika explains: according to whether the cittas are > sense sphere javanas, direct knowledge javanas , the remaining smile- > producing javanas etc. For the sense sphere javanas...take objects > of the three times[past, present, future] and timeless objects > (nibbana and concepts]. The smile producing consciousness takes only > objects of the three times[past, present, future]. The direct > knowledge cittas take objects of the three times as well as the > timeless" > > p. 138 > > The door freed consciousness (ie. patisandhicitta, cuti citta and > bhavanga citta ) "can be of six kinds: it can be any of the five > sense objects, either past or present, or it can be a mental object" > > Robert > ========================= A *literal* object of consciousness exists now, and only now, as far as I'm concerned. With metta, Howard #65365 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:38 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily LIfe, 122. nilovg Dear friends, We may think that the enslavement to objects which are experienced through the different doorways is caused by the objects. Defilements, however, are not caused by objects, they are accumulated in the citta which experiences the object. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Fourth Fifty, chapter III, §191, Ko.t.thika) that Såriputta and Mahå-Ko.t.thika were staying near Vårånasi at Isipatana, in the Antelope Park. Koììhika said to Såriputta: ``How now, friend? Is the eye the bond of objects, or are objects the bond of the eye? Is the tongue the bond of savours, or are savours the bond of the tongue? Is mind the bond of mind-objects, or are mind- objects the bond of the mind?'' ``Not so, friend Koììhika. The eye is not the bond of objects, nor are objects the bond of the eye, but that desire and lust that arise owing to these two. That is the bond. And so with the tongue and the mind... it is the desire and lust that arise owing to savours and tongue, mind-objects and mind. Suppose, friend, two oxen, one white and one black, tied by one rope or one yoke-tie. Would one be right in saying that the black ox is the bond for the white one, or that the white one is the bond for the black one?'' ``Surely not, friend.'' ``No, friend. It is not so. But the rope or the yoke-tie which binds the two,--that is the bond that unites them. So it is with the eye and objects, with tongue and savours, with mind and mind-objects. It is the desire and lust which arise owing to them that form the bond that unites them. If the eye, friend, were the bond of objects, or if objects were the bond of the eye, then this righteous life for the utter destruction of dukkha could not be proclaimed. But since it is not so, but the desire and lust which arise owing to them are the bond, therefore is the righteous life for the utter destruction of dukkha proclaimed... There is in the Exalted One an eye, friend. The Exalted One sees an object with the eye. But in the Exalted One is no desire and lust. Wholly heart-free is the Exalted One. There is in the Exalted One a tongue... a mind. But in the Exalted One is no desire and lust. Wholly heart-free is the Exalted One. By this method, friend, you are to understand, as I said before, that the bond is the desire and lust that arise owing to things.'' ******** Nina. #65366 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:44 am Subject: Atthasalini, French. nilovg Dear Sébastien, ---------- > N: You had: Comment la conscience (c'est à dire le mental) est-elle > capable de produire une > telle variété ou diversité d'actions ? > .. telle variété d'effects par ses actions. > What about this? ---------- S: It makes sense...so the "effects" you are talking about are the product of "actions" right ? (want to be sure). ----- N: Yes, I think so. Better would be to compare the Pali, but this is not easy to find the text. ------- S: What about the meaning of "specific or generic" ? Is this related to "artistic art" opposed to "know-how art" like cooking, growing vegetables and so on ? ------ N: I think that the meaning is that all kinds are included. Again, I would like to see the Pali. --------- S: I got difficulties also with "Nay, it is even more artistic than the art itself, because the latter cannot execute every design perfectly" as an art cannot execute anything. Or is it that every piece of art can't be perfect whereas masterpieces are ? ------ N: The art is compared to what the mind can achieve. That is far more than what painters can do, even when the make a masterpiece, it can still not be compared to what citta can do. Citta can even experience nibbaana. I agree, the way the text is translated into English is not easy to understand. *** Nina. #65367 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. nilovg Hi Howard, I appreciate your interest and also the trouble you take to go into points of Abhidhamma. I will take my time, since I am also engaged with the Perfections. I come back to it later on. Nina. Op 15-nov-2006, om 15:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > > Because it does not exist! What is passed is *gone* and nonexistent. #65368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:51 am Subject: vipaka and result nilovg Dear Sébastien, For a better understanding by readers, I tweaked one phrase in ADL chapter 3 about vipaka and I would like you input Original version : "When the word “result” is used, people may think of the consequences of their deeds for other people, but “result” in the sense of vipåka has a different meaning. Vipåkacitta is a citta which experiences an unpleasant object or a pleasant object and this citta is the result of a deed we did ourselves." My version : "Parce que le mot "résultat" est utilisé, certains peuvent penser que vipaka designe les conséquences de leurs actions pour les autres individus. Mais le mot "résultat" dans le contexte de vipaka a une signification différente. Vipakacitta est un citta qui expérimente un objet plaisant ou déplaisant, et ce citta est le résultat d'actions que nous avons nous même accompli, pas le résultat d'actions accomplies par d'autres individus." What I tweaked is "ce citta est le résultat d'actions que nous avons nous même accompli, pas le résultat d'actions accomplies par d'autres individus" wich translates in english as "this citta is the result of the deeds we performed ourselves, not the result of the deeds performed by other people". Is it correct ? ______ N: pas le résultat d'actions accomplies par d'autres individus." I think this is not necessary. It explains already that kamma and vipaka is an individual matter. The original issue: the result of my action comes to myself, result of my action does not mean that I give a result to others. You turn it the other way: from others to me, but I think this is superfluous. Nina. #65369 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: ADL 119. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/15/06 3:25:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I appreciate your interest and also the trouble you take to go into > points of Abhidhamma. -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Nina! :-) ----------------------------------- > I will take my time, since I am also engaged with the Perfections. > ----------------------------------- Howard: A more important matter in my estimation. :-) ---------------------------------- I > come back to it later on. ----------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Nina. Please take your time. ------------------------------------ > Nina. > ================== With metta, Howard #65370 From: mlnease@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Naughty Buddhaghosa m_nease Hi Sarah, How very unfortunate. mike #65371 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:08 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,114 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 114. When he is confused about reappearance, instead of taking rebirth thus, 'Birth in every case is manifestation of aggregates', he figures that it is a lasting being's manifestation in a new body. ************************ 114. upapaate vimuu.lho ``sabbattha khandhaana.m paatubhaavo jaatii´´ti upapaata.m aga.nhanto ``satto upapajjati, sattassa navasariirapaatubhaavo''tiaadiini vikappeti. #65372 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi Andrew Thanks for the feedback. I'll just comment on the line that predictably caught my eye the hardest! :) > What about the Viking who stopped ravaging beautiful foreign women > because he thought they might be trolls in disguise? He > was "avoiding evil" but did he end up with lots of wisdom as a > consequence? Who knows. But if he stopped raping/ravaging and meditated as well I imagine his mind would be less prone to sexual fantasies that would motivate the next rape, there would be less ravaging and pillaging going on mentally, there would be better sleep, friendlier sailing and this would condition generally healithier mental states that might be more conducive to moments of penetrative wisdom. Don'T get me wrong - I'm not a prude or a fearful, repentant sinner - I just sense these days that commonsense approaches to watching the mind lead to more salubrious (I hope that has a good meaning) mental states, and that these are *perhaps* more likely to provide conditions for penetrative wisdom to arise. I know that trying to set up conditions is a faux pas for some but I think that there are commmon sense aspects to this that can be readily confirmed. I'll leave it there - thanks for making me think about trolls in drag! Jeez.... Phil p.s thanks also for your kind words, Sarah. You're a good friend. #65373 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Atthasalini, French. philofillet Dear Nina, Sebastien and all I've been enjoying the French. I especially liked "pernicieux" for akusala, and I think I will use it in English from now on as well. The dictionary says pernicious - "having a very harmful effec on sb/sth, especially in a way that is gradual and not easily noticed." Perfect! But for grosser defilements I'll stick with good ol' "evil." Phil p.s Sebastien, if you know of any websites where we can listen to dhamma talks in French, can you post them as a p.s in one of your posts? Thanks. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sébastien, > > ---------- > > N: You had: Comment la conscience (c'est ?Edire le mental) est- elle > > capable de produire une > > telle variét?Eou diversit?Ed'actions ? > > .. telle variét?Ed'effects par ses actions. > > What about this? > #65374 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:50 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi again Andrew and all This viking reminded me of something very interesting that happened the other day - more related to heedfulness than cutting off feeling, but I'll just slap it on here. An old drinking buddy came to Tokyo from Osaka, on his way to leaving for India in a couple of days. He used his last Sunday to look me up, so I invited him over. I haven't had any booze for a couple of months now, but since he was an old drinking friend off on a long journey, I thought it would be spiritually stingy not to have a beer. So I did. And then he brought out some hashish! Oh baby! I used to love to smoke hash. I knew full well that smoking hash makes me very randy and that I would be prone to evil thoughts, so before smoking a it I voed to be very heedful. And what do you know, before long he told me an anecdote about an orgy he was involved in in Osaka, involving some women I had been very interested in in the past. Wo! I heard the words, but what do you know, there was heedfulness of a very strong degree. Instead of taking those words and forming mental images with them, proliferating on it, I just held the mind in an image of healing purity, saw the people involved smiling, at peace, free from lust and hatred and delusion. The soiree went on, we had dinnner, he went home, and not once did my mind or has my mind visited that very tanatalizing orgy, where it would have cavorted for days in the past, if there had not been this intentional heedfulness set up. Does that condition wisdom? No, but I believe the peace of mind associated with freedom from evil thoughts doesn't hurt as much as not having that peace of mind. (Of course reall heedfulness would ahve abstained from the booze and smoke no matter what, but that is another topic.) Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Andrew > > Thanks for the feedback. I'll just comment on the line that > predictably caught my eye the hardest! :) > > > > What about the Viking who stopped ravaging beautiful foreign women > > because he thought they might be trolls in disguise? He > > was "avoiding evil" but did he end up with lots of wisdom as a > > consequence? #65375 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:50 pm Subject: Fermentation Freed ... !!! bhikkhu5 Friends: The 5 Mental Abilities is causing Enlightenment! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five mental abilities. What five? The ability of Faith (saddhÄ? ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samÄ?dhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) These are the five abilities. It is, Bhikkhus, because he has developed & cultivated these five abilities, that a Bhikkhu, by the destruction of the fermentations , in this very life enters & dwells in the stainless liberation of mind, released by wisdom, realizing it for himself with direct knowledge! Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 203] 48 The Mental Abilities: 20 Fermentation free.. For Details on the Fruits of the Abilities (indriya) see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/aasava.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/saddhaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/u_v/viriya.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sati.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/pannaa.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #65376 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:17 pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Samahita needs help christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > A little while ago I wrote to Bhikkhu Samahita and asked if there > was any thing, or any service, or any assistance which could be > provided for him (by lay supporters) which would be acceptable. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > He has responded: > > Dear friend,, > Thanx quite much for your outmost kind & open-handed invitation! > > There is no electricity at my forest meditation hut. So far I have > used a generator, but my knees are not exactly screaming happy after > having carried kerosene fuel 3 miles uphill. It is too remote to > connect to > grid, but 12-24 volt battery off-grid will also do. Best energy > source here > is a creek nearby. A micro-hydro-power-generator (Canadian seen > below) > is thus needed. Total cost incl. stream-machine, cable and tubing = > ~2500$ >> Hello all, Those wishing to assist Bhikkhu Samahita may send Dana to: Donations per Paypal to account: dhammadhara@... Donations per Creditcard: Click on [Make a Donation] button lowest on this page: http://what-buddha-said.net/various/appreciations.htm "Five blessings accrue to the giver of Alms: the affection of many, noble association, good reputation, self-confidence, and heavenly rebirth". (A. V,34) metta Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #65377 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cutting off at feeling nilovg Hi Phil, There were conditions for not giving in, all your study and listening to the Dhamma, seeing more the danger of akusala. The Buddha said that good friendship is most important, and you knew who is a good friend and who is not. In a situation you described it can be difficult to avoid a person who comes by. I appreciate your kusala citta. It is a good story with examples how different conditions work: will akusala accumulations or kusala accumulations condition the present citta? Nobody can predict this. Whatever happens, it teaches us the anattaness of cittas. Cittas perform their functions already according to conditions, before we realize it, they have arisen. With appreciation, Nina. Op 16-nov-2006, om 3:50 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > (Of course reall heedfulness would ahve abstained from the booze > and smoke no matter what, but that is another topic.) #65378 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:35 am Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi Nina > There were conditions for not giving in, all your study and listening > to the Dhamma, seeing more the danger of akusala. Yes, soemtimes it seems I am drenching myself in Dhamma and that drenching works. The drenching protects to a certain extent. There are conditions for this drenching that are unpredicatble. Six months or so ago there was a period of not being interested in Dhamma and being interested in other things. These periods come and go in an unpredictable way. The Buddha said > that good friendship is most important, and you knew who is a good > friend and who is not. In a situation you described it can be > difficult to avoid a person who comes by. I appreciate your kusala > citta. Yes, when I was a kid I had an uncle who always made it clear that he didn't drink because he disapproved. (Another uncle killed himself, and there was alcohol involved, I think.) I don't want to be like that. When my brother visits Japan next year, I will have to take him to some of the fun drinking spots here, the yaki-tori shops and whatnot. And I will have a drink with my brother as a kind of duty. Otherwise I have no interest in it these days. That of course is unpredictable. The demon lurks. Another consideration I could have made the other day that drinking or doing drugs is harmful for the other as well. Whether it seemed stuffy or not, I could have abstained for *his* good as well. Something to keep reflecting on. It is a good story with examples how different conditions > work: will akusala accumulations or kusala accumulations condition > the present citta? Nobody can predict this. Whatever happens, it > teaches us the anattaness of cittas. Cittas perform their functions > already according to conditions, before we realize it, they have arisen. I still do appreciate this, Nina, despite the wanting-to-be-in- control tone of my recent posts. When there is transgression there can be gratitude to the Buddha for having taught us about how little control there ultimately is, about the truth of dukkha, and there can be freedom in this, rejoicing in this, as you were telling James recently. And there can be stepped-up efforts to be heedful as well, when there are conditions for that. (Usually conditioned by staying open to the Buddha's teaching.) Phil > With appreciation, > Nina. > Op 16-nov-2006, om 3:50 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > > > (Of course reall heedfulness would ahve abstained from the booze > > and smoke no matter what, but that is another topic.) #65379 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Naughty Buddhaghosa sarahprocter... Hi James, (Joop & all), > Message from James which he says I may f/w to DSG > ================================================== > But > then > he burns the old Attakathas of Mahinda and leaves no trace of verifying > the correctness of his translations. > The surprising part is that Sri Lankans allow him to do that. As is well > > known these Attakathas are full of miracles and superhuman ideas, not in > > consonance with the original ideas of the Buddha.” > http://www.sikhspectrum.com/012003/k_jamanadas.htm .... S: There is no evidence to suggest that Buddhaghosa burned the old Attakathas. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the Attakathas of the ancient commentaries were not 'in consonance with the original ideas of the Buddha'. Metta, Sarah ======== #65380 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cutting off at feeling nilovg Hi Phil, We cannot predict how the cittas will be next year, but as you said, another consideration could be the welfare of someone else, in this case your brother. It is good to ask oneself whether drinking can be considered a duty. But preaching to your brother will not help him. Cittas cannot be prescribed what to do in a particular situation, nor in your case nor in your brother's case. Perhaps he may be more interested in all the cultural events such as Kabuki. Or the beautiful temples you could take him to, or interesting walks. Or sword fighting. Keep him busy with other things, Japan has to offer a lot. Then there will not be time for pubs, those must be dull and boring, always the same. Nina Op 16-nov-2006, om 10:35 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > When my brother visits Japan next year, I will have to > take him to some of the fun drinking spots here, the yaki-tori shops > and whatnot. And I will have a drink with my brother as a kind of > duty. #65381 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:11 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 581 - The Stages of Insight(c) 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;-) =============================================== The Stages of Insight contd The first stage of insight, which is only a beginning stage, is the understanding of the difference between the characteristic of nåma and the characteristic of rúpa, not merely in theory but through direct understanding of them when they appear. The first stage of insight is called Defining of nåma and rúpa, or “Delimitation of Formations” (in Påli: nåma-rúpa-pariccheda-ñåùa). The following stages of insight, which are higher stages, cannot be realized before the first stage of insight. Thus, the impermanence of, for example, seeing cannot be realized if there is no clear understanding first of the characteristic of seeing as nåma, different from rúpa. We know in theory that seeing does not stay, that it must have fallen away when there is thinking of a concept, but this does not mean that the arising and falling away of seeing at this moment is directly known. Seeing and visible object may still seem to appear together, and then there is no mindfulness of one reality at a time but only thinking about seeing and visible object. ***** The Stages of Insight to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65382 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:38 am Subject: re ADL 119. nimitta. nilovg Hi Howard, I shall try to say more about nimitta, but this is a difficult subject for me. I have not yet understood it completely. -------- Kh Sujin said: dhammas are arising and > falling away very quickly and only the nimitta, the sign remains. > There is the nimitta of rupakkhandha, saññakkhandha, of all khandhas. > ======================== What khandha do nimittas fall under? If the sign is something that remains, what is it? Nama or rupa, of what exact sort, and how long does it last? (Or do nimittas constitute a 6th khandha?) In Ven. Nyanaponika's definition of 'nimitta', the first reading he gives pertains to meditation sign. In that definition, he describes a nimitta using the words 'mental (reflex-) image'. Those words carry much of the sense I intend when I speak of a mentally contructed reproduction. If we were to identify those two notions, that would bring our understandings closer into harmony. ---------- N: There are different meanings of nimitta. It can be as said above, the mental image of for example a kasina. When one looks at it again and again one acquires a mental image and does not need to look at it any longer. Further, it can mean the outward appearance and details of things by which we are misled. We believe that we see people and things and cling to all the details. This is the second meaning. Then there is a third meaning and this pertains to sankhaara nimitta, the nimitta of conditioned dhammas, of the five khandhas, of nama and rupa. We find this meaning in the Path of Discrimination and also elsewhere. Ven. Bodhi also mentioned this meaning in his notes. Nibbaana is animitta, it is without nimitta. I repeat: dhammas are arising and > falling away very quickly and only the nimitta, the sign remains. > There is the nimitta of rupakkhandha, saññakkhandha, of all khandhas. Thus, this meaning is different from the second meaning. This reminds us of the impermanence of nama and rupa. We cannot get hold of them, they have already fallen away. One may ask: how is it possible to begin to develop understanding of what falls away immediately? Answer: yes, we can begin, but understanding can become more precise when the first stage of principal understanding, mahaa-vipassanaa ~naa.na, is reached. Then insight realizes the arising and falling away of nama and rupa. But if there could not be any beginning we would be like a baby as Rob K said. The fact that we know only a nimitta can remind us that we are at the beginning, that we cannot have precise understanding yet. But, it would be wrong to think that it is impossible to be mindful of what has just fallen away, then we would be nowhere. ---------- H: In an attempt to harmonize our understandings: I have said that awareness, with or without insight, of something such as a mindstate or the feeling in a mindstate that has passed must, in fact, have a mentally constructed reproduction as the actual present object, for the original is nonexistent. You, however, have spoken of a nimitta that lasts. ------- N: I know that you use awareness as cognition, whereas I use this word as mindfulness. Nimitta in the second sense is an image of lasting beings and things. Nimitta as sankhara nimitta is referring to conditioned dhammas and it is not the same as the second sense. I said that the nimitta remains, but not in the sense of a lasting thing. It is just a reminder of the rapidity with which the nama or rupa that was the object of mindfulness has fallen away. When there is mindfulness we do not have to think of a mentally constructed reproduction as the actual present object. That thinking takes too long. There is just a beginning to attend to characteristics that appear. Then hardness, then visible object, then seeing, then unpleasant feeling. I shall still go to your other points. Nina. #65383 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: >and a sutta that I also can't > locate > that speaks about reaching the end of the world, saying something along > the > lines of the end of the world not being reachable by traveling, but by > uprooting craving, aversion, and delusion. ... S: I think this one is the Rohitassa Sutta. This is taken from Nina's ADL: >In the 'Gradual Savings' (Book of the Fours, Ch.V,par. 5, Rohitassa) we read that Rohitassa, a deva, asked the Buddha about reaching the world's end. He said to the Buddha: 'Pray, lord, is it possible for us, by going, to know, to see, to reach world's end, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more dying, no more falling (from one existence) and rising up (in another)?' 'Your reverence, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more dying, no more falling from one existence and rising up in another, I declare that that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached.' 'It is wonderful, lord! It is marvellous, lord, how well it is said by the Exalted One: "Where there is no more being born... that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached!" ' 'Formerly, lord, I was the hermit called Rohitassa, Bhoja's son, one of psychic power, a sky-walker... The extent of my stride was as the distance between the eastern and the western oceans. To me, lord, possessed of such speed and of such a stride, there came a longing thus: I will reach world's end by going.' 'But, lord, not to speak of (the time spent over) food and drink, eating, tasting and calls of nature, not to speak of struggles to banish sleep and weariness, though my life-span was a hundred years, though I lived a hundred years, though I travelled a hundred years, yet I reached not world's end but died ere that. Wonderful indeed, lord! Marvellous it is, lord, how well it has been said by the Exalted One: "Your reverence, where there is no more being born... that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached." ' 'But, your reverence, I declare not that there is any making an end of ill without reaching world's end. Nay, your reverence, in this very fathom-long body, along with its perceptions and thoughts, I proclaim the world to be, likewise the origin of the world and the making of the world to end, likewise the practice going to the ending of the world. Not to be reached by going is world's end. Yet there is no release for man from ill. Unless he reach world's end -Then let a man Become world-knower, wise, world-ender, Let him be one who lives the holy life. Knowing the world's end by becoming calmed. He longs not for this world or another';. (In Pali: Brahmacariya.)< ***** Metta, Sarah ====== #65384 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:16 am Subject: Re: re ADL 119. nimitta. philofillet Hi Nina, Howard and all Yesterday I found this exchange in a notebook, from India 2005 - it might be relevant. Sarah: You seem to be talking about nimitta and characteristics interchangeably. Acharn Sujin: Why not,because without the characteristic how can there be nimitta? Jon: She always ends with a riddle... phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > I shall try to say more about nimitta, but this is a difficult > subject for me. I have not yet understood it completely. #65385 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Han & all, --- han tun wrote: ... > Nina: As to no Lodewijk: I read to him from Milinda's > Q. about: there is no Nagasena, and he found that the > way it is so carefully explained clear. I wanted to > quote here, but I have no time to type. I do not know > whether it is on list. > > Han: If it is about the King asking Ven. Nagasena, > “What is your name?”, and later on, Ven. Nagasena > asking the King to show him the chariot, I have it. It > is “pannatti panha” in Milinda Panha. Yes, it is a > good reminder of anattaa. .... S: Here is the good section you refer to: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nagasena.htm#chariot >THE CHARIOT And King Milinda asked him: "How is Your Reverence known, and what is your name, sir?" "As Nagasena I am known, O Great King, and as Nagasena do my fellow religious habitually address me. But although parents give name such as Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, nevertheless, this word "Nagasena" is just a denomination, a designation, a conceptual term, a current appellation, a mere name. For no real person can here be apprehended." But King Milinda explained: "Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person! How can I be expected to agree with that!" And to Nagasena he said: "If, Most Reverend Nagasena, no person can be apprehended in reality, who then, I ask you, gives you what you require by way of robes, food, lodging, and medicines? Who is it that guards morality, practises meditation, and realizes the [Four] Paths and their Fruits, and thereafter Nirvana? Who is it that killing living beings, takes what is not given, commits sexual misconduct, tell lies, drinks intoxicants? Who is it that commits the Five Deadly Sins? For, if there were no person, there could ne no merit and no demerit; no doer of meritorious or demeritorious deeds, and no agent behind them; no fruit of good and evil deeds, and no reward or punishment for them. If someone should kill you, O Venerable Nagasena, would not be a real teacher, or instructor, or ordained monk! You just told me that your fellow religious habitually address you as "Nagasena". Then, what is this "Nagasena"? Are perhaps the hairs of the head "Nagasena?" "No, Great King!" "Or perhaps the nails, teeth, skin, muscles, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, serous membranes, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, the bile, phlegm, pus, blood, grease, fat, tears, sweat, spittle, snot, fluid of the joints, urine, or the brain in the skull-are they this "Nagasena"?" "No, Great King!" "Or is "Nagasena" a form, or feelings, or perceptions, or impulses, or consciousness?" "No, Great King!" Then is it the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?" "No, Great King!" "Then is it outside the combination of form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?" "No, Great King!" "Then, ask as I may, I can discover no Nagasena at all. This "Nagasena" is just a mere sound, but who is the real Nagasena? Your Reverence has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no Nagasena!" Thereupon, the Venerable Nagasena said to King Milinda: "As a king you have been brought up in great refinement and you avoid roughness of any kind. If you would walk at midday on this hot, burning, and sandy ground, then your feet would have to trend on the rough and gritty gravel and pebbles, and they would hurt you, your body would get tired, your mind impaired, and your awareness of your body would be associated with pain. How then did you come on foot, or on a mount?" "I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot." "If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?" "No, Reverend Sir!" "Is then the axle the chariot?" "No, Reverend Sir!" "Is it then the wheels, or the framework, of the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goad-stick?" "No, Reverend Sir!" "Then is it the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the "chariot"?" "No, Reverend Sir!" "Then, is this "chariot" outside the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins and goad?" "No, Reverend Sir!" "Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot! Your Majesty is the greatest king in the whole of India. Of whom then are you afraid, that you do not speak the truth?" And he exclaimed: "Now listen, you 500 Greeks and 80,000 monks, this King Milinda tells me that he has come on a chariot. But when asked to explain to me what a chariot is, he cannot establish its existence. How can one possibly approve of that?" The 500 Greeks thereupon applauded the Venerable Nagasena and said to King Milinda: "Now let You Majesty get out of that if you can!" But King Milinda said to Nagasena: "I have not, Nagasena, spoken a falsehood. For it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework, the flag-staff, etc, there takes place this denomination "chariot", this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name." "Your Majesty has spoken well about the chariot. It is just so with me. In dependence on the thirty-two parts of the body and the five Skandhas, there takes place this denomination "Nagasena", this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name. In ultimate realtiy, however, this person cannot be apprehended. And this has been said by our sister Vajira when she was face to face with the Lord Buddha: "Where all constituent parts are present, the word "a chariot" is applied. So, likewise, where the skandhas are, the term a "being" commonly is used." "It is wonderful, Nagasena, it is astonishing, Nagasena! Most brilliantly have these questions been answered! Were the Lord Buddha Himself here, He would approve what you have said. Well spoken, Nagasena! Well spoken!"< ***** Metta, Sarah ===== #65386 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:50 am Subject: Re: re ADL 119. nimitta. philofillet Hi again By chance, another relevant passage as I recopied a notebook. It is the Sayadaw U. Silananda talking about satipatthana. "In contemplation of citta, is is citta conscious of another, a subject citta and object citta. How can that be, since only one citta can arise at a moment? Actually, the object consciousness is a little past, but in the context of abhidhamma, it is called present, so don't bother about this when you practice." i.e don't be bothered by trying to figure it out, I guess. We'll get distracted. I heard "don't try to figure out too many things, it distracts us from the present moment" or words to that effect from Acharn Sujin. That doesn't always apply, of course. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Nina, Howard and all > > Yesterday I found this exchange in a notebook, from India 2005 - > it might be relevant. > > Sarah: You seem to be talking about nimitta and characteristics > interchangeably. > > Acharn Sujin: Why not,because without the characteristic how can > there be nimitta? > > Jon: She always ends with a riddle... > > phil > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > I shall try to say more about nimitta, but this is a difficult > > subject for me. I have not yet understood it completely. > #65387 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Naughty Buddhaghosa jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, (Joop & all), > .... > S:There is no evidence to suggest that Buddhaghosa burned the old > Attakathas. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the Attakathas > the ancient commentaries were not 'in consonance with the original ideas of the Buddha'. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > Hallo Sarah, James, all This aspect about the Attakathas is no problem for me: I'm sure you are right. The problem is if Buddhaghosa has given an interpretation of some of the original ideas of the Buddha that a little bit changed the perspective on it. I will not repeat myself but give two quotes of Kalupahana's chapters 'The emergence of absolutism' and 'Buddhaghosa, the harmonizer' of his book 'A history of buddhist philosophy' (p. 206- 216) "The Buddha's tough-minded approach towards theories of knowledge, conceptions of reality, morals, and language made him adopt a middle standpoint avoiding the extremes of absolutism, both eternalistic and nihilistic. Yet this was not a very comfortable modus operandi for some of his disciples, who had been born and reared in absolutistic Brahmanistic surroundings. The emergence of absolutistic tendencies can be perceived borth during the Buddha's lifetime and after his death. (p.123) (A remark before: essentialism is an aspect of re-brahmanization) "...demonstrates Buddhaghosa's capacity to harmonize several strands of thought that had been then emerged in the Buddhist tradition. The categories that created much controversy among Buddhists - namely, the particular or the unique (sabhava) and the universal or the abstract (samanmna) - are here introduced under the guise of characteristics (lakhana), and came to be identified as such in later manuals…. Thus the particular (sabhava, salakkhana) came to be looked upon as the absolutely unique character not shared by anything else (anannasadharana), the universal (samanna) being identified with the common or the shared (sadharana). This was more or less the standpoint of the essentialists. With the pursuit of such a essentialist conceptual enterprise, the explanation of events in terms of their dependence (paticcasamuppada) was relegated to the background." (p. 211) "The fact that this is an essentialist enterprise is made clear by his analysis of human life into discrete momentary events, which he justifies by quoting a passage that is supposed to be from the Buddha but that has not yet been traced in any of the early discourses [Vism. p.328]." (p.212) Metta Joop #65388 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - Thank you! That is exactly what I was looking for! (And it is also the same sutta I wanted that said "Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." You have provided just what I was looking for - thank you so much! With metta, Howard > ... > S: I think this one is the Rohitassa Sutta. This is taken from Nina's ADL: > > >In the 'Gradual Savings' (Book of the Fours, Ch.V,par. 5, Rohitassa) > we read that Rohitassa, a deva, asked the Buddha about reaching the > world's end. He said to the Buddha: > > 'Pray, lord, is it possible for us, by going, to know, to see, to reach > world's end, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more > dying, no more falling (from one existence) and rising up (in another)?' > #65389 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:37 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 123. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 17 Doors and Physical Bases of Citta. The Buddha pointed out the dangers of being infatuated with the objects we experience through the six doors. He taught people to develop the wisdom which knows the realities experienced through the six doors as nåma and rúpa, phenomena which are impermanent and non- self. What is impermanent is ``dukkha'', it cannot be happiness. When we come to know things as they are, we will be less infatuated with objects. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Sa.låyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, chapter III, §81, A brother) about the purpose of the Buddha's teachings. The text states: Then a number of monks came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side those monks said to the Exalted One:-- ``Now here, lord, the wandering sectarians thus question us: `What is the objective, friend, for which the holy life is lived under the rule of Gotama the recluse?' Thus questioned, lord, we thus make answer to those wandering sectarians: `It is for the full knowledge of dukkha that the holy life is lived under the rule of the Exalted One.' Pray, lord, when, thus questioned, we so make answer, do we state the views of the Exalted One, without misrepresenting the Exalted One by stating an untruth? Do we answer in accordance with his teaching, so that no one who agrees with his teaching and follows his views could incur reproach?'' ``Truly, monks, when thus questioned you thus make answer, you do state my views... in stating that it is for the full knowledge of dukkha that the holy life is lived under my rule. But if, monks, the wandering sectarians should thus question you: `But what, friend, is that dukkha, for the full knowledge of which the holy life is lived under the rule of Gotama the recluse?'--thus questioned you should answer thus: `The eye, friend is dukkha. For the full knowledge of that the holy life is lived... Objects... that pleasant or unpleasant or indifferent feeling that arises through eye- contact... the mind... that pleasant or unpleasant or indifferent feeling that arises through mind-contact, --that also is dukkha. Fully to know that, the holy life is lived under the rule of the Exalted One.' Thus questioned, monks, by those wandering sectarians, thus should you make answer.'' ____ Nina. #65390 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: re ADL 119. nimitta. nilovg Hi Howard, so, it is the nimitta of visible object, of seeing, etc. They have characteristics and appear, now. And we are also reminded: they have fallen away. This does not mean that nimitta is something lasting. Citta with awareness is aware of the following characteristic, which may be feeling. Not precise yet, it is the nimitta of feeling. Nimitta reminds us also: the understanding is not precise yet. But it will be if we have endless patience and persevere. We are not mindful of feeling in abstracto, but of pleasant, unpleasant or indifferent feeling. Perhaps I misunderstood your words, that the object is just feeling? But we do not have to name it, feeling is different all the time. Nina. Op 16-nov-2006, om 13:16 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Sarah: You seem to be talking about nimitta and characteristics > interchangeably. > > Acharn Sujin: Why not,because without the characteristic how can > there be nimitta? #65391 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Art or Asubha? '-Kamma Strikes Back!'( Re: some points on art) nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you very much for the quote about Nagasena and the link. I saved it, Nina. #65392 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Naughty Buddhaghosa nilovg Hi Sarah, I went to the link, and now I understand why some people cannot think otherwise than the way they think. It is really conditioned. This link is the Sikh spectrum. The author describes events the way he sees it. He just cannot see it otherwise. Nina. Op 16-nov-2006, om 11:07 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > > > Message from James which he says I may f/w to DSG > > ================================================== > > But > > then > > he burns the old Attakathas of Mahinda and leaves no trace of > verifying > > the correctness of his translations. > > The surprising part is that Sri Lankans allow him to do that. As > is well > > > > known these Attakathas are full of miracles and superhuman ideas, > not in > > > > consonance with the original ideas of the Buddha.” > > http://www.sikhspectrum.com/012003/k_jamanadas.htm > .... >> . > > #65393 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:10 pm Subject: re ADL 119 nilovg Hi Howard, ---------- N: We have learnt about the different processes of cittas, sense-door > processes and mind-door processes. It is helpful to have such > foundation knowledge, it enables us to understand that cittas arise > and fall away extremely fast. > ------------------------------------ Howard: A truism, but not one which bears on the question at hand. ------------------------------------ N: It does bear on it, it does bear on the understanding of sankhara nimitta. It does bear on what can be known and what not yet. Visible object is experienced in an eyedoor process, and immediately after this it is experienced in a mind-door process. It has just fallen away, but it (let us say a photo copy or the nimitta) is experienced through the mind-door. It is so fast that to you and me it is just as if it is still experienced by seeing in the eye-door process. So long as the first stage of insight has not been reached, we do not realize the difference in these processes. Moreover, visible object impinges again and again, there are eye-door processes and mind-door processes again and again. ---------- Quote N: But now, when we speak about > > mindfulness, we do not count the processes, it is too fast anyway. We > do not think of doorways. Can we not experience a characteristic that > appears, such as seeing or unpleasant feeling? There is no need to > think: this is a constructed memory, or: it has fallen away already. -------------------------------------- Howard: Well, there's no NEED to consider any of this. But we are looking at claims and examining what sense to make of them. ------------------------------------ N: > As you said, you do not need to memorize a list, and this is not the > aim of the Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------- Howard: Nonetheless, if Abhidhamma, or any other body of thought, is to be examined, it needs to be done fastidiously, not shrugging off matters that are uncomfortably amorphous. ----------------------------------------- N: Not shrugging off, but I am careful not to get into speculation about matters that are beyond me, or that have the danger of abstractions. I always keep in mind;` how can this help satipatthana now, which is, as you agree: the way to liberation. ------- Quote: > The Abhidhamma reminds us: these are elements arising because of > conditions, they are already there when the conditions are present, > and "we" cannot make them different from what they are, we do not > create them. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it does. But that is unrelated to the issue under discussion. ---------------------------------------- N: Yes, it is related all the time to our issues. What are the objects sati can be mindful of. To what purpose are we discussing all this. **** Nina. #65394 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas as part of a namarupic stream (was, Books on Dhamma) hantun1 Dear Howard and Sarah (and Nina), I was also looking for the same sutta (AN 4.45) where the Buddha talked about the fathom-long body. I inserted Pali words taken from the Pali text of the sutta for those who are interested in Pali. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body (imasamim byaama-matte kalebara), with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos (loka), the origination of the cosmos (loka-samudaya), the cessation of the cosmos (loka-nirodha), and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos (loka-nirodha-gaamini-patipadaa)." The significance of this paragraph is that the Nibbana is not far away from the body; if one contemplates on the fathom-long body (i.e. naam and ruupa as Nina used to say) one can realize the liberation from loka. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #65395 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cutting off at feeling corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Andrew and Phil, > Kh Sujin would place the purifying of the mind first of all. I > understand this, because without understanding we can perform kusala > and avoid akusala to a certain extent, conditioned by our accumulated > inclinations, but never very effectively. When I say: understanding, > I am also thinking of the degree that knows: this is kusala, this is > akusala. > This can also be known outside Buddhism, but the Buddha taught in > detail about all the kusala cittas and akusala cittas and their > conditions. Pa~n~na to the degree of satipatthana is the condition > most of all to perform kusala and avoid akusala. Dear Nina Thanks for this very clear explanation. We can study in Abhidhamma what is kusala and what is akusala, but knowing it directly is a problem as we are prone to confusing an akusala dhamma with what we have read about a kusala dhamma. I think both Phil and I have confidence in a conditioning link between Dhamma study and the arising of panna in varying degrees, but we recognise that we don't understand that link and are therefore reluctant to "second guess" the precise mechanics of it. For that reason, Phil (I think) says that he takes a "commonsense" view of "do this" and "don't do that" statements. That's why I like Khun Sujin's emphasis on a "natural" approach. Things are conditioned, not controlled - so the focus goes off controling and onto understanding. That doesn't mean there is a cessation of "doing" - but, in my experience, it tends to lead to a degree of detachment from the doing. Is this how you read Khun Sujin's talk of "natural"? Best wishes Andrew #65396 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:06 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling corvus121 Hi Phil You wrote: > Don'T get me wrong - I'm not a prude or a fearful, repentant > sinner - I just sense these days that commonsense approaches to > watching the mind lead to more salubrious (I hope that has a good > meaning) mental states, and that these are *perhaps* more likely to > provide conditions for penetrative wisdom to arise. I know that > trying to set up conditions is a faux pas for some but I think that > there are commmon sense aspects to this that can be readily > confirmed. I think we are pretty much on the same page - see my post to Nina. I like to think of things being natural rather than forced, so no benefit in getting hung up about ideas of what I should or shouldn't be doing. I do what I do - it would be beneficial to understand why. That understanding is (somehow) a force for change. > I'll leave it there - thanks for making me think about trolls in > drag! Jeez.... I thought you'd like the troll reference! (-: A favourite trick of theirs, apparently, to appear as a beautiful maiden and later, at the most delicate of moments, to change back into their natural state! The worst insult you could hurl at a Viking was to say he had been seduced by a troll! Back to Dhamma ... Best wishes Andrew PS no reply expected. #65397 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:13 pm Subject: Trying not to try (Was: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Joop, ----------- K: "As I said, I thought vayama and viriya were two names for the same cetasika. So I don't know what BB means by that. Do you?" J: Yes, I do: he did not use 'vayama' as a cetasika but as a path factor! The 8 path factors can not be translated or reduced to cetasikas because they are not dhammas that 'happen' but things to do, that's my opinion and I think BB's too. (I already know this is not your opinion and not Jon's for example because I discussed with him about this too) ----------- As you say later, this might be a good place to end our discussion. We still disagree, but at least we know where we disagree. :-) ------------------- KK: > > "I suspect he is saying, "Don't let the teaching of no self prevent you from practising vipassana as if it were just an ordinary, conventional, teaching." Therefore, I think Bhikkhu Bodhi is missing the point of anatta." J: > Bhikkhu Bodhi is perhaps still a wordling and failable in explaining the Dhamma. But saying that he is missing the point of anatta is not very modest said. ------------------- No it isn't very modest, but if two people disagree on what is Dhamma and what is not Dhamma then each must say that the other is missing the point. Otherwise, each would have to say that the other was deliberately contradicting the Dhamma, and that would be an infinitely more serious accusation. B. Bodhi is a good translator, but he admits to not agreeing with everything he translates. He believes that the Abhidhamma was a "later addition" to the ancient texts, so I suppose that would make him feel entitled to disagree with part of it. You know more about BB than I do, so perhaps you could tell me if he is still regarded as a Theravadin monk. I believe he took up permanent residence in a Mahayana monastery two or three years ago. ----------------------- J: > Perhaps you (and some other DSG-participants) and forgetting the middle-way-idea and making 'anatta' an absolute doctrine. Two arguments for that idea: - anatta is only one of the three 'marks', anicca and dukkha are forgotten for the "anatta-yanas" or "anatta-vadas" (followers of anatta, a term I made myself) - the Buddha used 'anatta' not as an absolute, a metaphysical, an ontological principle; He used it as a means, soteriological: contemplating it and expiencing it helps in the process in awakening ------------------------ I disagree with your proposition that anatta, as an absolute doctrine, would be contrary to the Middle Way. The first argument for that idea is unfounded. I am sure no one at DSG has forgotten anicca and dukkha in the process of understanding anatta. The second argument is a dangerous one. It gives the impression that anatta is not an absolute fact but a mere technique (to aid meditation). I don't know if that is what you meant, but you wouldn't be the first to make that dangerous argument. -------------------------------------- J: > If you don't mind: I think this is the right moment to stop this thread, with you getting the last word of course. --------------------------------------- I don't mind at all. Thank you for the discussion, and thank you for giving me the last word. :-) Ken H #65398 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Cutting off at feeling corvus121 Hi Phil Great story! Thanks for sharing it. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > The soiree went on, we had dinnner, he went home, and not once did > my mind or has my mind visited that very tanatalizing orgy, where it > would have cavorted for days in the past, if there had not been this > intentional heedfulness set up. There is intention tied up with everything we do - and it is conditioned. The degree of heedfulness you experienced - do you believe it was conditioned by: A. past doing; B. past understanding; C. a combination of past doing with understanding? I'd vote for C as the more accurate answer. I think you have to be careful that you don't convince yourself the answer is A. > Does that condition wisdom? No, but I believe the peace of mind > associated with freedom from evil thoughts doesn't hurt as much as > not having that peace of mind. Hmm, but "peace of mind" isn't *the* cause of "absence of evil thoughts". It won't get rid of accumulated tendencies for evil thoughts in any simple, formulaic way. > (Of course reall heedfulness would ahve abstained from the booze > and smoke no matter what, but that is another topic.) :~)) Best wishes Andrew PS again, no reply expected. You've given me lots of food for thought. Thanks. #65399 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:24 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 114 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 114, Intro: Someone who believes in a lasting being is not only confused about death, but also about rebirth. He thinks of himself as a lasting being who transmigrates from the present life to another life. ------------ Text Vis.: 114. When he is confused about reappearance, instead of taking rebirth thus, 'Birth in every case is manifestation of aggregates', he figures that it is a lasting being's manifestation in a new body. ----------- N: As to the expression, ‘ 'Birth in every case is manifestation of aggregates', the Tiika adds that this is the first becoming of the khandhas everywhere in the kinds of existence. He is ignorant of the truth that from the first moment of life on the khandhas, nama and rupa, arise and then fall away. As to the expression, ‘ manifestation in a new body’, the Tiika adds that after he has put down his decrepit body, there is birth of a new body that is connected with another world. He takes on a new body when he goes to another world into which he is reborn. The Tiika states: As some teachers say: ‘when he has abandoned his worn out cloths, a man puts on some other, new cloths. Evenso, when someone has abandoned his decrepit body, he is happy to take on a new self.’ ------------ Conclusion: The belief in a self that is reborn is caused by ignorance and wrong view. One sees past lives as well as future lives as belonging to a lasting being. Thus, one is ignorant of the past and the future. One is also ignorant of the present so long as one does not realize the true nature of the khandhas, of naama and ruupa that arise and then fall away completely. At each moment there is in the ultimate sense birth and death of the five khandhas. This will be seen more clearly when insight has been developed to the stage of direct understanding of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. ******* Nina.