#68200 From: connie Date: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:23 pm Subject: silent letters nichiconn dear me ======= ps. little red colette, thanks for your beautiful thoughts and ;) nice touch with the stilletto, too! feelin' groovy. (ugh) this reminded me of something you were saying (on order of arising): << ...if a sense object is within range, but the act of consciousness does not contact the object, the latter will not become an object condition (aaramma.napaccaya) for consciousness. (Net of Views) >> where do we go from here? o, right, (mis)perception. More Net of Views: In talking about 'unravelling what is false': << A third statement has not come down here, but it should be understood as implicit. For the greedy man, like the angry man, does not understand the meaning of what is spoken. >> the verses (A.VII.6.11 & It.III.4.9, where anger & greed are each called 'an agent of harm' & 'a disturbance of mind') end: << The danger produced on account of this - That the people do not understand. >> Way down the road, we read: << "Would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?" - this links up with the simile of the raft: "Even (wholesome dhammas must be abandoned, bhikkhus, much more then (unwholesome) dhammas" (M.22). "You would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves" - this links up with the teaching: "The greedy man does not know the meaning" (It.III.4.9). >> SnA = Suttanipaata-A.t.thakatha (a.t.thakathaa = cy) Cp.A. = Cariyaapi.taka-A.t.thakathaa (cy to basket of conduct) etc. sometimes see Spk around here, too, but i don't know what it is. (anyone? - thanks). more baubles later, c #68201 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:06 pm Subject: The Four Foundations of Awareness! bhikkhu5 Friends: Establishing the 4 Foundations of Awareness! What, friends, are these 4 Foundations of Awareness? While always acutely alert & clearly comprehending, thus removing any lust, urge, envy, frustration, & discontent rooted in this world, The intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating & regarding any & all Body as an alien frame of filthy foul form... As something bound to emerge, decay and vanish... Not as mine, belonging to me or self! Not as lasting, stable & safe! Not as pleasant beauty & happiness! The intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating & regarding any & all Feeling as a banal ever recurring reactivity... As something bound to arising, decay & fade away! Not mine, belonging to me or my self! Not as lasting, stable & safe! Not as ever pleasure & all happiness! The intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating & regarding any & all Mind as a habituated set of bizarre mentalities of a queer nature to appear, dwindle, flutter & flicker... Not as I, me, ego or any self! Neither lasting, stable nor safe! Not as pleasant! Not as happiness! The intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating & regarding any & all Phenomena as mentally constructed appearances of only transitory manifestation always ending right where they arised. Not as mine, belonging to me or self! Not as something lasting, stable, or real! Not as something existent, pleasant, beautiful or attractive! This is the fourfold Foundation of Awareness...!!! This - only this - is the sole way to the purification of beings!!! Why is it actually so? It is an indispensable support for presence that has to stand near! It has to be made manifest to be of service as a guarding activity! It has to be established as continuous dominance of comprehension! It is essential & absolutely necessary for optimizing any behaviour! It is a crucially needed key, imperative for preventing all mistakes! It is a vitally fundamental prerequisite for guidance & self-control! It is the only thing that can overcome relapses of careless neglect! Details On Four Foundations of Awareness (Sati ): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Awareness_Sati.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Clear_Comprehension.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/One_and_only_Way.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_is_Right_Awareness.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/wheel370.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68202 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Herman & all, Another great therii....Therii Sumanaa This is also relevant to questions about parinibbana (such as one Herman recently asked me about the Buddha's parinibbana). No Buddha, no Therii Tissaa in an ultimate sense - just 'elements as pain' (dhaatuyo dhukkhato). --- connie wrote: > PRUITT: > Seeing the elements as pain is the verse by Theri Sumanaa.... > 14. Seeing the elements as pain, do not come to birth again. > Discarding desire for existence, you will wander, stilled. <...> > At the end of the verse she attained Arahatship. > 14. There, seeing (dhaatuyo) the elements as pain means: seeing with the eye of knowledge the elements such as the eye, etc, (cakkaadidhaatuyo) which constitute one's own continuity, and other [elements] too, as pain because of the oppression of rise and fall, etc. Do not come to birth again means: do not go to birth, to renewed existence in the future again. Discarding desire (chanda.m) for existence means: abandoning by means of the path, which is called absence of passion, the desire and craving (ta.nhaa-chanda.m) for all existence beginning with existence dominated by sensual pleasure. You will wander, stilled means you will live, quenched, through thorough elimination of the defilements.< > > VRI / TEXT: > Ettha ca "dhaatuyo dukkhato disvaa"ti iminaa dukkhaanupassanaamukhena > vipassanaa dassitaa. "Bhave chanda.m viraajetvaa"ti iminaa maggo, > "upasantaa carissasii"ti iminaa sa-upaadisesaa nibbaanadhaatu, "maa > jaati.m punaraagamii"ti iminaa anupaadisesaa nibbaanadhaatu dassitaati > da.t.thabba.m. > Sumanaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. > > PRUITT: > And here, seeing the elements as pain means: insight is shown by the knowledge of this pain. Discarding desire for existence means: by this path. You will wander, stilled means: the element of quenching with [the result of past] attachment still remaining. Do not come to birth again means: the element of quenching without [the result of past] attachment remaining is shown. Thus should it be understood.< ..... S: Here we have the definitions of 'sa-upaadisesa-nibbaana' (Nibbana with the khandhas still remaining) and 'anupaadisesa-nibbaana' (Nibbana without the khandhas remaining, i.e the end of the continuation of the khandhas which are taken for the therii, the Buddha or anyone else. Metta, Sarah ======= #68203 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: B.Bodhi article (was: Arahants and compassion) egberdina Hi Sarah, > > S: I think it's true! When we don't understand what truth or reality is, > we live troubled and disturbed, always searching for something round the > corner. When there is an appreciation (even a beginning level) or what is > true or real, one lives contented with as little or much wisdom has been > accumulated to date. Confidence grows! > I read most things that you write as being justfications for everything that you do, while at the same time denying that you do them. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is nice that that is the way you maintain such self-confidence. Because that is where your confidence is, it is in yourself, not in something external to you. Kind Regards Herman #68204 From: connie Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:57 am Subject: Re: Inauthenticity of Anupada Sutta, MN111 nichiconn dear James, Robert, this might help: from The All-Embracing Net of Views (exegesis, analysis of virtue): (To explain why the word 'appeared' is used:) There is no occurrence of two acts of consciousness at a single moment. But in the case of the Buddhas, by reason of the brevity of their stay in the bhava"nga and of their fivefold mastery (over the meditative attainments), the differently coloured rays (in the display of the twin-miracle) appeared to come forth at a single moment. But in reality the adverting, preparation, and resolution for each coloured ray is done separately. The Exalted One attains absorption in the blue kasi.na in order to produce the blue rays, in the yellow kasi.na in order to produce the yellow rays, in the red and white kasi.nas in order to produce the red and white rays, in the fire kasi.na in order to produce the mass of fire, and in the water kasi.na in order to produce the stream of water. The Master paces up and down, while projected images (nimmita) of himself stand, or sit, or lie down, and so on; all may be explained at length (by reversing the places of the original and the projected images in succession). In all this, there is not even one thing which was accomplished by virtue. All was accomplished by concentration. Therefore virtue does not reach to the excellence of concentration. peace, connie #68205 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:09 am Subject: Continuation with Cankiisutta nilovg Hi Howard and all, I just like to continue with the Ca.nkiisutta (M II, 95) and its commentary. pure, not deluded. Thus faith gets established in him, with faith he > approaches to associate. When associating he lends ear to listen to > the Teaching and to bear it in his mind. When the Teaching is borne > in the mind it is examined. ------- N: We see here the emphasis on remembering the Dhamma and examining it. Verifying it with regard to one's own life. The Co. states that here siila and samaadhi (in connection with examining the teaching) have been shown. N: There are many degrees and kinds of siila. The four kinds of siila consisting of purity (paarisuddhisiila) includes the guarding of the sense doors. Siila is kusala, as is stated in the beginning of this sutta. Kusala through body, speech and mind can be seen as siila. There is higher siila: adhisiila: that is at the moment of satipa.t.thaana. At such a moment there is also higher concentration or calm: adhicitta and there is adhipa~n~naa, higher understanding. As understanding of naama and ruupa develops, also calm develops. When magga-citta is realized, there is a high degree of calm, since defilements are being eradicated. Also those who did not develop mundane jhaana have a high degree of calm that is equal in strength to the calm of the first stage of ruupajhaana. But at the moment of magga-citta the object is nibbaana and defilements are not temporarily suppressed but eradicated for good. The person referred to in this sutta attains ‘the highest truth’ as we shall see. Thus here we can think of the training (sekkhaa) in higher siila, higher samaadhi and higher pa~n~naa. -------- Sutta: When examining the meanings, he speculates patiently and an interest is born. ------- N:: Speculating refers to right thinking. Interest is kusala chanda. Right thinking is a factor of the eightfold Path which he is developing. It strikes again and again the naama or ruupa that appears so that its characteristic can be known as it really is. --------- Sutta: With born interest he struggles to weigh facts. Weighing makes the fourfold endeavour to realise the highest truth. N: As to weighing facts, the co states that this refers to realizing the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. He needs to make an effort for this realization. Since he develops satipatthaana, he knows that effort or viriya is a cetasika, not self, and here it accompanies right understanding of the eightfold Path. There is effort, but it is not self who makes an effort. Viriya performs its function while it accompanies right understanding. ---------- Sutta: Then realises the highest truth even with the body, also sees it with penetrating wisdom. Co: He makes an effort to realize magga-citta, and realizes the highest paramattha sacca, ultimate truth. This is nibbaana. Body refers here to the mental body, naamakaaya, namely the conascent cetasikas. N: All the sobhana cetasikas cooperate together to realize nibbaana. Co: And he eradicates kilesas by pa~n~naa and attains nibbaana which appears clearly. --------- Sutta: Bharadvàja, with this much the truth is realised. I declare this as the realising of the truth. Co: Realizing the truth means: realizing magga, path-consciousness. Attaining the truth means, attain phala, fruition. To begin with faith and drawing near, there are twelve dhammas explained here, according to the Co. Co: Effort with regard to magga are the padhaanas. N: the four right efforts. All four of them are fulfilled at the moment of lokuttara citta. Akusala is avoided and overcome, kusala that was not yet attained is developed and maintained. Co: this kind of right effort is of great help to attain phala, according to the Co. Co: If there is no magga, there is no phala. Nina: If the right cause is cultivated it will bring the right result. It all begins with association with the right person, listening, considering, examining the dhamma one hears, right thinking, right effort. ****** Nina. #68206 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 131, 132, and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 131, 132 Intro: In the following two sections (131 and 132) the Visuddhimagga deals with the eight mahaa-vipaakacittas (vipaakacittas of the sense sphere with sobhana hetus) and with the five ruupaavacara vipaakacittas, the results of ruupaavacara kusala cittas (which attain one of the five stages of ruupa-jhaana) and the four aruupaavacara cittas, the results of aruupaavacara kusala cittas (which attain one of the four stages of aruupa-jhaana). ----------- Text Vis.: 131. The eight sense-sphere consciousnesses with root- cause ((42)-(49) occur accomplishing three functions, namely, the function of 'registration' (m) in the six doors in the way already stated, the function of 'life-continuum' (b) after re-birth-linking given by themselves, as long as there is no thought-arising to interrupt the life-continuum, and lastly the function of 'death' (n) at the end. And they are invariable as to [possession of heart-] basis, and variable as to door, position, and function. --------- N: These mahaavipaakacittas, can, after rebirth-linking, perform two more functions without dependence on any doorway: the functions of bhavanga and cuti. They also perform the function of registration through one of the sense-doors or through the mind-door. The Tiika remarks that, when they perform the function of tadaarama.na, they obtain a doorway. Thus, they are variable as to door, position, and function. --------- Text Vis.: 132. The five fine-material consciousnesses ((57)-(61)) and the four immaterial consciousnesses ((62)-(65)) occur accomplishing two functions, namely, the function of 'life-continuum' (b) that continues after rebirth-linking given by themselves, as long as there is no thought-arising to interrupt the life-continuum, and the function of 'death' (n) at the end. As regards these, those of the fine-material sphere are invariable as to [possession of heart-] basis and as to their object, and they are variable as to position and function, ------------ N: The vipaakacittas that are the results of the ruupa-jhaanacittas and aruupa-jhaanacittas do not arise in the same lifespan, they occur in the next life as rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and cuti-citta. The Tiika explains that when someone attains jhaana with the meditation subject of the earth kasina, etc., the vipaakacitta which is the result of that jhaana will not have a different object. Thus, the ruupaavacaara vipaakacittas have the same object as the ruupaavacaara kusala cittas that produce them. ------------- Text Vis.: while the others occur invariably without [heart-] basis, and they are invariable as to object, and variable as to position and function. -------- N: The tiika explains as to the expression: ‘the others’ (itaraani), that these are the aruupaavacara vipaakacittas. The Tiika repeats that the fact of their being without a physical base is fixed. Birth in the aruupa-brahma planes is the result of aruupa-jhaana. In those planes there is no ruupa, thus there is no physical base for citta. This is invariably so. The Tiika explains with regard to its being invariable as to object, that the person who attains aruupa-jhaana does so with an object such as aakaasa etc. Meant is: boundless space, boundless consciousness etc. The Tiika states: after having removed the kasina ( kasi.nugghaa.tima).... Someone who wants to attain aruupa-jhaana should first attain the highest stage of ruupa-jhaana with one of the kasinas. He spreads out the kasina to the limit of the world sphere and then removes the kasina by giving attention to the space touched by it as boundless (Vis. X, 6-8). He ‘removes’ the kasina by not giving attention to it anymore. He only gives attention to boundless space. In this way he can attain aruupa-jhaana. The aruupaacavaara vipaakacittas have the same object as the aruupaavacara kusala cittas that produce them, they cannot have another object. Thus they are invariable as to the object. --------- Text Vis.: This, in the first place, is how the thirty-twofold resultant consciousness occurs in the course of an individual existence with formations as condition. And there [in the course of an existence] these several formations are conditions, as kamma condition and decisive-support condition, for this [thirty-twofold resultant consciousness]. --------------- N: As we have seen, there are thirteen vipaakacittas that occur only in the course of life: the five pairs of sense-cognitions (seeing, etc.) which may be kusala vipaakacitta or akusala vipaakacitta, the two types of receiving-consciousness, sampa.ticchanacitta (one kusala vipaakacitta and one akusala vipaakacitta), and investigating- consciousness, santiira.nacitta, accompanied by happy feeling which performs in the course of life the functions of investigating and registration (retention). There are nineteen vipaakacittas that can perform the functions of rebirth, bhavanga and dying which are: the two types of investigating- consciousness, santiira.nacitta (accompanied by upekkhaa, one being akusala vipaakacitta and one ahetuka kusala vipaakacitta), eight mahaa-vipaakacittas, five ruupaavacara vipaakacittas and four aruupaavacara vipaakacittas. The two types of investigating-consciousness that were just mentioned can also, in the course of life, perform the functions of investigating and retention (tadaaramma.na). Thus, there are thirtytwo vipaakacittas in all. As to the expression ‘formations’, sankhaara, this stands, according to the Tiika, for pu~n~naabhisankhaara, etc., thus: formations of merit, of demerit and of the imperturbable (aruupa-jhaana). As to kamma condition and decisive-support condition mentioned in the text, the Tiika explains that kamma-condition is kamma working from a different time (naanaakkha.nika kamma). Thus, kusala cetanaa and akusala cetanaa which can produce result later on. This is different from conascent kamma, saha-jaata kamma, the cetanaa that accompanies each citta, also vipaakacitta and kiriyacitta and coordinates the work of the accompanying dhammas. As to decisive-support condition, the Tiika states that this is natural decisive-support condition (pakatupanissaya-paccaya). Natural decisive-support condition is a necessary condition for kamma to be able to produce result. Thus, when kamma produces result there is not only kamma-condition that is operating but also natural decisive-support condition. Thus we see that several conditions have to cooperate so that kamma can produce result. ******** Conclusion: In this text the Visuddhimagga explains again that kamma- formations, abhisa.nkhaara, condition vi~n~naa.na, vipaakacitta, and thus we are reminded of the danger of being in the cycle of birth and death. Jhaana is kusala of a high degree, but even ruupa-jhaana and aruupa-jhaana do not lead to the end of the cycle. Their results are rebirth in brahmaplanes. So long as ignorance, avijjaa, has not been eradicated, there are conditions for the performing of kamma that produces vipaaka and thus, the cycle continues. ****** Nina. #68207 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:30 am Subject: Re: a better opportunity for studying dhammaaa nilovg Dear Melek, I find your point made off line very good for the list, so I hope you do not mind I raise it here. Melek: does this include the idea that i need to find a better opportunity to develop understanding of dhamma? ------- N: There is no btter opportunity than right here and now. But we need to listen to the Dhamma and investigate it. (see my post today of Cankiisutta). And we should keep the purpose of listening in mind: to have more understanding of the dhamma that appears now as being conditioned, not created by a self. We can understand this in theory, but it takes a long time to actually realize the truth. We have to understand what sati is, what the object of sati: a paramattha dhamma, different from a concept. For this you could read on line: It cannot be explained in just one post. Nina. Op 11-feb-2007, om 2:50 heeft melek cilingir het volgende geschreven: > May you find the best opportunity to develop understanding of the > dhammas that appear." > thank you very much for your good wishes. > i will ask one last question, hope will not bother you. > does this include the idea that i need to find a better opportunity > to develop understanding of dhamma? #68208 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:41 am Subject: Re: ouch, stubbed my toe. philofillet Hi again Colette and all > And for a rock reference I > offer you Neil Young "don't let it bring you down/it's only castles > burning/so find someone who's turning/and you will come around." > > I think the castles burning are related to the narratives we build > with our unchecked minds. Quoting this song led me to Youtube and this cool performance. I really think it gets at the worldly conditions sutta I mentionned! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBG4vxi9mtk Metta, Phil p.s I know you don't have much computer time, colette, so don't feel obligation to respond! :) #68209 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: was: pa~n~natti and cohesion. A center. nilovg Hi Phil, Do continue writing your little protests, they are very straightforward. And as Sarah says, really, there is no need to agree on this list. I find the subject of khanika samaadhi difficult and I think the meaning would depend on the context. I agree that things do not work out according to our plans, but according to conditions. Lodewijk was rather violent in his criticism of 'just like now' (see my post on the cremation), but then we went to a cremation yesterday. I was thinking of: just like now and thought: shall I gently bring it, or is it not the right moment? Then I said gently: 'just like now' and Lodewijk said that he also had been thinking of it. Your no 2: not just following the Buddha's advice, but seeing the benefit. This is a condition that kusala can arise instead of akusala. So, it is not my influence, but this change from akusala to kusala can happen because of the right condiitons. We hear things that we had not heard before we listened to his teachings. Nina. Op 10-feb-2007, om 13:47 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > I write a :) because it always makes me happy to remember that > things are conditioned and don't work according to plan. It also > makes me :) to remember that we can have a huge influence on these > conditions by following the Buddha's recommended practices. #68210 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:06 am Subject: a center, and resistence. nilovg N: It is by conditions that we are in such or such situation: there is noise with many people around or it is very silent while we are on a walk in nature. Should we not accept the conditions that offer themselves already? J: is it not also by conditions that one finds oneself in a center or in some form of retreat? .... are they not both the result of different accumulations? ------- N: Yes, that is the answer. -------- J:if so, then why would we reject specifically the centers that have formed in order to intentionally develop dhamma, other than because of the subtle (or not so subtle) craving and attachment to our wrong views about proper practice and conditions in order to develop dhamma. can this view not arise in all contexts? (maybe this is why it is ok for sotapannas to live in centers, because they have eradicated the anatta views along with wrong practice... or is it not ok?) --------- N: As I tried to explain, it is important with whom one associates so that one can hear true dhamma. That is what everybody should find out for himself. It is of no use to think of what the sotaapanna would do. It is best to learn more about the present moment. ---------- As to your second point about resisting akusala or not, others have answered, but I may add something. ---------- J: it would seem that at many points i have the option to either "resist the temptation" or to "indulge in the temptation" but for the time being, mind has been using the excuse that to "resist" what is arising (attachment to sense pleasure) would be wrong practice... if it is there, it is arising because of accumulation and the idea is just to be aware of the akusula but not to wish against it or to try to change it (no one to try anyway...) ------ N: This is a good point. It is understanding that sees the disadvantage and danger of akusala (we accumulate everymore) and the benefit of kusala. Before listening to the Dhamma, we had not much understanding of what is kusala and what akusala, or even of the subtle forms of them. The more right understanding is developed the more one sees the benefit of kusala. And akusala when it arises can be seen as a conditioned nama. At the moment of right awareness of it, the citta is kusala instead of akusala. There is no need of thinking: what shall I do or trying to find excuses. ---------- J: what role, if any, does the concept of resistance play in the rising and falling of citta or in patipatti? it seems impossible at some level, because who resists who (or what resists what). but there is part of me that is "struggling" with what to do with this understanding (or lack thereof). ------- N: Resistance is not a concept, it is right effort, a sobhana cetasika. We do not have to think of who resists what: cetasikas perform their own functions. By listening and considering understanding can grow. This can condition right awareness of whatever dhamma appears through the senses or the mind-door. And this is meant by the 'guarding of the doorwyas' included in siila, morality. Nina. #68211 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation jonoabb Hi Phil (and All) My apologies to you (and others) for the delay in replying. I've been somewhat caught up these past 2 weeks, mainly with work. Phil wrote: > Ph '07: I still haven't heard or read a strong warning against > wanting to have too much mindfulness. > Right, there are no warnings against too much mindfulness, but plenty of warnings against wanting (attachment (lobha), one of the akusala mental factors ;-)). > Perhaps I don't understand > what mindfulness means, and am confusing it with appamada. But while > I appreciate what Rob posted the other day about genuine sati and > see that it is important for people of advanced understanding, for > this beginner there is no concern about being attached to sati. I > think the day I hear my current sources of Dhamma guidance say > something about it, or read something about it in a sutta, I will > become more concerned. I guess that could happen any day now. > As far as I know there are no special rules for 'beginners'. But in any event I'm sure these current sources have plenty to say about attachment in general, so why make an exception when it comes to (attachment to) sati? > Ph '07: I think Phil '05 thought it was very sexy and exciting to > be tapping in to such a refined understanding of the way dhammas are > experienced by people of developed understanding. This interest > overwhelmed his attention to the suttanta, in which it is ever-so- > clear that mundane factors of mindfulness. He believed that it was > of no great import if there was a moment of akusala, as long as it > was understood that that akusala was a conditioned dhamma, rising > due to conditions, not-self, etc. That was very sexy to Phil '05. > I think you do Phil '05 a disservice here ;-)). He didn't have the idea that akusala didn't matter at all and could be ignored; he appreciated that arisen aksuala was just that: arisen akusala. Phil, you keep mentioning the people of more advanced understanding than yourself who, you say, don't have your gross level of defilements (yes, I know it's meant as a literary device). But has it occurred to you to that they too may have exhibited grosser forms of kilesa before their interest in the teachings. Then the question arises, which came first for them: an interest in the development of understanding, or a lessening of their grosser defilements? > Now I have paid more attention to Anguttara Nikaya. It is laid out > there in an indisputably clear way (I certainly won't get in any > debates about it) that before one tries to see into "one's present > level of accumulated sati and other kusala that perform the guarding > function" there is guarding to be done. The guarding to be done is > heightened by daily intentional activities such as meditation and > daily recollections. It is not subtle, or refined, or sexy. You just > do it. And as a result of the wholesome (whether > technically "kusala" or not) > OK , no debates it is, then! But just consider whether there's not an inconsistency here, in being so concerned about a 'practice' of guarding the sense doors the (sole) purpose of which is to have less aksuala, yet not being concerned about whether the 'practice' itself is properly kusala or not. I suppose it depends on which you regard as the more dangerous or the greater hindrance: the akusala that arises in one's daily life (that others can see), or the aksuala that arises by virtue of a 'practice' undertaken. As see it, the latter would be the greater obstacle to the development of the path, because it constitutes 'wrong practice'. > habits that form from these intentional > activities urged by the Buddha in the suttanta (there are so many, > the discrimination between wholesome and unwholesome thoughts in MN > 19 was one that got me started, now there are dozens that I turn to > on different days) the guarding develops. As the guarding develops, > one's behaviour becomes more morally sound. This leads to > concentration developing, which leads to insight. This is not a > disputable point, as far as Phil '07 is concerned. OK then, I won't dispute the point ;-)) But at what stage, according to your current sources, does the insight start to kick in, and how is that point to be known? > Ph: As I think I posted yesterday, he was wrong - crystal clear > wrong. Now he knows that the Buddha did *not* warn about wanting > results. In the short term, one becomes a more emotionally-stable, > virtuous person, a happier person. And from there comes the > development that Phil '05 found so sexy. It was too soon for him to > be interested in panna that penetrates the characteristics of > realities. > But I still don't see, and I don't think you've explained, why an interest in having less akusala should preclude an interest in developing the panna that penetrates the characteristics of realities. Not meaning to debate (please treat all questions as rhetorical) Jon #68212 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' -- Miss Interpretation says Hi. sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- colette wrote: > > S: As soon as there is 'we intentionally' doing anything, there's no > > understanding, no path. > > colette: <...>You sound VERY > NIHILIST, could it be your theravadan side peeking out? .... S: Happy for any Theravadan side to be peeking out, but not NIHILIST, I think. There are most definitely dhammas, including intention, understanding and so on, but no ATTA. .... >S: There is no 'WE', no 'essence', no 'WE DO'. There > > are bare phenomena - namas and rupas - rolling on. ... > colette: I had a good repor and conversation with Dr. S.Drobb > concerning the kaballah but our discussion came to an end when I > inquired if he would mind if I did something which involved him. I > simply asked if I could "step into his shoes". > > Same question to you Sarah? .... S: No, we can never step into each other's shoes --- we can't experience each other's namas and rupas. It's an illusion, Colette. We were having fun with 'threads' and picking up a Thread of Connie's, I thought I'd re-quote it in case you missed it for both its gem quality and fine use of a Thread: << Dispeller 207: He who is pursuing the roundabout [of births] which has no recognizeable end (see S ii 178) < is born and dies > (D ii 30) has ignorance for his cause. And the purpose of determinative-acts have ignorance for their condition. That the unseeing of the Buddha's word is ignorance is demonstrated in the Thread too. And in so far as he who is ignorant treats determinations as self (§206) [and] allows the five views in regard to the five categories thus < This is mine, this is I, this is my self > (M iii 19), this Thread is consequently presented under ignorance. [And so] there must only be demonstrated there the unshared idea by which he demonstrates it, not any other (see §196). >> .... S: Btw, I appreciated the sincere and kind message you wrote to Connie. Metta, Sarah ======== #68213 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 5. jonoabb Hi Mateesha matheesha wrote: > Hi Jon, Nina, > > Yes, that does clarify the situation. The reasoning behind my question > was that someone may be going into jhana without much control for many > years even if he does not develop the masteries. So he could > potentially gain insight without having the masteries. It is a bit like > the person who wakes up in the morning every day and the person who has > trained himself to wake up at a particular time every morning. Both > have the same experience - the latter has mastered it. So I was left > wondering why intention was an important ingrediant for vipassana > (without mastery the jhana experience happens without intention). > Yes, it is a somewhat technical area. But in short, even for the person who regularly attains jhana over a period of many years, but has not attained mastery, his insight cannot take the previously fallen away jhana citta as object so that it becomes a basis for enlightenment. I suppose this would be because (although I'm guessing here) that there has to be multiple successive jhana moments alternating with (already highly developed) insight moments. Jon #68214 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are all the bad things that happen to us results of our deeds? sarahprocter... Hi KenH, Connie, Howard, Scott & all, You're having a good discussion on AN 3s,61. Note that this is the same sutta I was quoting from in a recent discussion with Phil -- BB also gives a translation in his Anthology with lots of commentary notes. --- ken_aitch wrote: > "<. . .> there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should > be done. This shouldn't be done.' > You then quoted the next part of the sutta, which spelt out the > realities and the truths to which things can be `pinned down.' (I > notice they were given in the wrong order, which is a bit > disconcerting to the pedants among us. But I suppose that might be a > matter of translation. (?)) They were the elements (the namas and > rupas of the five khandhas) and the four ariyan truths. > > --------- > << ...this Dhamma taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, blameless, not > faulted by knowledgeable priests & contemplatives. And which Dhamma > taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, blameless, not faulted by > knowledgeable priests & contemplatives? 'There are these six > properties' is a Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, > blameless, not faulted by knowledgeable priests & > contemplatives. 'There are these six media of sensory contact' is a > Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, blameless, not > faulted by knowledgeable priests & contemplatives. 'There are these > eighteen explorations for the intellect' is a Dhamma taught by > me that is unrefuted, undefiled, blameless, not faulted by > knowledgeable priests & contemplatives. 'There are these four noble > truths' is a Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, > blameless, not faulted by knowledgeable priests & contemplatives." >> .... S: I think BB gives the same order (unless I misunderstand you): "There are the six elements"....."...six bases of contact"...."...eighteen mental examinations"....."....Four Noble Truths"..... "Now on account of what was it said that the six elements are the Dhamma taught by me? These are the six elements: the elements of earth, water, heat, air, space and consciousness....." .... S: And here the notes I quoted to Phil may be of relevance: > ---------- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/67954 >S: See 35: Three Sectarian Tenets, chapter of the 3s, p61 The 3rd wrong view which doesn't accept causes and conditions is interesting. Oh, this isn't us following this wrong view, wrong path, we might say. BB's footnote from the commentary: "AA: "having shown that these three views, as leading to inaction (in the moral sense) are empty, insubstantiated and not conducive to liberation, the Blessed One now begins to expound his own teaching, which is well substantiated and leads to liberation. As there is no end of what unintelligent people may say without proper understanding, the intelligent ones only are specified here." " ..... S: !! In this section, the Buddha teaches about the elements, ayatanas and so on. See the footnote BB gives quoting from the commentary under elements. Lots of Abhidhamma detail on the elements. Then " AA:"....Thus there are only these two things: name and form (naamaruupa). Beyond that, there is neither a substantial being (satta) nor a soul (jiiva). In this way one should understand in brief the meditation subject of the six elements that leads upt to arahatship."... "< ******* S: Actually, the footnotes from the commentary are extensive. Let me add a little more on what is meant by these 6 elements (which is also relevant to my discussion with Scott about other dhammas being implied): "AA: 'Hereby reference is made to the meditation subject of the elements (dhaatu-kamma.t.thaana). Taking it by way of the six elements, a brief explanation is as follows: The elements of earth, water, fire and air are the four primary material elements (mahaa-bhuuta). The element of space represents 'derived' or secondary form (upaadaa-ruupa). When this single item of derived form is mentioned, *the other types of derived form (i.e the sense faculties and their objects, etc) are thereby implied*. The element of consciousness (vi~n~naa.na-dhaatu) is mind (citta) or the aggregate of consciousness (vi~n~naa.na-khandha). The coexistent feeling is the aggregate of feeling; ...perception.....contact and feeling, the aggregate of volitional formations. These are the four mental aggregates; the four primaries and the form derived from them are the aggregate of form. The four mental aggregates are 'name' (or 'mentality', naama)and the aggregate of form is 'form' (or matter, ruupa)." .... S: There are many helpful further notes for this sutta. A lot of understanding is implied in each line as is clear from the one example I've given above on the '6 elements'. The first wrong view (which started the discussion) about all experience being the result of past kamma was held by the Jains. I look forward to your continued discussion. Metta, Sarah ====== #68215 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] About Mudita sarahprocter... Hi Herman & Joop, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Joop, > > > > > 'Mudita' occurs 5 times in the most important of all Buddhisc lists: > > the U.P: > > You have a wicked sense of humour :-) .... S: ;-) Of course, he could also look under 'Anumodana' and 'Brahma Viharas' to include the tally 'in the most important of all Buddhist lists':-). Joop, seriously, I think you did a great job encouraging further discussion on karuna and I hope you'll continue 'moderating' any discussions on mudita and incorporating further comments/articles for considration and discussion. I think the ADL installment #67885 is relevant. It refers to the Vism XXII, 52 which gives the 5 kinds of macchariya or stinginess with regard to dwellings, family, gain, Dhamma and praise which one can't bear to share. Macchariya is eradicated by the stage of sotapanna. Also, issa (envy) is eradicated at this stage. When there's envy, there's no mudita. As you say, 'it can be practiced aas an attitude in daily life, toward other beings, or better said: WITH other beings.' I think the condition is really taking joy in others' good vipaka and in others' good deeds rather than thinking of oneself. Understanding and having confidence in kamma and other conditions makes a very big difference. I'll look forward to further discussions on the topic. Metta, Sarah ======== #68216 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:28 am Subject: Re: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Joop (and Herman in the middle) Joop wrote: > Hallo Jon, (James) > > Jon: Even in the conventional language of the suttas, 'karuna' is a > reference to kusala mind-states. … > To the extent that any "compassionate act" is performed with aksuala > mind-states, it is not to be aspired to, and does not form part of > the Buddha's exhortation to us, as I see it. > > Joop: Of course not; a compassionate act performed with akusala mind- > states is a controdictio in terminis (English: contradiction in terms) I agree that a compassionate act preformed with aksuala mindstates is a contradiction in terms. However, I was referring to an act motivated mainly by kusala mindstates, but with some aksuala mindstates also involved. I think you'd agree also that such aksuala is not to be developed. > Jon: I am not saying there is no relation between the conventional > and the ultimate. What I meant in that post was that the conventional > idea of 'having compassion' includes what in Dhamma terms would be > akusala mind-states. Generally speaking, the distinction between > kusala and akusala is not understood, and this leads to the unwitting > development of akusala. > > Joop: Now I understand and we nearly agree ! The only thing is that > also in conventional language akusala compassion does not exist. I would say that in conventional language the akusala that is sometimes described as feeling sorry for, or having pity on, someone can be regarded as part of compassion. BTW, Herman please note the etymology (from the dictionary.com, entry for 'compassion':) A. Middle English compassion, from Late Latin compassiÅ?, compassiÅ?n-, from compassus, past participle of compatÄ«, to sympathize : Latin com-, com- + Latin patÄ«, to suffer; see pÄ“(i)- in Indo-European roots. B. 1340, from O.Fr. compassion, from L.L. compassionem (nom. compassio) "sympathy," from compassus, pp. of compati "to feel pity," from com- "together" + pati "to suffer" (see passion). No sense of *physical proximity* here. > Jon: I thought James again put it nicely when he said: "The arahant > can recognize the suffering of another and want to alleviate that > suffering, but he/she won't personally feel that suffering. Crying > comes from self-pity, not compassion for others." > > Joop: Yes, James can put things nice (sometimes). But apart of > the 'crying' theme (anathema now) > I want to know what the term "recognize" means exactly, is there a > sense with which one recognizes? > I will call that: empathy, being touched by. You ask what it means for an arahant to "recognize" the suffering of another. Nothing special, simply that he can tell that the person is suffering. For example, by seeing the person crying. Of course, our kusala is vastly less developed than that of the arahant. But would you agree that spontaneous kusala compassion is possible for us, that is to say, the wish to help another that is not motivated by, for example, a feeling of aversion at the circumstances of the other person's suffering? Jon #68217 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. sarahprocter... Hi Joel, --- joelaltman26 wrote: > i was just listening to the Bankok recordings earlier this morning, > when they were discussing the subtle craving of the anagami to > become an arahat... that it is still akusula, but that it > is "o.k." ... what to do anyway if it is arising, if it is there. > and they were questioning whether or not craving can serve as a > condition for progress... they quoted the example of the cow who > without the craving for water wouldn't drink or eat, etc... .... S: There's a lot of detail in these discussions and many Pali terms are used. I'm very impressed that you are following and understanding the fine points. It is indeed comments like these which encourage us to keep working to making the recordings available. Thank you! As it happens, after this particular discussion which was relevant to many earlier threads on DSG, I attempted to summarise my understanding of the issues to date in these posts which you might care to look at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59632 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59634 .... > the idea of "need" seems to presuppose a self who can know what the > right goal is and who can also know what the proper means are to > reach that goal. > > it basically sounds to me like wrong view and wrong practice :) .... S: I wouldn't say so, necessarily. May just be attachment or may just be a manner of speaking - 'seeing the value in finding the way'....mixed cittas, always and only rt understanding will know at the time :). .... > > and i am the first to admit that i am caught up in that. i have been > living in an ashram now in silence for quite a while, practicing > over 12 hours a day. Just over a month ago, dhamma popped into my > life and i can't be the same, can't follow the routine and rituals > anymore. but how to just throw on the breaks like that? like i was > speeding down the highway at 110 mph and all of a sudden, saw an > exit for "right now, this very moment" and slammed on the breaks to > turn off... .... S: I can understand this very well. With the understanding of dhammas, the rest will take care of itself.....without any 'shoulds' involved. Thank you for joining us and sharing this with all the controversy that is bound to follow here:-). Obviously you're able to download the discussions. If it would help you to have CDs sent anytime, pls let Jon or I know off-list. Metta, Sarah p.s Where is the ashram? No need to answer if you'd rather not. ===================== #68218 From: "Ramesh Patil" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:21 am Subject: Tathagatas Sangha is a Guide to Happiness!!! rameshat27 Everybody wants to be happy. Nobody wants to live a life filled with problems and heartache. None of us start out with the intention of ending up miserable, yet so many of us grow to be that way that we have come to accept this condition as normal. Living without pain and suffering is a skill, like any other you can think of. If you don't put effort into your job, you will soon be unemployed. If you don't work at your marriage or relationship, you will find yourself alone. The same is true of living well. If you don't train your mind you will have 'good days' and 'bad days' depending on what happens around you. It's possible to spend your entire life just reacting and responding to the things that happen to you. Many people float through life this way but very few of them achieve happiness. If you control your mind it does not matter what is occurring in the surrounding environment, you will be happy and content. If you have 'good' and 'bad' days your environment is in control and you will frequently experience unnecessary suffering. Once you realize that it is possible to be happy under any circumstances it's not difficult to train your mind. Any one can follow the simple directions found in this Buddhas teaching and acquire mental peace if they make the effort. It doesn't matter what circumstances you are in, but what about those who come from an incredibly wide assortment of occupations. What these people have in common is the desire to improve their lives only.Still trying repetatively, they could not achieve the things.There own people doesn't support them.Only pain and misery, they have. But the time came and They have discovered that Noble is the Tathagatas Sangha, Sublime is the Tathagatas Sangha, where Vinaya,Dhamma and Mind training greatly reduces suffering and then completely eliminates suffering. This training consists of practice and study only. These noble ones went to the refuge of the sangha, and says Tathagatas Sangha is guide to happiness, peace and elimination of suffering!!! With Metta Ramesh Patil Mumbai,India #68219 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:27 am Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on the Sectarians Sutta (AN 3.61) scottduncan2 Hi Herman, S: "Elemental activity is all that occurs. It is only the deluded who think, 'I'm going forward'." H: "Of course "the deluded" are also just elemental activity..." Yes! From The Saama~n~naphala Sutta and its Commentaries (Bh. Bodhi, trans.) p.118: "(iv) Clear comprehension of non-delusion is the clear comprehension which does not become deluded about going forward, etc. It should be understood as follows. "Herein, when going forward and returning, a bhikkhu does not become deluded about these actions like the blind and foolish worldling who deludedly thinks: 'A self goes forward, the action of going forward is produced by a self,' or 'I go forward, the action of going forward is produced by me.' Instead he undeludedly understands: When the thought 'Let me go forward' arises, the mind-originated air element arises together with that thought, producing [bodily] intimation. Thus through the diffusion of the air element (originating from) mental activity, this set of bones conceived of as the body goes forward. When going forward, in each act of raising the foot two elements - the earth element and the water element - are subordinate and weak, while the other two elements [the air element and the heat element] are predominant and strong. So too in bringing the foot forward and in shifting it away. But in dropping the foot two elements - the heat element and the air element - are subordinate and weak, while the other two elements [the earth element and the water element] are predominant and strong. So too in placing the foot on the ground and in pressing the foot against the ground." Sincerely, Scott. #68220 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on the Sectarians Sutta (AN 3.61) scottduncan2 Hi Howard, Please don't respond if you don't wish. I'm trying to pursue a discussion with you about this. S: "Are you saying that it is all in the mind?" S: "'Element' leaves no doubt that there can be no one in control." Howard: "Yes, I get your point with that. But it does so by separating matter from mind. It is a good word for chemists, but, IMO, misleading for Buddhists." S: "Yes, that is what you are saying!" What is the problem with 'separating matter from mind' from a Theravada perspective? Your focus on this seems more in line with Yogaacaara thinking. From Buddhist Thought, Williams, p.156: "...In the Sa.mdhinirmocana Suutra the antidote to nihilism is said to be the 'three aspects', and this teaching of the three aspects explains what Mind is, and the relationship of Mind to phenomenal illusion. How are these explained in the classical Indian Yogaacaara texts? "The first of the three aspects is the 'constructed aspect' (parikalpitasvabhaava). What this amounts to is the aspect of our life which is a polarisation into separate subjects (called the 'grasper'; graahaka) confronting objects (the 'grasped'; graahya). This is the realm of subject/object duality, the world as seen by the unenlightened and also the realm of linguistic operation. Since as we know Yogaacaara thinks in terms of just one primary existent, substratum for delusion as well as enlightenment, clearly duality cannot be correct. Duality is a wrenching apart of what is actually a unity, one basic 'substance' (ekadravya). This polarisation is erroneous..." How is what you suggest different from the above noted point of view? This is why 'quality' or 'property' might serve as a better word than 'element' when one wishes to present a view based on a 'primary existent'; 'element' is clearly differentiated but 'property' or 'quality' can be aspects of the 'one primary existent' easily enough. Sincerely, Scott. #68221 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are all the bad things that happen to us results of our deeds? scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: "You're having a good discussion on AN 3s,61." Lots of stuff in there... Sarah: "Actually, the footnotes from the commentary are extensive. Let me add a little more on what is meant by these 6 elements (which is also relevant to my discussion with Scott about other dhammas being implied): "AA: 'Hereby reference is made to the meditation subject of the elements (dhaatu-kamma.t.thaana). Taking it by way of the six elements, a brief explanation is as follows: The elements of earth, water, fire and air are the four primary material elements (mahaa-bhuuta). The element of space represents 'derived' or secondary form (upaadaa-ruupa). When this single item of derived form is mentioned, *the other types of derived form (i.e the sense faculties and their objects, etc) are thereby implied*. The element of consciousness (vi~n~naa.na-dhaatu) is mind (citta) or the aggregate of consciousness (vi~n~naa.na-khandha). The coexistent feeling is the aggregate of feeling; ...perception.....contact and feeling, the aggregate of volitional formations. These are the four mental aggregates; the four primaries and the form derived from them are the aggregate of form. The four mental aggregates are 'name' (or 'mentality', naama)and the aggregate of form is 'form' (or matter, ruupa)." Here's a bit from The All-Embracing Net of Views (pp.324-326): "CY. (iii) Why is he called the Tathaagata because he has come to the real characteristics (of dhammas)? "(The six elements): The earth element has the characteristic of hardness - that is real, not unreal (tatha.m avitatha.m); the water element, of flowing; the fire element, of heat; the wind element, of distending; the space element, of intangibility; the consciousness element of cognizing. "(The five aggregates): Material form has the characteristic of deformation; feeling, of being felt; perception, of perceiving; the mental formations of forming; consciousness, of cognizing... "The elements have the characteristic of emptiness; the sense bases, of actuating; the foundations of mindfulness of awareness; the right endeavours, of endeavouring; the bases of spiritual success, of succeeding; the faculties, of predominance; the powers, of unwavering; the enlightenment factors, of emancipating; the path, of being a cause... "All these characteristics are real, not unreal. Through the movement of his faculty of knowledge he has come to the real characteristic (of all dhammas); he has reached it without falling away from it, fully arrived at it - therefore he is the Tathaa gata. "Thence he is the Tathaagata because he has come to the real characteristic." Sincerely, Scott. #68222 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects scottduncan2 Hi Howard, H: "...To me, matter is concept-only, but rupas are elements of experience. (Hey, Scott, look at that - I said "elements"! ;-)) Wow! Take care, man, soon you'll actually be using it precisely! Sincerely, Scott. #68223 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on the Sectarians Sutta (AN 3.61) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 2/11/07 10:15:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Please don't respond if you don't wish. I'm trying to pursue a > discussion with you about this. > > S: "Are you saying that it is all in the mind?" > > S: "'Element' leaves no doubt that there can be no one in control." > Howard: "Yes, I get your point with that. But it does so by separating > matter from mind. It is a good word for chemists, but, IMO, misleading > for Buddhists." > > S: "Yes, that is what you are saying!" > > What is the problem with 'separating matter from mind' from a > Theravada perspective? Your focus on this seems more in line with > Yogaacaara thinking. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Separating matter from mind is not the same as distinguishing physical from mental. I DO distinguish them, as I also distinguish knowing from known - distinguish but do not separate. Knowing and known are interdependent, and the primary relationship between nama and rupa is that between knowign and known. I do not, however, use 'matter' to translate 'rupa'. I understand 'rupas' to signify physical forms such as sights, hardness-sensations, itches, felt warmth, and so on - physical elements of experience. The ordinary notion of matter is that of material substance, that of chemists is atoms, and that of physicists is quantum probability waves, whereas I view rupas as particular sorts of elements of experience. Material substance, atoms, and proability waves are, IMO, pa~n~natti. And yes, my perspective has been influenced by yogacara - obviously. But not all that goes by the name 'yogacara' is the same, and some of it includes convoluted and substantialist doctrines that I reject. --------------------------------------------- From Buddhist Thought, Williams, p.156:> > > "...In the Sa.mdhinirmocana Suutra the antidote to nihilism is said to > be the 'three aspects', and this teaching of the three aspects > explains what Mind is, and the relationship of Mind to phenomenal > illusion. How are these explained in the classical Indian Yogaacaara > texts? > > "The first of the three aspects is the 'constructed aspect' > (parikalpitasvabhaava). What this amounts to is the aspect of our > life which is a polarisation into separate subjects (called the > 'grasper'; graahaka) confronting objects (the 'grasped'; graahya). > This is the realm of subject/object duality, the world as seen by the > unenlightened and also the realm of linguistic operation. Since as we > know Yogaacaara thinks in terms of just one primary existent, > substratum for delusion as well as enlightenment, clearly duality > cannot be correct. Duality is a wrenching apart of what is actually a > unity, one basic 'substance' (ekadravya). This polarisation is > erroneous..." > > How is what you suggest different from the above noted point of view? > This is why 'quality' or 'property' might serve as a better word > than 'element' when one wishes to present a view based on a 'primary > existent'; 'element' is clearly differentiated but 'property' or > 'quality' can be aspects of the 'one primary existent' easily enough. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > =================== With metta, Howard #68224 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] About Mudita jwromeijn Dear Sarah, Jon, Connie, all Sarah, thanks for your nice words, again; but I think you have not yet noticed my message of yesterday about 'distances' Several times the term 'sincere' is used here, for exemple by Melek. I doubt all my messages the last month were sincere. I have decided to leave DSG because in this stage my participation has an unwholesome influence on me. That has of course to do with me, so no DSG to blame. Discussions repeat themselves (for exemple about 'formal' meditation) endless and I repeat myself and when I'm not understood I increase my level of provocation. Or make punishing remarks to Connie for example. I'm tired of explaining again commentaries do not have any authority to me So I have much meditation to do to see more clear my being angry arising. The question to myself (am I a Theravadin?) has to do with several points, one of them the strict individualistic way of thinking of: "the other" is only a subject to be nice too, not somebody to be connected to at paramattha level. I don't think, like Jon, that "to recognize the suffering of another is nothing special' ". It's very special, only it does not fit in the Abhidhamma-system. And psychiatry learns that an autist doesn't have this faculty. I have learned much here but now the stagnation is telling me: leave. That's difficult because I'm attached to DSG (like Ananda was to the Buddha) With maximum metta Your mourning Joop #68225 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:54 am Subject: Re: Harmonization between what you think and what you do? lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kanchaa" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Hello from me all the way from Nepal! > > I think something and when it comes to action its different... I just > go to my unconscious state... And when I realize it, its late, tooo > late... > > How do you harmonize your thought and your action? > > Sincerely, > > Nitesh > Hi Nitesh, Can you explain further? Realization is mostly a matter of letting go. Let go of both your thought and action. It's never too late for that. I think I remember you. Were you writing from Germany the last time you were here? Larry #68226 From: connie Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:22 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (23) nichiconn dear Friends, Cittaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa The commentary on the verses of Therii Cittaa Ki~ncaapi khomhi kisikaati-aadikaa cittaaya theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii ito catunnavutikappe candabhaagaaya nadiyaa tiire kinnarayoniya.m nibbatti. The verses beginning Although I am thin are Therii Cittaa's. She too performed meritorious deed under previous Buddhas and accumulated good [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. Ninety-four aeons ago she was born in the womb of a kinnarii [RD: fairy] on the banks of the river Candabhaagaa. Saa ekadivasa.m eka.m paccekabuddha.m rukkhamuule nisinna.m disvaa pasannamaanasaa na.lapupphehi puuja.m katvaa vanditvaa a~njali.m paggahetvaa padakkhi.na.m katvaa pakkaami. One day she saw a Pacceka Buddha seated at the foot of a tree. With her mind favourably disposed [towards him], she made an offering of flowers and reeds, paid homage, paid respects with raised hands together, then went away, keeping [him] on her right. [R-D: Cf Ps iii. (c: Pu.n.naa, dsg #67423)] Saa tena pu~n~nakammena devamanussesu sa.msarantii imasmi.m buddhuppaade raajagahe gahapatimahaasaalakule nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m patvaa satthu raajagahappavesane pa.tiladdhasaddhaa pacchaa mahaapajaapatigotamiyaa santike pabbajitvaa mahallikaakaale gijjhakuu.tapabbata.m abhiruhitvaa sama.nadhamma.m karontii vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m paapu.ni. Then she journeyed on among devas and men as a result of that meritorious deed. In this Buddha era, she was born in the home of a wealthy householder in Raajagaha. When she came of age, she gained faith when the Teacher went into Raajagaha. Afterwards, she went forth in the presence of Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii. When she was an old woman, she climbed the mountain Vulture Peak and performed the duty of a recluse. She increased her insight and attained Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. [RD: And after many other births among men and gods, she was, in this Buddha-dispensation, born at Raajagaha in the family of a leading burgess. When she had come to years of discretion she heard the Master teaching at the gate of Raajagaha, and, becoming a believer, she was ordained by the Great Pajaapatii the Gotamid. And at length, in her old age, when she had climbed the Vulture's Peak, and had done the exercises of a recluse, her insight expanded, and she won to Arahantship.] Tena vutta.m apadaane- "Candabhaagaanadiitiire ahosi.m kinnarii tadaa; addasa.m viraja.m buddha.m, sayambhu.m aparaajita.m. "Pasannacittaa sumanaa, vedajaataa kata~njalii; na.lamaala.m gahetvaana, sayambhu.m abhipuujayi.m. "Tena kammena sukatena, cetanaapa.nidhiihi ca; jahitvaa kinnariideha.m, agacchi.m tidasa.m gati.m. "Chatti.msadevaraajuuna.m, mahesittamakaarayi.m; dasanna.m cakkavattiina.m, mahesittamakaarayi.m; sa.mvejetvaana me citta.m, pabbaji.m anagaariya.m. As is said in the Apadaana: At that time I was a kinnarii on the banks of the river Candabhaayaa. I saw the faultless Buddha, Self-Dependent, Unconquered. I paid respect with raised hands together, with devotion in my heart, joyful, and filled with enthusiasm. I honoured the Self-Dependent One with a wreath of reeds. Because of that virtuous act and my resolve and purpose, having abandoned the body of a kinnarii, I went to the abode of the thirty[-three]. I ruled as the queen of thirty-six deva kings. I ruled as the queen of ten wheel-turning monarchs. My heart having been profoundly stirred, I went forth in the homeless state. "Kilesaa jhaapitaa mayha.m, bhavaa sabbe samuuhataa; sabbaasavaparikkhii.naa, natthi daani punabbhavo. "Catunnavutito kappe, ya.m pupphamabhipuujayi.m; duggati.m naabhijaanaami, pupphapuujaayida.m phala.m. My defilements are burnt out, all [future] births are completely destroyed. All my taints have been consumed. Now there is no renewed existence. Ninety-four aeons after I offered the flowers, I am not aware of [having lived in] a realm of misery; this is the consequence of having offered the flowers. "Kilesaa jhaapitaa mayha.m {, bhavaa sabbe samuuhataa; naagiiva bandhana.m chetvaa, viharaami anaasavaa. "Svaagata.m vata me aasi, buddhase.t.thassa santike; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasana.m. "Pa.tisambhidaa catasso, vimokkhaapi ca a.t.thime; cha.labhi~n~naa sacchikataa,} kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti. My defilements are burnt out, {all [future] births are completely destroyed. Having severed my bonds like an elephant, I live without taints. Welcome indeed was the presence of the Best of Buddhas to me. I have attained the three true knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. The four discriminations and also the eight liberations are mine. I have realized the six direct knowledges.} I have done the Buddha's teaching. [DPPN: She (Cittaa) is probably identical with Nalamaalikaa of the Apadaana (ii.528f).] saa pana arahatta.m patvaa attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa- 27. "ki~ncaapi khomhi kisikaa, gilaanaa baa.lhadubbalaa; da.n.damolubbha gacchaami, pabbata.m abhiruuhiya. 28. "Sa"nghaa.ti.m nikkhipitvaana, pattaka~nca nikujjiya; sele khambhesimattaana.m, tamokhandha.m padaaliyaa"ti.- Imaa dve gaathaa abhaasi. And after attaining Arahatship and looking over her attainment, she spoke these two verses: 27. Although I am thin, sick, and very weak, I go [along] leaning on a stick, having climbed the mountain. 28. I threw down my outer robe and turned my bowl upside down. I propped myself against a rock, tearing asunder the mass of darkness [of ignorance]. [R-D: Though I be suffering and weak, and all My youthful spring be gone, yet have I climbed, Leaning upon my staff, the mountain crest. (27) Thrown from my shoulder hangs my cloak, o'erturned My little bowl. So 'gainst the rock I lean And prop this self of me, and break away The wildering gloom that long had closed me in. (28) Tattha ki~ncaapi khomhi kisikaati yadipi aha.m jaraaji.n.naa appama.msalohitabhaavena kisasariiraa amhi. Gilaanaa baa.lhadubbalaati dhaatvaadivikaarena gilaanaa, teneva gela~n~nena ativiya dubbalaa. Da.n.damolubbha gacchaamiiti yattha katthaci gacchantii kattaraya.t.thi.m aalambitvaava gacchaami. Pabbata.m abhiruuhiyaati eva.m bhuutaapi vivekakaamataaya gijjhakuu.tapabbata.m abhiruhitvaa. There, although I am thin (kisikaa) means: even if I am frail with old age with a thin body (kisa-sariiraa) because of my condition of having little flesh and blood. Sick (gilaanaa), and very weak (baa.lhadubbalaa) means: I am sick because of a change in the elements, etc. Accordingly, I am extremely weak (ativiya dubbalaa) because of sickness (gela~n~nena). I go [along] leaning on (olubbha) a stick (da.n.da.m) means: wherever I go, I go along only by leaning on (aalambitvaa) a walking stick (kattaraya.t.thi.m). Having climbed the mountain means: desiring seclusion even though I was [weak] like that, having climbed the mountain of Vulture Peak. Sa"nghaa.ti.m nikkhipitvaanaati santaruttaraa eva hutvaa yathaasa.mhata.m a.mse .thapita.m sa"nghaa.ti.m hatthapaase .thapetvaa. Pattaka~nca nikujjiyaati mayha.m vala~njanamattikaapatta.m adhomukha.m katvaa ekamante .thapetvaa. Sele khambhesimattaana.m, tamokhandha.m padaaliyaati pabbate nisinnaa iminaa diighena addhunaa apadaalitapubba.m mohakkhandha.m padaaletvaa, teneva ca mohakkhandhapadaalanena attaana.m attabhaava.m khambhesi.m, mama santaana.m aayati.m anuppattidhammataapaadanena vikkhambhesinti attho. Cittaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 28. I threw down my outer robe means: having only the inner and outer [robes still on], I put down within the reach of my hand the outer robe that was pulled over my shoulder as is customary. And turned my bowl upside down means: I put my used bowl of clay face down, putting it down on one side. I propped (khambhesi.m) myself (attaana.m) against a rock, tearing asunder (padaaliyaa) the mass of darkness [of ignorance] means: seated on the mountain, I tore asunder (padaaletvaa) this mass of delusion that was not previously torn asunder (a-padaalita-pubba.m) during this long journey, and through the very tearing asunder of that mass of delusion, I propped myself, my body (atta-bhaava.m). I discarded (vikkhambesin) my future continuation through producing the state of not being liable to come into existence again. That is the meaning. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Cittaa. ======= c. #68227 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:23 am Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on the Sectarians Sutta (AN 3.61) scottduncan2 Hi Howard, Thank you very much for the reply, I appreciate its substance: Howard: "Separating matter from mind is not the same as distinguishing physical from mental. I DO distinguish them, as I also distinguish knowing from known - distinguish but do not separate. Knowing and known are interdependent, and the primary relationship between nama and rupa is that between knowing and known." We may be getting caught in some semantic currents here. 'Separating' and 'distinguishing' can be synonymous depending on context. You don't seem to accept that naama, ruupa, and Nibbaana are separate and distinct realities. Is this correct? H: "I do not, however, use 'matter' to translate 'rupa'. I understand 'rupas' to signify physical forms such as sights, hardness-sensations, itches, felt warmth, and so on - physical elements of experience." 'Sights' versus 'visible object'; 'hardness-sensations' versus 'hardness'; 'itches, felt warmth' - a very clear sense that ruupa is not a 'separate reality'. I see where Bh. Bodhi uses the word 'form' for ruupa. How do you understand the following: SN22,48: "...Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is the form aggregate." ["...ruupa.m atiitaanaagatapaccupanna.m ajjhatta.m vaa bahiddhaa vaa o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa ya.m duure santike vaa, aya.m vuccati ruupakkhando."] SN22,56: "And what, bhikkhus, is form? The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form." ["Katama~nca, bhikkhave, ruupa.m? Cattaaro ca mahaabhuuta catunna~nca mahaabuutaana.m upaadaaya ruupa.m. Ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, ruupa.m"] H: "The ordinary notion of matter is that of material substance, that of chemists is atoms, and that of physicists is quantum probability waves, whereas I view rupas as particular sorts of elements of experience. Material substance, atoms, and proability waves are, IMO, pa~n~natti. And yes, my perspective has been influenced by yogacara - obviously. But not all that goes by the name 'yogacara' is the same, and some of it includes convoluted and substantialist doctrines that I reject." Thanks for clarifying your Yogaacaara leanings. It helps me see where you are coming from - it was actually quite confusing at times, trying to learn the Theravada perspective and then trying to figure out what you were saying, as it seemed divergent ofttimes. What, then, is an 'element of experience'? Sincerely, Scott. #68228 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. joelaltman26 Hello Sarah, I find all the discussions really so delightful. Kh Sujin is always always always calling everything/everyone back to the present moment, right now. when we are submerged, or flooded, by the ocean of ideas --- the pannati, the nimitta (((ohh just yesterday i listened to the incredible conversation where she indicates that until the second stage of tender insight, where the rising and falling of the dhammas is understood by panna in the present moment, then we are really just aware of the nimitta of reality... beginning stages of satipatthana... oh what a wonderfully subtle truth/experience!))) it is like each person present at the discussion is an aspect of the illusion of myself, reprenting different (not)-selves that "i" contend with. and it is almost as if Kh Sujin, by her patient, pleasant, and exacting presence, is calling the sampajano sati to the front... "what about right now"... ahh... so blissful. you see, as i had all these hours that i had been practicing before, now i can dedicate them to listening to and studying the dhamma. i really feel so grateful to have been lead to this group/family of friends in dhamma. i feel like i know you through hearing your voices and listening to your questions. Thank you, both you and Jonation and the rest of the gang, for your continued committment to the Dhamma and helping others. with love, joel ps - The ashram is in the mountains of southern quebec, canada. #68229 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:13 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Ch 24, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, The question may arise what one should do if one is not able to find the right friend in Dhamma. Is reading the scriptures not a condition to find the path leading to enlightenment? It is true that reading the scriptures is also very helpful since they can encourage us to be mindful of nåma and rúpa in daily life. We might, however, interpret the teachings in the wrong way. It depends on conditions whether we come into contact with the right person who can help us to understand the teachings as well as the practice in accordance with the teachings. Accumulated kusala kamma can be the condition for us to meet the right person. When we have heard the Dhamma from the right person, we should ``apply the mind''; this is the third condition. We should not blindly follow the person who teaches us Dhamma, but we should investigate the scriptures ourselves, ponder over the Dhamma, and consider it carefully, in order to test the truth. The real test of the truth is the practice itself. Therefore, the fourth condition is ``conforming to the Dhamma'', which is the development of the eightfold Path. By being mindful of the phenomena appearing through the six doors we can find out ourselves whether it is true that these phenomena are only nåma and rúpa, arising because of conditions. We can investigate ourselves whether they are impermanent or permanent, whether they are dukkha or happiness, whether they are non-self, anattå, or ``self''. We can find out through the practice itself whether we really understand the teachings. If we practise in the wrong way we may eventually find out that this does not lead to right understanding of the realities of our daily life. Through the development of the eightfold Path we will have more confidence (saddhå) in the Buddha's teachings. We will have more confidence when we experience that through right understanding of nåma and rúpa in daily life there will be less clinging to ``self''. Lokuttara cittas cannot arise without the cultivation of the right conditions. Some people wish for an end to dukkha but they do not develop understanding in daily life. They hope that one day lokuttara cittas will arise. The Buddha pointed out that the realization of the four noble Truths is difficult, and he said this, not in order to discourage people, but in order to remind them not to be heedless. ******* Nina. #68230 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:16 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 7, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, After seeing there is thinking, after hearing there is thinking. What we are used to taking for a permanent thing appears for a very short moment and then it is completely gone. We have heard this before but it is so good to be reminded of the truth. Khun Sujin remarked: "In your idea it is as if things are permanent, but it all is so short, it is nothing at all. When one says, "Life is so short", one should remember that each moment is shorter. It never comes back. We listen to the song of a bird but it is completely gone in split seconds." You remarked that you are just thinking about temporariness, and that this is a way of samatha or calm with impermanence as object. This is a good point you brought up. We know that we understand about impermanence in theory, that we can think about it, but that we do not directly experience the truth. I quote your conversation with Khun Sujin: Khun Sujin: "There can also be a moment of insight, of understanding realities which arise and fall away, but it depends on the development of understanding whether that degree has been reached or not yet. It is not a matter of wanting or trying, but of developing." Sarah: "When we talk about stages of insight we start to worry. Why should we not just be aware of the characteristic which appears?" Khun Sujin: "Even if one talks about stages of insight one does not have to worry about it. There may be ignorance and attachment. People worry because they want to experience the stages of insight. One has to develop understanding. Then one does not worry about the different stages. One knows that one will reach them one day if the Path is right. One moment of understanding will lead to more understanding. There are only six doorways. Seeing continues from life to life. If one dies now and one is reborn for example in a deva plane, seeing follows instantly and it is like this from aeon to aeon. One sees a great deal and there is no understanding of seeing until one listens to the Dhamma and begins to develop understanding. There can be understanding of seeing as it is. If someone thinks that the development of understanding is too difficult and that he should do other things in order to have more awareness he does not see the value of a moment of being aware of a reality, of understanding it. " ******** Nina. #68231 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on the Sectarians Sutta (AN 3.61) upasaka_howard Hi, S- In a message dated 2/11/07 12:27:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thank you very much for the reply, I appreciate its substance: > > Howard: "Separating matter from mind is not the same as distinguishing > physical from mental. I DO distinguish them, as I also distinguish > knowing from known - distinguish but do not separate. Knowing and > known are interdependent, and the primary relationship between nama > and rupa is that between knowing and known." > > We may be getting caught in some semantic currents here. 'Separating' > and 'distinguishing' can be synonymous depending on context. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: To separate them, to me, means treating them as not mutually dependent, but independent. To distinguish them, to me, means treating them as not identical. ----------------------------------------- You> > don't seem to accept that naama, ruupa, and Nibbaana are separate and > distinct realities. Is this correct? ------------------------------------------ Howard: They are not the same phenomena. Namas and rupas are not the same, but they are interdependent. Nibbana I won't address definitively. Neither one of us has a clue of what we're talking about when we talk about nibbana. LOL! Informally, I think of nibbana as the actual nature of reality - "the all" as it actually is as opposed to how it seems under the sway of our defilements. If either one of us ever gets to know nibbana, let's talk! LOLOL! -------------------------------------------- > > H: "I do not, however, use 'matter' to translate 'rupa'. I understand > 'rupas' to signify physical forms such as sights, hardness-sensations, > itches, felt warmth, and so on - physical elements of experience." > > 'Sights' versus 'visible object'; 'hardness-sensations' versus > 'hardness'; 'itches, felt warmth' - a very clear sense that ruupa is > not a 'separate reality'. I see where Bh. Bodhi uses the word 'form' > for ruupa. How do you understand the following: > > SN22,48: > > "...Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, > internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or > near: this is the form aggregate." --------------------------------------------- Howard: It could be understood either way, as physical substance or physical experience. I think I've made it clear which is my interpretation. ----------------------------------------------- > > ["...ruupa.m atiitaanaagatapaccupanna.m ajjhatta.m vaa bahiddhaa vaa > o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa ya.m duure > santike vaa, aya.m vuccati ruupakkhando."] > > SN22,56: > > "And what, bhikkhus, is form? The four great elements and the form > derived from the four great elements: this is called form." > > ["Katama~nca, bhikkhave, ruupa.m? Cattaaro ca mahaabhuuta catunna~nca > mahaabuutaana.m upaadaaya ruupa.m. Ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, ruupa.m"] -------------------------------------------- Howard: So? Earth, air, fire, and water, OR solidity sensations (of hardess, softness, roughness, smoothness, weightiness, lightness, etc), sensations of movement, sensations of (varyng degrees of) warmth/cold, for the first three. For me, "water" as cohesion and flowing may be more conceptual than direct elements of experience. ---------------------------------------------- > > H: "The ordinary notion of matter is that of material substance, that > of chemists is atoms, and that of physicists is quantum probability > waves, whereas I view rupas as particular sorts of elements of > experience. Material substance, atoms, and probability waves are, IMO, > pa~n~natti. And yes, my perspective has been influenced by yogacara > - obviously. But not all that goes by the name 'yogacara' is the same, > and some of it includes convoluted and substantialist doctrines that I > reject." > > Thanks for clarifying your Yogaacaara leanings. It helps me see where > you are coming from - it was actually quite confusing at times, trying > to learn the Theravada perspective and then trying to figure out what > you were saying, as it seemed divergent ofttimes. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm a Buddhist, with several schools as influence. I'm neither Theravadin nor Mahayanist. I have agreement with elements of each and disagreements with other elements. My strongest influence is Theravada. I have been strongly influenced by Theravadin Abhidhamma due to DSG and I very much favor the Abhidhammic framework of citta, cetasika, and rupa, and the pa~n~natti/paramattha-dhamma dichotomy, though my perspective on it is a non-extreme, centrist one. The cornerstone and bedrock of my grasp of the Dhamma is the Pali Nikayas. In a way, I'm a circa-2007 sautrantika, in the literal sense of the term. As for my perspective diverging from that of Theravada, that depends on what one means by "Theravada". Most typically it means what is *specifically* Theravadin, namely the Theravadin Abhidhamma and the Theravadin commentaries. There is no question that I diverge from these, though far from entirely. I also accept much! And I diverge from all Mahayanist traditions as well, in probably more fundamental ways. ----------------------------------------------- > > What, then, is an 'element of experience'? ------------------------------------------ Howard: Any object-content of consciousness, for lack of a better explanation. Contents, as opposed to the knowing of them. Examples are itchs, sights, and emotions. A sight is a very good example. It is known by visual consciousness, and it is *not* the same as that knowing, but it is also not some material thing or substance or exernal object either - it is a mere content of consciousness. ------------------------------------------ > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ======================= With metta, Howard #68232 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on the Sectarians Sutta (AN 3.61) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 2/11/07 1:56:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Hi, S- > ===================== Sorry about that. The keys stick sometimes. With metta, Howard #68233 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: tanhaa that can be followed nilovg Dear Sarah, I was so glad you gave these messages. I received in Thailand the guide and Commentary in Thai, very voluminous, worth while. sevitabba: -abba does not need to be translated with must. Also with: can. Nina. Op 11-feb-2007, om 12:02 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > the > issues to date in these posts which you might care to look at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59632 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59634 #68234 From: connie Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:39 pm Subject: Re: About Mudita nichiconn Dear Joop, I appreciate your remark: "I repeat myself and when I'm not understood I increase my level of provocation". I'm sorry to have irritated you with my poorly expressed hopes. A lot of times I get the idea that most of the people who are anti-commentarial have never even glanced through one & are just repeating something else they've seen somewhere on the internet. You, I believe, have at least considered them in their own right. I don't think I was looking for any agreement with you, just a better understanding of where you think the commentaries are misleading or wrong. In the end, the only real authority must be our own understanding. best wishes, connie ps. if you stay, I'll drop my no mahayana rule for you ;) We can pick on the controversial Nichiren. #68235 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions egberdina Hi all, A bit more about conditions. For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. It is the taking of a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of verification or falsification. But a really interesting feature of this view is that the view makes no difference to anything. Everything that has ever happened will still have happened, and everything that will happen will still happen. So whether the conditionality mantra gets recited or not, or whether such a recitation will have any effect is all subsumed by the view. It really is a view of everything. And a view of everything has the distinction of not having a perspective on anything. If everything is said to be caused, then that simply means that we have no idea what it means to be caused, because we cannot differentiate between the caused and the uncaused. To be caused only becomes meaningful when there is also the uncaused. And this is why Buddhism without nibbana/the uncaused is a dead duck. Change can only be known against a backdrop of permanence, suffering can only be known against a backdrop of non-suffering, being can only be known against a backdrop of non-being, and anatta can only be known against a backdrop of nibbana (atta). Kind Regards Herman #68236 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: About Mudita egberdina Hi Connie, Now you're talking. > In the end, the only real authority must be our own understanding. Not only must it be, it always already has been that way. Kind Regards Herman #68237 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/11/07 4:24:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi all, > > A bit more about conditions. > > For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. > Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, > this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. It is the taking of > a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of > verification or falsification. > > But a really interesting feature of this view is that the view makes > no difference to anything. Everything that has ever happened will > still have happened, and everything that will happen will still > happen. ====================== Ignoring the issue of whether 'conditionality' and 'causality' mean the same, I would like to ask you a question: You say "the view makes no difference to anything." Why then do you choose *not* to step in front of a moving car instead of stepping in front of it? Or do you agree with the volition deniers that no choosing is possible? With metta, Howard #68238 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions TGrand458@... Hi Herman Your post below seems very philosophical. A few comments... In a message dated 2/11/2007 2:25:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi all, A bit more about conditions. For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. TG: Except "the unconditioned." Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. TG: Happened to be the Buddha's view... "All Conditions are impermanent, all conditions are dukkha, all things are not-self." Be that as it may. It is the taking of a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of verification or falsification. TG: I'd say it is taking principles of nature, knowledge through that which has been experienced, and applying it to whatever nature can be experienced. But a really interesting feature of this view is that the view makes no difference to anything. Everything that has ever happened will still have happened, and everything that will happen will still happen. So whether the conditionality mantra gets recited or not, or whether such a recitation will have any effect is all subsumed by the view. It really is a view of everything. And a view of everything has the distinction of not having a perspective on anything. TG: First part of eightfold Path -- Right View. At any rate, I disagree with your conclusion that -- "a view of everything has the distinction of not having a perspective on anything." If everything is said to be caused, then that simply means that we have no idea what it means to be caused, because we cannot differentiate between the caused and the uncaused. To be caused only becomes meaningful when there is also the uncaused. TG: Is it impossible to know physical pain unless there has been an experience of pleasure? I doubt it. This type of dialectics has limits. And this is why Buddhism without nibbana/the uncaused is a dead duck. TG: I don't understand the point of this sentence. Is someone postulating a Buddhism without Nibbana? Change can only be known against a backdrop of permanence, TG: Since there is no permanence, this point contradicts itself. suffering can only be known against a backdrop of non-suffering, being can only be known against a backdrop of non-being, and anatta can only be known against a backdrop of nibbana (atta). TG: The equating of Nibbana with atta seems odd. Do you consider Nibbana a state of "self?" I'd have to say this post, and particularly this last sentence, has left me confused as to what you're getting at. Kind Regards Herman TG #68239 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions egberdina Hi Howard, On 12/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 2/11/07 4:24:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > A bit more about conditions. > > > > For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. > > Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, > > this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. It is the taking of > > a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of > > verification or falsification. > > > > But a really interesting feature of this view is that the view makes > > no difference to anything. Everything that has ever happened will > > still have happened, and everything that will happen will still > > happen. > ====================== > Ignoring the issue of whether 'conditionality' and 'causality' mean > the same, I would like to ask you a question: You say "the view makes no > difference to anything." Why then do you choose *not* to step in front of a moving > car instead of stepping in front of it? Or do you agree with the volition > deniers that no choosing is possible? > A quick reply only, as I'm ducking in and out, between jobs. I certainly don't agree with the volition deniers. I am attempting to demonstrate that a statement of their position, each time they make it, means exactly zilch. Kind Regards Herman #68240 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:31 pm Subject: Distances (Was: Re: About Mudita philofillet Hi James > From my perspective, DSG cannot be blamed to interrupting one's > meditation. If it wasn't thoughts about DSG arising, it would be > thoughts about other subjects. You're right. I think it could be argues that the amount of media we consume will increase the restlessness of our minds when we meditate, but that's really a moot point. The mind is so chaotic that wondering about whether that is true or not is just another source of restlessness. The thing about meditation is that > the mind should be kept within the body. When the mind wanders > outside of the body, just bring it back. I'm not sure "mind wanders outside of the body" is the way I would put it, but I know what you mean. Thanks! As the Buddha taught: > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk ?E > quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) > qualities?E > > One needs to withdraw from the outside world. Well, at this point I'm not seeking jhanas, so this isn't quite true for me, but for those seeking jhanas, definitely true. And whether we are seeking jhanas or not, we have to become more "resilient" to objects. We have to be that tortoise that withdraws its head on short notice, always paying attention. We have to have appamada, which does not arise now and then when conditions are right for it, but is constant. I love the AN suttas in which appamada is praised as the highest of virtues. There's one in which it says that the indriyas can only develop to their fullest when appamada is there to...protect them? > Good wishes for your > continued practice!! Thanks, you too James, and everyone. Metta, Phil #68241 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions scottduncan2 Hi Herman, H: "A bit more about conditions...It is the taking of a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of verification or falsification...Everything that has ever happened will still have happened, and everything that will happen will still happen..." I dig this a lot, from the Introduction to Pa.t.thaana: "...The Elder Mahagatigamiyatissa crossed over to the opposite shore of India with the intention of paying homage to the Wisdom Tree. Seated on the upper deck of the boat he looked at the great ocean; but neither the thither nor the hither shore appeared to his vision. There appeared only the great ocean, strewn with foam thrown off by the breaking of the billows, and looking like a sheet of silver spread out on a bed of jasmine flowers. He thought to himself: Which is more extraordinary - the heaving of the ocean waves, or the Great Book? Then the limits of the great ocean became apparent to him. Indeed, he thought to himself: This ocean is limited, below by the earth, above by the sky, on one side by the mountain encircling the world system, and on the other by the seashore. But the limits of the universal Pa.t.thaana are not apparent. And abundant rapture arose in him, as he reflected on the subtle and abstruse Law. Arresting his rapture and increasing his insight even while he was seated, he threw off all the corruptions, and being established in the topmost Fruition which is Arahantship, he exulted in this song of ecstacy: He is the true disciple of the Sage Who sees, like a bright jewel in his hand, Root-causes, from which all becoming is - Lore deep and hard to know, which the Great Sage Intuited, and all in order taught. This is the ocean of method." Don't depair, man! Sincerly, Scott. #68242 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions scottduncan2 Hi Herman, Um, go ahead and 'depair' if you want, I meant: Don't despair, man. S #68243 From: connie Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:58 pm Subject: Re: Conditions nichiconn greetings and reflections, Howard, Herman, "All". << ... do you agree with the volition deniers that no choosing is possible? >> volition denyers! thanks for the laugh. if you're forced to choose not to meditate on a railroad crossing, it's probably a good indication of their level of mastery. ;) c. #68244 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects egberdina Hi TG, On 11/02/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/2007 7:17:57 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Yes, of course I should have been clearer. It is consciousness that > rises and falls. It is consciousness of objects that rises and falls. > It is not objects that rise and fall. Nothing that is based on > experience only can be a foundation for statements about the being, > becoming, or not being of objects. Anything known about the being or > otherwise of objects is known in dependence on the arising of > consciousness, which is entirely not persistent. Even nibbana is > known, inferentially, in this manner. And the nature of nibbana is > that it just is. It does not rise or fall, by inference. > > In short, any object state is inference. > > > Hi Herman > > Two comments... 1) This approach doesn't seem to have any coincidence to the > general approach the Buddha talked about things. > There are those who hold that the Buddha taught about object states in order to know them, and that this knowledge has some redeeming quality, and there are others who hold that the Buddha taught about object states in order to understand that any state is anatta, anicca and dukkha. I don't feel any obligation to reconcile all of the Theravadan Canon so as to make it internally consistent to myself. > 2) Consciousness is just a "resultant" based on the so-called objects. As > objects/states/phenomena/conditions change, so does consciousness change. The > fact that consciousness changes is evidence that objects are changing. They > are not separate things. They are connected like gears on a clock. > This is a metaphysical position. It is not observable to be so. This keyboard in front of me is not changing as I look at it. What I notice to be changing is focus and attention on details and relations of details to each other. I leave the room, and in my absence I need not have a view about the keyboard. But I do, and expect to find it there when I return. And yes, it is there, unchanged. Kind Regards Herman #68245 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a center, and resistence. egberdina Hi Nina, > N: As I tried to explain, it is important with whom one associates so > that one can hear true dhamma. Do you not see how this makes each individual the judge of what true dhamma is? Kind Regards Herman #68246 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Scott, On 09/02/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Thanks for a great reply! My experience of it was actually rather > joyful. Later, when thinking about that, I realised that this was > because I had had an earlier experience of worry that you would not > take it well or be angry or not like me - all 'experience' as I see > you would define it from the broad perspective. Thanks for your post. I can relate to joy, worry, anger. I know what they are. > In an earlier post I suggested we might differ somehow in our faith. > I think I said you lacked a 'capacity' for faith which was an > inaccurate statement. We all have this capacity since faith is a > reality that arises due to conditions. I meant that I > think your faith is less developed than mine, if I can put it that > way. I'm speaking conventionally - faith is not anyone's therefore > there are only levels of faith and no 'one' can have more - dig it? I > mean that there might be relatively different levels of faith between > the two of 'us'. > I know I have faith. This keyboard in front of me, I cannot see it's bottom. I can only see the top side, with all the letters facing upwards. Neither can I see the far edge. But I have faith that these surfaces are there, should I pick up the keyboard and rotate it in various ways. And when I rotate the keyboard, the surfaces that were in view, will disappear from view, but I have faith that they continue to be there. Should it become impossible to test this faith, it would be useless for me to continue to have this faith about the relationships between spatially extended objects and consciousness. > H: "Yes, that's how I see it. I don't quite know how to elaborate, but > I'll give it a shot. When I talk to Mum on the phone, that is the > experience. When I hear a voice and feel the telephone handpiece > against my head, that is the experience. When I see a tree, I see a > tree, and when I see colour, I see colour. I never experience > paramattha dhammas, one at a time. Do you?" > > I don't generally experience paramattha dhammas one at a time either, > no. I might have once though. I would find it quite remarkable for someone to develop a theory based on a single observation, especially given a seeming inability to reproduce the situation. I would perhaps not use the word faith to describe such a situation, perhaps wishful is a more appropriate and precise description. > H: "It's been a while. I hope that you got around to those dishes :-)" > > This is why I must stop, truth be told. It's bizarre, actually. I > did do those dishes. Yet even now, as I look, there are more! Some > of them are actually the same ones I swear I did yesterday! And > they're filthy again. What the hell? Are gremlins conceptual or > real? Thanks again for your reply. > I understand your dishes dilemma and can relate to it very well. If only things were different :-). Which reminds me of a saying my father learned in his village as a boy. "If ash was flour, and shit syrup, we would eat pancakes everyday". Kind Regards Herman #68247 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! egberdina Hi Nina, > We had to go to a cremation of a colleague of us. One can be mindful of such activity, it is real. > We were sitting in > the hall and listening to the speeches of a pastor and others Same here. . seeing, hearing just > sound, and then thinking of the meaning of the words that were > spoken, cold. That is real too. >This is pariyatti, but pariyatti is not merely > theoretical understanding. It is considering the reality of the > present moment.This is the way to learn. This is not real. You cannot be mindful of any of it. > Afterwards we were standing in a long queue to walk past the coffin. > I said to Lodewijk: Back to reality. > what else can we do but considering these realities. But this is not > cold, harsh, unfriendly at all. Gone again. And so it is with all of us, wondering in and out mindfulness, into all sorts of explanations. I read a nice description of this once "The mind, trawling for things". Kind Regards Herman #68248 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:36 pm Subject: Impossible! bhikkhu5 Friends: Ceasing of Kamma is by Exhaustion of Effect! The Blessed Buddha once said: I tell you, Bhikkhus and Friends, that it is absolutely impossible, that willed, intended, performed, & accumulated actions (kamma) will cease to be effective as long as one has not yet experienced their results, be it in this life, or in the next life, or in future lives! And it is equally impossible, that without having experienced these results of one's accumulated, intended, & performed past actions, that one will be able to put an end to Suffering. May this be known! Source: Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikaya AN 10:208 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm For details on the mechanics of Kamma = Action see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_is_intention.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Buddha_on_Kamma.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Good_Action_dilutes_Evil_Kamma.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_short_ &_long_life.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Effect_of_Action_(kamma)_is_Delayed.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_Health_&_Sickness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_Low_or_High_Birth.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_Wealth_or_Poverty.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_Beauty_&_Ugliness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_Power_or_Disrespect.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Evil_Kamma_enhances_other_Evil_Kamma.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Kamma_leading_to_Stupidity_or_Intelligence.\ htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Good_Action_enhances_other_Good_Kamma.htm Impossible! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68249 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] About Mudita sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Dear Sarah, Jon, Connie, all > > Sarah, thanks for your nice words, again; but I think you have not > yet noticed my message of yesterday about 'distances' .... S: You're right - I hadn't read your later messages. We got very behind with our reading at the weekend. I also hadn't read Scott's post with a long quote on elements when I typed out exactly the same passage:-/!! ... > Several times the term 'sincere' is used here, for exemple by Melek. > I doubt all my messages the last month were sincere. .... S: It's OK - no one has 'sincere' motives all the time - not even all the time writing a sentence, let alone an entire post or string of posts. You 'sincerely' do your best, Joop. No one can control cittas to be all pure - all compassionate, all mudita-filled. .. > I have decided to leave DSG because in this stage my participation > has an unwholesome influence on me. That has of course to do with me, > so no DSG to blame. > Discussions repeat themselves (for exemple about 'formal' meditation) > endless and I repeat myself and when I'm not understood I increase my > level of provocation. Or make punishing remarks to Connie for example. ... S: It's all understandable and Connie and the rest of us would rather hear from you somewhat provoked at times than not at all. I know you don't like personal comments, but for me it is like a family - we get used to each other as we are, not as we'd all like to be in fantasy land:-). Nina mentioned recently how Lodewijk becomes distressed when he listens to some talks and finds them 'harsh'. I think it's the same for many people including you - we become provoked and agitated when they are topics of real importance and significance. It's an indication that we're sincerely considering them. If they were discussions on other topics, they wouldn't have this reaction. So, I think it's natural and we don't have to be unduly concerned. The aim is understanding more about dhammas, not to avoid ever being provoked. .... > I'm tired of explaining again commentaries do not have any authority > to me > So I have much meditation to do to see more clear my being angry > arising. ... S: I think we all appreciate your take on the commentaries and that's no problem for anyone. Those who like to refer to them will and those like you who don't want to read them or take note, won't. You're certainly not alone here in this regard. With regard to the anger, yes, when it arises is the time to understand it for what it is. It's an opportunity to see it. The same applies to attachment (which conditions it) or any other present dhamma. All anatta and impermanent. The anger we mind about has long since gone. .... > > The question to myself (am I a Theravadin?) has to do with several > points, one of them the strict individualistic way of thinking > of: "the other" is only a subject to be nice too, not somebody to be > connected to at paramattha level. ..... S: No need to work out whether you're a Theravadan. It's just a label, Joop. More important is to understand the present dhammas, even this wondering. What is true for us is true for others too. Moments of seeing, hearing and attachment to what is seen and heard, for example. Just as we like pleasant experiences, so do others. But the realities are not 'Self' and 'Other'. I'll try to write more to Herman later. .... > I don't think, like Jon, that "to recognize the suffering of another > is nothing special' ". It's very special, only it does not fit in the > Abhidhamma-system. And psychiatry learns that an autist doesn't have > this faculty. .... S: I think you slightly misunderstood him. We can recognize and sympathise with the suffering of another. But this isn't the same as 'feeling the other's suffering'. For example, if someone else has a shooting pain in the back, we show kindness and sympathise, but 'our' body consciousness is not feeling the same experience at all. (Fyi, I learn every day about compassion and mudita from Jon's fine examples - so Abhidhamma does not make one autistic, I assure you.). ... > I have learned much here but now the stagnation is telling me: leave. > That's difficult because I'm attached to DSG (like Ananda was to the > Buddha) .... S: (Btw, I agree with you with regard to Ananda and his attachment to the Buddha being before becoming an arahant. I can check and add a quote or two on this if you are still around, otherwise I'll leave it til later. Just let me know if you'd like me to join in that thread). Just see how it goes, Joop. No need to make any special determinations. When you get irritated with us, it's very mild and we're just happy to have you around when it happens. As I said yesterday, the only hindrance to the development of wisdom and to the following of the path is ignorance. ... > With maximum metta > > Your mourning Joop ..... S: Anumodana with all that metta and pls don't mourn either way, Joop. We'll look forward to talking to you whenever you feel inclined to talk to us. You could always have a period of just talking to others who prefer to stick to suttas only from a broader perspective, like TG, for one. Metta, Sarah p.s sorry this is all rather personal. ======== #68250 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 2/11/2007 8:36:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi TG, On 11/02/07, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) <_T Grand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) > wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/2007 7:17:57 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > _hhofmeister@hhofmeist_ (mailto:hhofmeister@...) writes: > > Yes, of course I should have been clearer. It is consciousness that > rises and falls. It is consciousness of objects that rises and falls. > It is not objects that rise and fall. Nothing that is based on > experience only can be a foundation for statements about the being, > becoming, or not being of objects. Anything known about the being or > otherwise of objects is known in dependence on the arising of > consciousness, which is entirely not persistent. Even nibbana is > known, inferentially, in this manner. And the nature of nibbana is > that it just is. It does not rise or fall, by inference. > > In short, any object state is inference. > > > Hi Herman > > Two comments... 1) This approach doesn't seem to have any coincidence to the > general approach the Buddha talked about things. > There are those who hold that the Buddha taught about object states in order to know them, and that this knowledge has some redeeming quality, and there are others who hold that the Buddha taught about object states in order to understand that any state is anatta, anicca and dukkha. I don't feel any obligation to reconcile all of the Theravadan Canon so as to make it internally consistent to myself. TG: I don't see anything to reconcile. Both positions seem consistent. > 2) Consciousness is just a "resultant" based on the so-called objects. As > objects/states/ objec objects/states/phenomena/conditions chang > fact that consciousness changes is evidence that objects are changing. They > are not separate things. They are connected like gears on a clock. > This is a metaphysical position. It is not observable to be so. TG: I don't subscribe that either the Buddha's teaching or my paragraph are metaphysical. This keyboard in front of me is not changing as I look at it. What I notice to be changing is focus and attention on details and relations of details to each other. I leave the room, and in my absence I need not have a view about the keyboard. But I do, and expect to find it there when I return. And yes, it is there, unchanged. TG: Unchanged? No. It is changed. Note some quotes from the Buddha... “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta, #115) “Whether Tathagatas (Buddhas) arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent … that all formations are subject to suffering … that all things are non-self. A Tathagata (Buddha) fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrating it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self.â€? (The Buddha . . . NDB, pg. 77) “When, Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks), a carpenter or carpenter’s apprentice looks at the handle of his adze, he sees the impressions of his fingers and his thumb, but he does not know: ‘So much of the adze handle has been worn away today, so much yesterday, so much earlier.’ But when it has worn away, the knowledge occurs to him that it has worn away.â€? (The Buddha . . . The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (CDB), (Samyutta Nikaya), vol. 1, pg. 960 – 961) “Monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathagata (Buddha), this causal law of nature, this orderly fixing of things prevails, all phenomena are impermanent.â€? (The Buddha . . . Book of the Gradual Sayings (GS), (Anguttara Nikaya), vol. 1, pg. 264-265) “…conditioned states are impermanent, they are unstable…â€? (The Buddha . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha (LDB), (Digha Nikaya), pg. 290, A King’s Renunciation, Mahasudassana Sutta, #17) “…all conditioned things are of a nature to decay – strive on untiringly.â€? _2_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_edn1) (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 270, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) ____________________________________ _2_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ednref1) This last quote is recorded as the final words spoken by the Buddha right before he died. It therefore may be seen as an encapsulation of his most important message: -- to realize the fleeting nature of conditions, and through this realization, make a diligent effort to overcome affliction. This message requires the context of the rest of his teachings to more fully appreciate. The note above is from my own writing but I let it stay as it was applicable to our discussion. Certainly if the Buddha wanted to state that only "experiences" were of importance in regards to impermanence, etc., he could have easily done so. The Buddha is either a terrible teacher, who has trouble expressing himself with any clarity, or he actually means to say that all formations, experienced and otherwise, are impermanent. Not only this, but also that clear awareness of that fact is a very important part of his teaching. Kind Regards Herman TG #68251 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (15) sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Connie & all), --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I like this: > > S: "This also reminds me of a comment in the sub-comy to the > Satipatthana sutta with regard to sati and other path factors: > > "Why is the Arousing of Mindfulness intended by the word 'way'? Are > there not many other factors of the way, namely, understanding, > thinking, speech, action, livelihood, effort, and concentration, > besides mindfulness? To be sure there are. But all these are implied > when the Arousing of Mindfulness is mentioned, because these factors > exist in union with mindfulness." > > Yes, when considered as inter-related constituents of a particular > type of moment of consciousness (kusala) then these are just elements > which arise and fall away but in intricate coexistence and serving as > condition, again intricately, for the next moment and the next. .... S: Nicely put. .... > > S: "Yes, we always have to consider the meaning. Like when suttas just > refer to the development of awarenss of 'feelings' or 'body' etc - > examples are given, but it doesn't mean just focus on one kind of > reality! .... S: And of course the recent example of the '6 elements' which we both selected - referring in fact to all elements, all namas and rupas... I just mentioned to Joop that we'd got behind with our reading and one reason was that on Friday, just as I was in the middle of writing this last post of mine to you, K.Sujin called me, to ask if we'd help her write a couple of talks (asap, related to her "Outstanding Woman" selection award). Of course we'd do our best(!!!), I said, but wasn't it like a couple of paupers helping a rich person make money? ......When I asked for anything she wanted included, she made a comment along the following lines: >S: "This is why K.Sujin always likes to stress the importance of really > considering and understanding, not just following the texts." I jotted down the note to you here as I listened on the phone:-). We've been trying to put something together over the weekend to quickly send off - hence the getting a bit behind with reading. ..... >Scott: She points out that it is not enough to merely consider that there can > be 'understanding' but stresses the importance of the object, and by > implication therefore, the function, when she says, "Understanding of > what?" She also says that understanding is never 'my understanding' > but is only just an element. > > Learning Dhamma, she says, is often very subtly, mistakenly and > wrongly merely 'learning about me' as if this learning is mine and > goes to help me understand myself better. These women of whom we are > reading were clearly 'really considering and understanding' and with > no self involved. .... S: Very good. On our recent trip she stressed again the distinction between a)understanding for oneself, b) understanding for others and c) understanding just for the sake of understanding. Connie gave a good quote before from Bhikkhu Anandajoti's translation of the Mahasatipatthana Sutta & comy: http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Short-Pieces/index.\ \htm >C: anandajoti's footnote includes the commentary: > << Yaavad-evaa ti payojanaparicchedavavatthaapanam-eta.m. Ida.m vutta.m > hoti: yaa saa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti saa na a~n~nad-atthaaya. Atha > kho yaavad-eva ~naa.namattaaya aparaapara.m uttaruttari ~naa.napamaa.natthaaya > ceva satipamaa.natthaaya* ca, satisampaja~n~naana.m vu.d.dhatthaayaa ti > attho - yaavad-eva, this designates, and is limited to, purpose. This is > what is said: whatever mindfulness is established is not for another > reason. Then the meaning of as far as (is necessary for) a measure of > knowledge is so as to increase more and more, further and further, > knowledge and mindfulness, for the increase of mindfulness and clear > awareness.>> > and alternative translations *for just knowledge and remembrance (Way); > or *for mere understanding and mere awareness (VRI). .... >S: This last part struck a chord about mindfulness being established just so that knowledge can increase more and more, for sati sampajanna, 'for mere understanding and mere awareness'. It's like something KS often says to us about 'just for the sake of understanding' or 'cook rice for the sake of cooked rice':-).< .... S: So, back to the Satipatthana Sutta here.... Metta, Sarah ======== #68252 From: "kanchaa" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:04 am Subject: Re: Harmonization between what you think and what you do? kanchuu2003 Dear Larry, Realization is definately let go of both of your thought and action... I was talking in context of daily life... I plan my day and it is based on discipline... In the evening when I return, I already have made silly mistakes which I realize I shouldnt have... So basically I am talking about thinking or planning a day which doesnt lead to craving or suffering, but in the end of the day, my Karma has already created so.. So I was talking about the same... My question is "How do you spend a Conscious day"? I realize and again I forget... Its not me.. I have never been to Germany... I am from Nepal. Sincerely, Nitesh #68253 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. sarahprocter... Hi Joel, --- joelaltman26 wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > I find all the discussions really so delightful. Kh Sujin is always > always always calling everything/everyone back to the present > moment, right now. when we are submerged, or flooded, by the ocean > of ideas --- the pannati, the nimitta .... S: You got it! Whether in the ashram or in the factory, as you say, only the present moment now - seeing, hearing and thinking about 'the ocean of ideas'..... .... (((ohh just yesterday i > listened to the incredible conversation where she indicates that > until the second stage of tender insight, where the rising and > falling of the dhammas is understood by panna in the present moment, > then we are really just aware of the nimitta of reality... beginning > stages of satipatthana... oh what a wonderfully subtle > truth/experience!))) .... S: (3rd stage of insight to be precise...)Amazing how you appreciate all this. You must have considered/listened a lot .... [My initial experience of listening to KS was v.similar to yours - living in a temple in Sri Lanka, meditating all day, then being given one poor quality cassette to listen to and a complete change of direction - lots of study (Vism, other texts and a draft copy of ADL)and reflection and a leaving of the temple to go home once the speeding vehicle had come to a complete halt. No internet then. .... > > it is like each person present at the discussion is an aspect of the > illusion of myself, reprenting different (not)-selves that "i" > contend with. and it is almost as if Kh Sujin, by her patient, > pleasant, and exacting presence, is calling the sampajano sati to > the front... "what about right now"... ahh... so blissful. .... S: Yes and the message never changes. What else is there but 'right now'? Pls keep sharing any snippets of particular interest or good reminders. ... > > you see, as i had all these hours that i had been practicing before, > now i can dedicate them to listening to and studying the dhamma. > i really feel so grateful to have been lead to this group/family of > friends in dhamma. i feel like i know you through hearing your > voices and listening to your questions. .... S: Again, that was just my experience. Btw, as I mentioned to Scott - the names you hear are 'in order of appearance' for the sessions. We started including them when friends started asking us who the people were. .... > Thank you, both you and Jonation and the rest of the gang, for your > continued committment to the Dhamma and helping others. .... S: Thank you too, Joel. We just try to share a little of the great help we've been given. ... > ps - The ashram is in the mountains of southern quebec, canada. .... S: Sounds a lovely spot. Perhaps we should all come to join you at the centre, lol! I once did some cycling round Quebec on one of those high-powered bikes (can hardly believe it now!). Beautiful countryside and I loved Quebec city. Phil will be interested - he's from Montreal. The Canadians are a pretty strong force round here, these days.....Scot's from the Edmonton. Rob M will want to 'meet' you too - I forget where he's from. Metta, Sarah ====== #68254 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:40 am Subject: Distances (Was: Re: About Mudita buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi James > > > From my perspective, DSG cannot be blamed to interrupting one's > > meditation. If it wasn't thoughts about DSG arising, it would be > > thoughts about other subjects. > > You're right. I think it could be argues that the amount of media > we consume will increase the restlessness of our minds when we > meditate Oh yes! Now I definitely agree with this. I hope I wasn't implying otherwise. Some people like to point out that in the Buddha's time, many householders achieved the various levels of enlightenment, but we have to consider the lifestyle of the householders of the Buddha's time. Did they have constant television, movies, radio, newspapers, Internet, music, etc? The householders of the Buddha's time could more easily focus their minds on presently arising namas and rupas because their senses weren't dulled by constant forms of entertainment. If a householder of today wants to accomplish what the householders of the Buddha's time could accomplish, then they must live like those householders of the Buddha's time. That means: no television, no radio, no movies, no newspapers, no music, and no Internet (except for Dhamma)- then the mind and senses will become sharp enough for the investigation of presently arising dhammas. It is only then that one can achieve inner-peace. Metta, James #68255 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Joel, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > [My initial experience of listening to KS was v.similar to yours - living > in a temple in Sri Lanka, meditating all day, then being given one poor > quality cassette to listen to and a complete change of direction - lots of > study (Vism, other texts and a draft copy of ADL)and reflection and a > leaving of the temple to go home once the speeding vehicle had come to a > complete halt. No internet then. During the Buddha's time there were also monks and nuns who disrobed and returned home. Does this mean the Sangha is a complete waste of time? Metta, James #68256 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > During the Buddha's time there were also monks and nuns who disrobed > and returned home. Does this mean the Sangha is a complete waste of > time? .... S: It's the path that counts whether a monk, a nun, a lay-man or lay-woman. Do you disagree? Metta, Sarah ====== #68257 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:58 am Subject: Mudita and DSG-ending sarahprocter... F/W message from Joop (which he says I can quote on-list) ======================= From: "Joop" Dear Sarah <...> You are right in remarks about anger; and perhaps with your remarks about getting provoked and agitated. Yes, DSG is like a family (I can describe the different roles but will not do), that's the attraction but also makes it difficult to leave and go into the world. S: I think you slightly misunderstood him [Jon]. We can recognize and sympathise with the suffering of another. But this isn't the same as 'feeling the other's suffering'. For example, if someone else has a shooting pain in the back, we show kindness and sympathise, but 'our' body consciousness is not feeling the same experience at all." J: Perhaps I misunderstood, but I have problems with the mixture of ultimate realities and socalled "commen sense" in one statement. What for one person is common sense is for another incorrect psychology. And you forget my (private) Abhidhamma has one extra citta, compared with the orthodox Theravada one: the "social citta". A human being - even a sensitive wordling - can experience some suffering of others directly, so I'm talking about a dhamma. Of course this theory of me has some problems but I'm sure the core of it is correct, even if I'm the only Abhidhammika who believes in it. And even on conceptual level "empathy" is more and something else than evident proof of somebody's suffering. Take care, sweeping statement below When the number of citta's cannot change, I propose to delete "the smile of the arahant" from that list: the Abhidhamma is a list of dhammas a human being can experience and in a way a arahant is no longer a human being (the list of dhammas of animals is another than that of human beings; the list of gods - if existing - is another too) <...> Please publish your search-results about Ananda, I think i will lurk now and then. And more important: the result can be important for others too. Not because it will prove that not only according Joop but also according the commentary Ananda was not yet an arahant when speaking the "gatha" 1034-1036. But for understanding better attachment to people (or the Buddha) and the importance of the mourning-process for a really detachement. Metta Joop #68258 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing scottduncan2 Hi Herman, Glad to continue: H: "Thanks for your post. I can relate to joy, worry, anger. I know what they are." These then, known as objects of experience, are something one can have confidence in. H: "I know I have faith. This keyboard in front of me, I cannot see it's bottom. I can only see the top side, with all the letters facing upwards. Neither can I see the far edge. But I have faith that these surfaces are there, should I pick up the keyboard and rotate it in various ways. And when I rotate the keyboard, the surfaces that were in view, will disappear from view, but I have faith that they continue to be there. Should it become impossible to test this faith, it would be useless for me to continue to have this faith about the relationships between spatially extended objects and consciousness." I actually think that 'confidence' might even be a better word than faith, but yeah, it sounds as if what you describe is faith. But, and I'm quite curious about this, how far does your confidence extend? What are its limits? The bottom of the keyboard? The next room? The corner store? The existence of the next series of life processes after this series ends? Cessation? And what are its objects? The unseen bottoms of computer keyboards? The existence of a country yet unvisited? Devas and other realms of existence? Tathaagatas? And what of the Dhamma? Here you are: Can you say more of what confidence you have of Dhamma? I'd be pleased if you would. H: "I would find it quite remarkable for someone to develop a theory based on a single observation, especially given a seeming inability to reproduce the situation. I would perhaps not use the word faith to describe such a situation, perhaps wishful is a more appropriate and precise description." It is possible for certain observations to serve as condition for very great confidence. Perhaps this is in your own experience somewhere and you know what I'm talking about. I don't know if one can say that such great confidence conditioned by experience would count as 'theory'. I'd say it serves as condition for learning. I'd say it opens a metaphorical space into which one's thoughts can flow. I'd say it allows for a greater range of experience and more and more knowing of realities. Not theory. H: "I understand your dishes dilemma and can relate to it very well. If only things were different :-). Which reminds me of a saying my father learned in his village as a boy. "If ash was flour, and shit syrup, we would eat pancakes everyday". Beautiful! They dreamed about heaven in your father's village - must have been rather bleak. I bet, magic pancakes notwithstanding, we'd still have to do the damn dishes though! Sincerely, Scott. #68259 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:32 am Subject: Re: Conditions scottduncan2 connie, Herman, Howard, All: Yeah: c: "volition denyers! thanks for the laugh. if you're forced to choose not to meditate on a railroad crossing, it's probably a good indication of their level of mastery." Speaking of level of mastery, did you hear the one about the guy who had developed the Divine Eye but only so far and with which he saw the passing away of an arahat without seeing any following rebirth? This Seer promply went on, from this experience, to formulate an excellent view based on annihilation. The punch line is: There is no rebirth for arahats. Good one, eh? Sincerely, Scott. #68260 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. philofillet Hi Joel (and Scott) Welcome to the group. I felt happy for you to read your blissful reaction to hearing the recorded talks. I can relate to it, though I'm not listening to them anymore. (I have become more of a Bhikkhu Bodhi & Burmese monks man!) If you are still in southern Quebec this summer, and are still wrapped up in the talks, I have a bunch on cassette (rare editions!) that Ken H and another member were kind enough to dub and send to me. I will bring them for you during my visit there, if you'd like. I was intending to offer them to Scott, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Scott, if you come out to Montreal, you and Joel can paper-scissors- stone or eeny-meeny-mo or Habs vs. Oilers brawl for them! :) Metta, Phil p.s I could just mail them, couldn't I? My wife has quit her job to set up her own workshops, and until that gets going we're on an incredibly tight budget, you see... > it is like each person present at the discussion is an aspect of the > illusion of myself, reprenting different (not)-selves that "i" > contend with. and it is almost as if Kh Sujin, by her patient, > pleasant, and exacting presence, is calling the sampajano sati to > the front... "what about right now"... ahh... so blissful. > #68261 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] About Mudita upasaka_howard Hi, Joop (and Sarah) - In a message dated 2/11/07 11:53:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Dear Sarah, Jon, Connie, all > > Sarah, thanks for your nice words, again; but I think you have not > yet noticed my message of yesterday about 'distances' > Several times the term 'sincere' is used here, for exemple by Melek. > I doubt all my messages the last month were sincere. > I have decided to leave DSG because in this stage my participation > has an unwholesome influence on me. That has of course to do with me, > so no DSG to blame. > Discussions repeat themselves (for exemple about 'formal' meditation) > endless and I repeat myself and when I'm not understood I increase my > level of provocation. Or make punishing remarks to Connie for example. > I'm tired of explaining again commentaries do not have any authority > to me > So I have much meditation to do to see more clear my being angry > arising. > > The question to myself (am I a Theravadin?) has to do with several > points, one of them the strict individualistic way of thinking > of: "the other" is only a subject to be nice too, not somebody to be > connected to at paramattha level. > I don't think, like Jon, that "to recognize the suffering of another > is nothing special' ". It's very special, only it does not fit in the > Abhidhamma-system. And psychiatry learns that an autist doesn't have > this faculty. > > I have learned much here but now the stagnation is telling me: leave. > That's difficult because I'm attached to DSG (like Ananda was to the > Buddha) > > With maximum metta > > Your mourning Joop > ============================ I am happy that Sarah replied to this, Joop!. I had missed this post of yours as well as the Distances one! I dearly hope you will remain subscribed to DSG - for my own selfish reasons. I value you, your posts, and your perspective. There are points on which we disagree, many on which we agree, but all that just obscures the matter of your importance here. People are not one-dimensional, but complex wonders, and each person is unique, and very, very special - and some more than others. I understand the anger that can arise out of some conversations on DSG all too well. But I think we can learn a lot about ourselves from that that would not be learned or dealt with otherwise. I'm not "an angry person", and I genuinely love people, and so it becomes easy to start to think that I'm relatively equanimous in that direction. But anger and a host of other defilements are right there, just below the surface, and it is best to be aware of the way matters actually are. There are times of frustration and annoyance at which it is prudent to pull back a bit, even taking not only a posting hiatus, but even a reading hiatus. Perhaps you could consider that? A first step might be to switch your status to digest mode - I assume that isn't your current status. I maintain that status on a couple lists, though here I directly receive all the posts in my inbox. That way, in digest mode, you receive far fewer mailings, and you can peruse a whole bunch of posts at a time, scanning subject lines, skimming over a selected few of the posts and skipping others as you wish. In any case, I do hope you will remain subscribed to DSG, and, whatever else you do, that you will retain contact with me and all the many others who would so regret your absence. With metta, Howard #68262 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:19 am Subject: Re: was: pa~n~natti and cohesion. A center. philofillet Hi Nina > Do continue writing your little protests, they are very > straightforward. I'm sure I will on occasion but intend to not overdo it. >And as Sarah says, really, there is no need to agree > on this list. Yes, but I still do think DSG should be a place where students of Acharn Sujin feel comfortable to discuss her teaching without being bombarded by protests - and I still say that though I have seen how wrong her teaching is in places. > I find the subject of khanika samaadhi difficult and I think the > meaning would depend on the context. I think it is a very important point, though it is something I know nothing much about. From what I have heard elsewhere, however, it is the bare minimum for insight to arise and is developed in meditation. But I am staying open to hearing otherwise from anyone else other than Acharn Sujin and her students. (I am also staying open to anyone other than A.S and her students say that there is any doubt whatsoever what meditation means to a Theravadin.) Metta, Phil #68263 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. scottduncan2 Hi Phil, Thanks for your very kind offer: P: "(I have become more of a Bhikkhu Bodhi & Burmese monks man!)... Scott, if you come out to Montreal, you and Joel can paper-scissors- stone or eeny-meeny-mo or Habs vs. Oilers brawl for them! :)...p.s I could just mail them, couldn't I?..." Why don't you give me your mailing address privately, and I can mail you the postage and then you can send them to Joel, who can then send them to me after he's done? As much as I'm all for keeping the fighting in hockey, I think Joel might be able to take me, although I'd try to give as good as I get. Sincerely, Scott. #68264 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:22 am Subject: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation philofillet Hi Jon > My apologies to you (and others) for the delay in replying. I've been > somewhat caught up these past 2 weeks, mainly with work. No need to apologize. I like your slow pace. I would like to respond to your post, but won't be able to for a few days at least. (Which might mean never, like it has in the past - we'll see! :) Metta, Phil p.s hope you've fully recovered from whatever the minor surgery was. #68265 From: melek cilingir Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] About Mudita melekcilingir dear joop, i do not know what to add after sarah's post. but i always liked your posts even if you think they are not sincere. hope there is nothing to mourn. best wishes with your meditation practice with metta melek #68266 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. philofillet Hi Scott OK, sounds good. I'll do that tout de suite. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > Thanks for your very kind offer: > #68267 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:02 am Subject: Gentle Wisdom joelaltman26 Dear Friends, maybe sometimes it seems we get caught in the ocean of ideas... such attractive concepts, so much attachment to applying and knowing... i am so thankful and feel so fortunate to have the simple and gentle wisdom of Khun Sujin to pull me back... here is a section from a talk in Bangkok 2006-02-08A-d that struck me last night: Q: Does intellectual understanding lead to direct understanding? A: Yes. Q: It's a necessary first step? A: Yes [she laughs] Q: Antyhing more required apart from intellectual understanding? A: Everything... Are we too concerned about future? What about right now? It's not lost ... A: I think if there is still the idea to apply it seems like there is a self who would like the result so much... and tries so hard. what about just understanding it right now? and once one knows exactly, its never lost so it keeps in ones mind and will be condition for other moment of understanding and kusula no worry about it. with love, joel #68268 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:29 am Subject: gentle wisdom nilovg Dear Joel, I am delighted with your quote. It inspires me to add a few words. ---------- Quotes: Q: Does intellectual understanding lead to direct understanding? A: Yes. Q: It's a necessary first step? A: Yes [she laughs] Q: Antyhing more required apart from intellectual understanding? A: Everything... Are we too concerned about future? What about right now? It's not lost ---------- Nina: This is also Howard's question. I often think of that. That 'everything' includes a great deal: considering, weighing things up, and, as a support for pa~n~naa: every kind of kusala through body, speech and mind, the perfections. When mettaa is developed together with satipatthaana we learn that it is not my metta. Metta includes helping and it can be seen as siila. When there is mettaa, the citta is free from akusala and there are moments of peace, samaadhi. Concern about the future: what to do to have direct understanding. Even the question is speculative, it is thinking. And right now there is seeing, there is visible object, why not begin to investigate these realities? --------- Quotes: A: I think if there is still the idea to apply it seems like there is a self who would like the result so much... and tries so hard. what about just understanding it right now? and once one knows exactly, its never lost so it keeps in ones mind and will be condition for other moment of understanding and kusula no worry about it. --------- N: She once explained that if we do not put obstacles in the way such as attachment to sati, sammaasati can arise because of its own conditions. She said 'I guarantee'. That is strongly said. Even a short moment of sati without trying to have it is never lost, it is accumulated, so that it can arise again. Nina. #68269 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > During the Buddha's time there were also monks and nuns who disrobed > > and returned home. Does this mean the Sangha is a complete waste of > > time? > .... > S: It's the path that counts whether a monk, a nun, a lay-man or > lay-woman. > > Do you disagree? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > I asked you a question first. Please answer yes or no. :-) Metta, James #68270 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Joop should stay. nilovg Hi Joop, Howard, Howard expressed it so well. Lodewijk will shake hands with you Joop, concerning the social aspect. Although he agrees about this moment now: seeing, hearing, etc. he is still disturbed about no Lodewijk, no Nina. He said: it is wrongly put, there are the accumulated inclinations of this or that person, and they are different. He agrees that there is no self, but no person he finds not well formulated. Even the Co. to the Yamaka speaks about this or that contiuum (santaana). I tried to explain about the empty fist: nothing there, or the tree without pith. He agrees. I said: we should ask Howard, he formulates so well. Howard said: no core, no substance. Then Lodewijk said that he sees this viewpoint very well, but still he has difficulties and these keep him awake at night. I can do nothing else but quietly continuing my evening reading of Abhidhamma and Vipassana letters. He said that he finds nothing in these that disturb him. To conclude: Joop, do stay, we need you. Nina. Op 12-feb-2007, om 14:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I dearly hope you will remain subscribed to DSG - for my own selfish > reasons. I value you, your posts, and your perspective. #68271 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] gentle wisdom upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Joel) - In a message dated 2/12/07 9:40:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Dear Joel, > > I am delighted with your quote. It inspires me to add a few words. > ---------- > Quotes: Q: Does intellectual understanding lead to direct understanding? > A: Yes. > Q: It's a necessary first step? > A: Yes [she laughs] > Q: Antyhing more required apart from intellectual understanding? > A: Everything... > Are we too concerned about future? > What about right now? > It's not lost > > ---------- > > Nina: This is also Howard's question. I often think of that. That > 'everything' includes a great deal: considering, weighing things up, > and, as a support for pa~n~naa: every kind of kusala through body, > speech and mind, the perfections. When mettaa is developed together > with satipatthaana we learn that it is not my metta. Metta includes > helping and it can be seen as siila. When there is mettaa, the citta > is free from akusala and there are moments of peace, samaadhi. > > Concern about the future: what to do to have direct understanding. > Even the question is speculative, it is thinking. And right now there > is seeing, there is visible object, why not begin to investigate > these realities? > > --------- > > Quotes: A: I think if there is still the idea to apply > it seems like there is a self who would like the result so much... > and tries so hard. > what about just understanding it right now? > and once one knows exactly, its never lost > so it keeps in ones mind > and will be condition for other moment of understanding and kusula > no worry about it. > > --------- > > N: She once explained that if we do not put obstacles in the way such > as attachment to sati, sammaasati can arise because of its own > conditions. She said 'I guarantee'. That is strongly said. > > Even a short moment of sati without trying to have it is never lost, > it is accumulated, so that it can arise again. > > Nina. > > ===================== Excellent conversation. Nina, IMO this is one of the best puttings forth of the "Zen" side of Khun Sujin. It gives a glimmer of there being more than usually meets the eye. Well done! With metta, Howard #68272 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:19 am Subject: sati and thinking. nilovg Dear All, Ann gave me permission to send you our correspondance. ---------- Dear Ann, ------- With regard to the post below, I was struck by your last paragraph about characteristics, and knowing loba as different from dosa. I started thinking how it sometimes seems easy to see that dosa or loba have arisen - often by the intensity of feeling that accompanies them. But this is not, I don't think, the same as the direct experience of loba or dosa or pleasant and/or unpleasant feeling. So, I find myself wondering what that direct experience would be like (which is not helpful, I know, but the thought arises). Can you comment on this? ---------- N: It is true that we know when we have lobha or dosa, but this is mixed with thinking about them, noticing them. Evenso pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling, we notice these. But this is not the precise understanding of their nature as nama, pure nama, not blended with rupa. At the moments of lobha and dosa also rupas may appear, conditioned by them, but we have no precise understanding of exactly this nama or that rupa. The reason is that we have not reached the first stage of insight which is the knowledge of the clear distinction between the characteristic of nama and of rupa. At those moments, as Kh Sujin explained, rupa is known as rupa and nama as nama, and this is known in a mind-door process. I still remember Susies words, when Susie repeated that. Just now there are different rupas experienced through the sense- doors and after a rupa is experienced through a sense-door its is experienced in a subsequent mind-door process. But we are unaware of this. It will be clear at the first stage of insight. Meanwhile we should not worry about when we shall know this. --------- Ann: It was very helpful to read about concepts in the "Survey of Paramatta Dhammas", about how they are formed up following the arising of colour or seeing consciousness, sound or sound consciousness etc. Is there a similar process occuring before one thinks "oh, dosa there" or "I like something, must be loba here" ? -------- N: We tend to think of concepts of lobha and dosa, we have an idea about them. But they have falleen away already for some time. There could be clinging to such ideas, or we take them for my lobha or my dosa. We do not see them as conditioned elements yet. But after we have been thinking of them they arise again and they can be 'studied', even though awareness is still coarse. It cannot be refined immediately. I remember your question in Chiengmai: how to know the difference between awareness and thinking. At such a moment there is doubt, and as Kh Sujin explained later on: doubt can be 'studied'. When sati arises because of its appropriate conditions, only then do we know the difference between sati and thinking. And, Kh Sujin said, there can be moments of sati but there will be thinking as well, not at the same time. There are conditions for thinking. ******* Nina. . #68273 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: was: pa~n~natti and cohesion. A center. nilovg Hi Phil, You see that wrongly. I would not feel uncomfortable at all by anyone's disagreement. We are used to that. Good to hear other points of view, and B.B. writes very well, he raises many good points. I also respect the Burmese Sayadaws. Do share with us, or share suttas if you have time. It is always good to hear from you, I mean it. BTW we shall be sending as a gift the printed Perfections to those who wish. We do not want to force this on anyone. Let us know. Nina. Op 12-feb-2007, om 14:19 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Yes, but I still do think DSG should be a place where students of > Acharn Sujin feel comfortable to discuss her teaching without being > bombarded by protests - and I still say that though I have seen how > wrong her teaching is in places. #68274 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] gentle wisdom nilovg Hi Howard, I also noticed that you in your posts explained very well sense objects appearing through the different doorways. I meant to comment, but there were so many posts. Nina. Op 12-feb-2007, om 15:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Excellent conversation. Nina, #68275 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Re: was: pa~n~natti and cohesion. A center. joelaltman26 Hello Phil, Thank you for your generous offer... i am not so sure about the cryptic arrangement that you and Scott have worked out, but if i understand correctly, you will send the tapes to me and then i will send them over to scott... is that right? P: Yes, but I still do think DSG should be a place where students of Acharn Sujin feel comfortable to discuss her teaching without being bombarded by protests - and I still say that though I have seen how wrong her teaching is in places. J: I am interested in knowing which of her "teachings" you have found to be so wrong... would you mind sharing? metta. j #68276 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:58 am Subject: Re: Mudita and DSG-ending buddhatrue Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: I also hope you don't quit the group. I really enjoy your posts. I think you have just been posting too much lately- you have gotten burned out. It happens. I remember Tep (goodness, I really miss Tep!), he was posting like a wild man until he finally just got completely burned out. Just pace yourself, as Howard suggests; don't read all of the posts* and don't respond to everything you disagree with (that will really burn you out!). From an outside perspective, posting to DSG doesn't make very much sense. Getting so emotionally wrapped up in who wrote what to whom can seem kinda crazy at times. My bf asked me the other day why I spend so much time writing posts to DSG; he asked me, "Do you get paid for that?" ;-)) I told him that I don't get paid now, but hopefully I will get paid in the hereafter. ;-)) Metta, James *For example, I have completely stopped reading the "Sisters" thread. With all the totally bizarre posts between Connie, Colette, and Sarah, I am reminded of the three `Sisters' from Macbeth! ;-)) I can't tell if they are discussing Dhamma or casting spells! ;-)) (just some DSG humor for you....cheer up! :-) #68277 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mudita and DSG-ending upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Joop) - In a message dated 2/12/07 12:01:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > *For example, I have completely stopped reading the "Sisters" > thread. With all the totally bizarre posts between Connie, Colette, > and Sarah, I am reminded of the three `Sisters' from Macbeth! ;-)) I > can't tell if they are discussing Dhamma or casting spells! ;-)) > (just some DSG humor for you....cheer up! :-) > ==================== Ya know, James, that's the one thing I can't take about you: You're so damned politically correct! LOLOL! With metta, Howard #68278 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. joelaltman26 Deareset James and Sarah James: During the Buddha's time there were also monks and nuns who disrobed and returned home. Does this mean the Sangha is a complete waste of time? Joel : What is Sangha? What is not Sangha? Buddha included the Sangha in the there Jewels: Buddha, Sangha and Dhamma... if there is no Sangha can there be Buddha, can there be Dhamma? Can one be complete without the two others? If so then why would Buddha have put them together, as the refuge? What is not sangah? is my family not sangah? does that mean also family is waste of time? and neighbors, and all the communities (of humans) we may belong to including that of monks... why should only monks be sangah? and if people are only conventional realities, and friends in dhamma can also be used to refer to the perfections and the other aids on the path, then is not all dhamma sangah? every direct and indirect condition and conditioned reality that twinkles in the sky of "our" lives... maybe this is stretching a bit, but how can we apply sangha right now, to this moment... (even me and this computer, and this keyboard, and this chair --- again as conventional reality like a group of monks (humans)... but is not this "group" of entities also sangha if i am aware of dhamma and buddha? maybe i am taking your question too literally... but sangha seems like such an important concept, with so many layers and levels... i would love to deepen my understanding. in peace, joel #68279 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:28 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Ch 24, no3. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book XII, Kindred Sayings about the Truths, chapter V, §5, The keyhole) that, when the Buddha was staying at Vesålí in Great Grove, Ånanda went into Vesålí on his rounds for almsfood. In Vesålí he saw the Licchavi youths practising archery. He then went to see the Buddha and said: ``Here, lord, robing myself in the forenoon and taking bowl and outer robe I set out for Vesålí on my begging rounds. Then, lord, I saw a number of Licchavi youths in the gymnasium making practice at archery, shooting even from a distance through a very small keyhole, and splitting an arrow, shot after shot, with never a miss. And I said to myself, lord: `Practised shots are these Licchavi youths! Well practised shots indeed are these Licchavi youths, to be able even at a distance to splinter an arrow through a very small keyhole, shot after shot, with never a miss!' '' ``Now what think you, Ånanda? Which is the harder, which is the harder task to compass: To shoot like that or to pierce one strand of hair, seven times divided, with another strand?'' ``Why, lord, of course to split a hair in such a way is the harder, much the harder task.'' ``Just so, Ånanda, they who penetrate the meaning of: This is dukkha, this is the arising of dukkha, this is the ceasing of dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha, pierce through something much harder to pierce. Wherefore, Ånanda, you must make an effort to realize: This is dukkha. This is the arising of dukkha. This is the ceasing of dukkha. This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha.'' One might feel discouraged when reading this sutta; it would seem that it is impossible to attain enlightenment. However, if one develops the right Path, not the wrong Path, one will realize the four noble Truths; one will attain enlightenment. The way to realize the four noble Truths is to be mindful of the realities which appear now: seeing, visible object, lobha, dosa or any other reality. We should not be discouraged when we do not seem to make rapid progress. Most people cling to a result and they become impatient when they do not notice an immediate result; clinging to a result, however, is not helpful for the development of wisdom, it is akusala. ****** Nina. #68280 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:31 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana, no 5 nilovg Dear friends, The following sutta reminds us that understanding does not develop by mere wishing, that it only grows by developing it right now. We read in the "Gradual Sayings" (Book of the Threes, Ch X, § 91, Urgent): Monks, there are these three urgent duties of a yeoman farmer. What three? Herein, monks, the yeoman farmer gets his field well ploughed and harrowed very quickly. Having done so he puts in his seed very quickly. Having done that he lets the water in and turns it off very quickly. These are his three urgent duties. Now, monks, that yeoman farmer has no such magic power or authority as to say: "Let my crops spring up today. Tomorrow let them ear. On the following day let them ripen." No! It is just the due season which makes them do this. In the same way there are these three urgent duties of a monk. What three? The undertaking of training in higher síla, in higher citta and in higher insight. These are his three urgent duties. Now the monk has no such magic power or authority as to say: "Today let my mind be released from the åsavas without grasping, or tomorrow, or the following day." No! It is just the due season which releases his mind, as he undergoes the training in these three. Wherefore, monks, thus must you train yourselves: Keen shall be our desire to undertake the training in these three branches of training. That is how you must train yourselves. There is higher síla, higher citta ( higher concentration) and higher insight when the eightfold Path is being developed. We may keep on thinking that the realization of the truth is too difficult. We delay awareness of the present moment and we still expect that there can once be realization of the truth. We should not wait for a miracle to happen. If there is no development of understanding now defilements cannot be eradicated. We cannot hasten the development of understanding, but when we see that the development of the eightfold Path is the only way to eliminate ignorance there will be conditions for awareness. At the same time it is necessary to remember that there should not be an idea of self who tries to be aware. There should not be clinging to awareness, then it cannot arise. It arises because of its own conditions which are study of the Dhamma, listening and considering. We should not blame the situation we are in for our lack of awareness. Khun Sujin said: "When we want to control the situation we create new stories, new concepts. Someone who sees the value of awareness is aware instantly and has no wish to go to other places. He knows that it takes a long time to develop understanding." ******* Nina. #68281 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' egberdina Hey Scott, On 11/02/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Sorry, I missed this wee post: > > Me: "Again, yes. There is no need to misunderstand these processes and > think to create a 'practise' out of them, such as purposive > recollection and reflection or concentrated focus with the aim being > to make something else happen." > > H: "The following came to mind when I read your 'there is no need to > ....'. Is there ever a case when there is a need to ......? Just > curious." > > Hmm. A need to misunderstand? A need to 'create' a practise? A need > to 'make something happen'? I'm not sure, Herman. What do you think? > You're answering questions with questions, man :-). From my perspective, with a little bit of mindfulness it is readily observable that we spend most of our days filling needs. And that we act in the world to make things happen all the time. In fact, that' s the only reason why we act. Even in writing to each other we are seeking to change the way things are. Need, lack, is fundamental to our being. It is not particularly pleasant or beneficial to be aware of need all day long, but I think it's better to see that then not see that, and acknowledge that, but I can't give you any good reasons. But I imagine that folks who "practice" do that with a view to lessening their needs, and that folks who look down their noses at this adaptive behaviour are possibly unaware of their own behaviours to lessen their needs, or awareness of them. Cheers Herman #68282 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:23 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views. dacostacharles Dear Colette, I get the feeling that, sometimes you can be quite a pleasant journey. You stated that, "All this world is ideation only." This is really a question of one's (the subject's) view, and there are many views. Without mind (that includes eye consciousness) your eye can not have consciousness unless you could suceed in getting a cybernetic eye system - but then some don't recognize artificial/simulated awareness. The object must exist (even if it is only in the imagination) before YOU CAN HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITS EXISTENCE. It has been proven in labs that there is an eye memory storage that is very short term. Awareness gets the inforation/object from this memory not directly from the eye. Therefore the question that needs to be asked is wheather this memory is apart of mind and reachable by consciousness. To cognize the existence of Sensory Objects, they must exist (even if it is only in the imagination) before they reach your eye (including eye conciousness), and go somewhere else (from the eye) to be processed, before you can cognize them; e.g., that eye memory store. > To see karma in the future, you have to train by seeing it > in the past and the present. The symplist way to do this is to first have a symple definition of karma (e.g., cause and efect). In this simple definition, Karma does not have an aggreget of Feelings, It does not have an aggreget of Seeing, it doesn't have an aggeget of knowing. Karma is seen as the efects of an event. EX: Step into the shower. Effect - you are in the shower. Turn on the water. Effect - you may get wet. Now, if you are only concern about the effects on the Mind - that is much more difficult - however, even it can be known, may be not seen. And you are right about me being lucky this time. I am also trying to be happy with being unlucky too. So I am TRAINING. ROAR! To bring in our kung fu specialists as well, is to invite both the practical and the impractical (i.e., behond here and now); to invite both "the I, me, mine, and other" and the oneness; to invite both "phonmina and awareness" and the zeroness; ... the hand and the Empty Hand; ... and the sound of "One Hand Clapping." OHM Charles DaCosta #68283 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:23 am Subject: RE: [dsg] What are the aggregets of Intellect? dacostacharles I recently stumbled on a writting that called the "Intellect" aggreget the "Thought" aggreget, and it included all emotions and forms of cocoting. I must admit, i like it but I am not sure It is a Abidharmic interpretation. What you all? Yours truly, Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles DaCosta Sent: 9. februar 2007 20:28 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] What are the aggregets of Intellect? Hi all I know feeling is "pleasant, indifferent, and unpleasant" And for intelligence I need something more than "concocting". Yours truly, Charles DaCosta #68284 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:39 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views. dacostacharles Dear Colette, When I made the statement about the number sixteen, I was replying to your question: "does 'precondition' = prerequisite?" My answer was NO. I used the number 16 to say why I felt that way: > You asked, "does 'precondition' = prerequisite?" No. > 16 = 6+10,4X4, 2 to some power, the > Square-root of some number, ... That is also why I stated,"The only prerequisite in this case is countables." It is true, "Numbers are not everything." I only gave an example of "quantifying," that was the only connection. > . even unknowns, that are > countables, can be accepted as a > precondition but not necessarily as > a prerequisite. > > To qualify Karma's existence, you must open > the 6-sense gates and perceive it, > . it is here and now as the > effects of various thoughts and acts. I hope this makes your journey easier. Charles DaCosta #68285 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions egberdina Hi Scott, On 12/02/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Hi Herman, > > H: "A bit more about conditions...It is the taking of a metaphysical > position, without the possibility existing of verification or > falsification...Everything that has ever happened will > still have happened, and everything that will happen will still > happen..." > > I dig this a lot, from the Introduction to Pa.t.thaana: > > "...The Elder Mahagatigamiyatissa crossed over to the opposite shore > of India with the intention of paying homage to the Wisdom Tree. > Seated on the upper deck of the boat he looked at the great ocean; but > neither the thither nor the hither shore appeared to his vision. > There appeared only the great ocean, strewn with foam thrown off by > the breaking of the billows, and looking like a sheet of silver spread > out on a bed of jasmine flowers. This was quite a serendipitous selection, but no doubt fully caused. You may have heard of the guy who was trying to kayak from Tasmania to New Zealand. He has gone missing on the last 70 of a 1600 km journey, and his kayak was found without him. That was 4 days ago, and the search has been called off. Well, we were mates from way back. He would have quite some stories to tell about the great ocean. I don't think he was a universal or psychological determinist, though. Anyway, thanks for your caused post. I read it, through causes, and no doubt causes will play their role in getting this back into your inbox, where causes will have their merry way with it :-) Kind Regards Herman #68286 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditions egberdina Hi TG, On 12/02/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi Herman > > Your post below seems very philosophical. A few comments... > > It may well be, but I do try and limit myself to what is observable. > > For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. > TG: Except "the unconditioned." > Spot on. And this can never be left out of any statement re conditionality. So statements on conditionality should properly read "all conditoned phenomena are conditioned". Which amounts to saying "all blah are blah". Best left out, methinks. > > > Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, > this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. > TG: Happened to be the Buddha's view... "All Conditions are impermanent, > all conditions are dukkha, all things are not-self." Be that as it may. > I didn't realise that conditions and dhammas are to be equated. > > TG: Is it impossible to know physical pain unless there has been an > experience of pleasure? I doubt it. This type of dialectics has limits. > Unfortunately, we have no way of testing this. > > > And this is why Buddhism without nibbana/the uncaused is a dead duck. > TG: I don't understand the point of this sentence. Is someone postulating > a Buddhism without Nibbana? > Maybe not. But statements about pervasive conditonality that do not acknowledge their dependency on the unconditioned are throwaway lines at best. > > > Change can only be known against a backdrop of permanence, > TG: Since there is no permanence, this point contradicts itself. > > This sounds a little dogmatic to me. Personally, I only experience change in a context of what is relatively unchanging. One thing changes against a backdrop of something which doesn't change. If everything changes together there is no possibility of relating things. And all of this relative change requires the backdrop of the unchanging, nibbana. And even so, would you think it a useful thing to say that all impermanent objects are impermanent? > suffering > can only be known against a backdrop of non-suffering, being can only > be known against a backdrop of non-being, and anatta can only be known > against a backdrop of nibbana (atta). > > TG: The equating of Nibbana with atta seems odd. Do you consider Nibbana a > state of "self?" I'd have to say this post, and particularly this last > sentence, has left me confused as to what you're getting at. I can't remember my point either :-) Nibbana is being. Non-being stands in a negative relation to being. If non-being is equated with anatta, then it is quite proper to refer to Nibbana as atta. Nibbana is, it is what it is, and it is itself. And without Nibbana, conditioned phenomena could not be. But Nibbana doesn't reference itself, so it isn't a state to itself, it is a state to consciousness, but a state it cannot attain to. Kind Regards Herman #68287 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Conditions ken_aitch Hi all, I should be writing replies to Sarah, Connie and Herman, but I can't resist coming in on this thread. Herman wrote: ----------- > A bit more about conditions. > For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. ----------- Yes, but do the non-RSA's know what the RSA's mean? Unfortunately, they don't. The way the non-RSA's see it, conditionality relates to an illusory world in which people and cars (for example) exist. They think it means a car accident is the inevitable, predetermined, result of conditions already set in place. ----------------- Herman: > > Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, > this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. It is the taking of > a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of > verification or falsification. > But a really interesting feature of this view is that the view makes > no difference to anything. Everything that has ever happened will > still have happened, and everything that will happen will still > happen. ------------------ Note that Herman is talking about a world in which `past' `present' and `future' are equally real. No such world exists! The Dhamma cannot be appreciated until people face the fact that there is only the present moment. Howard replied to Herman: ----------------------------------------- Howard: > Ignoring the issue of whether 'conditionality' and 'causality' mean the same, I would like to ask you a question: You say "the view makes no difference to anything." Why then do you choose *not* to step in front of a moving car instead of stepping in front of it? Or do you agree with the volition deniers that no choosing is possible? ------------------------------------------- The way I see it, Howard is taking Herman's misunderstanding of the RSA position a step further, and is actually misrepresenting it (unintentionally, of course). Why would the name "volition deniers" be given to the RSA's? Of all people! The RSA's believe volition is a paramattha dhamma - an absolute reality!!! It is the non-RSA's (the formal-meditators) who tend to think volition is a mere concept. They see volition as an `event' that can take place in illusory places - for example, by the side of a road. Phil, I think, gets a little bit offended when he feels he is being told he "just doesn't get it.'" However, no one will `get it' while they continue to disregard the Abhidhamma. Anatta and volition (like other absolute realities) exist in the loka – the conditioned world of the present moment. When we try to apply them to an *illusory* world we cannot fail but come up with some sort of wrong view - e.g., that everything is caused by the past. Ken H #68288 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Joel (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "joelaltman26" wrote: > > Deareset James and Sarah > > James: > During the Buddha's time there were also monks and nuns who > disrobed and returned home. Does this mean the Sangha is a complete > waste of time? > > Joel : > What is Sangha? What is not Sangha? > Buddha included the Sangha in the there Jewels: Buddha, Sangha and > Dhamma... if there is no Sangha can there be Buddha, can there be > Dhamma? Can one be complete without the two others? If so then why > would Buddha have put them together, as the refuge? > > What is not sangah? is my family not sangah? does that mean also > family is waste of time? and neighbors, and all the communities (of > humans) we may belong to including that of monks... why should only > monks be sangah? and if people are only conventional realities, and > friends in dhamma can also be used to refer to the perfections and > the other aids on the path, then is not all dhamma sangah? every > direct and indirect condition and conditioned reality that twinkles > in the sky of "our" lives... maybe this is stretching a bit, but how > can we apply sangha right now, to this moment... (even me and this > computer, and this keyboard, and this chair --- again as > conventional reality like a group of monks (humans)... but is not > this "group" of entities also sangha if i am aware of dhamma and > buddha? > > maybe i am taking your question too literally... but sangha seems > like such an important concept, with so many layers and levels... i > would love to deepen my understanding. > > in peace, > joel > Thanks for the reply post. Wow, you ask a lot of questions! I thought that it was clear from my question what I mean by Sangha- I mean the community of Buddhist monks and nuns. You wrote that you were living in an ashram (isn't that Hindu?) in Canada when you heard the teachings of K. Sujin, had a radical change of heart, and decided to leave. Nina wrote that the same type of thing happened to KS, and Sarah wrote that the same type of thing happened to her. The message seems to be that one doesn't need to live a holy life to follow the Buddha's path to completion; that the Buddha's path can be followed to completion by anyone, anywhere, and under any circumstances. So, my question to you and Sarah is: Do you believe that the Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of time? It is really a very simple, straightforward question and only requires a yes or no answer. Metta, James #68289 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. ken_aitch Hi James, --------------- > The message > seems to be that one doesn't need to live a holy life to follow the > Buddha's path to completion; that the Buddha's path can be followed > to completion by anyone, anywhere, and under any circumstances. > > So, my question to you and Sarah is: Do you believe that the Sangha > (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of > time? It is really a very simple, straightforward question and only > requires a yes or no answer. > ---------------- Isn't this the same as that other well known question: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!" Ken H #68290 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "This keyboard in front of me is not changing as I look at it. What I notice to be changing is focus and attention on details and relations of details to each other. I leave the room, and in my absence I need not have a view about the keyboard. But I do, and expect to find it there when I return. And yes, it is there, unchanged." L: It occurred to me that this doesn't support your idea that only consciousness changes. The keyboard is as much a part of consciousness as focus and attention. It isn't something external to consciousness. Larry #68291 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Harmonization between what you think and what you do? lbidd2 Hi Nitesh, N: ""How do you spend a Conscious day"? I realize and again I forget..." L: That's a difficult question. It's deeper than everyday concerns. A conscious day is actually enlightenment. The only advice I can think of is let it happen naturally. I think the idea of "harmonization" is a good one. It's the middle way, but there is the whole eightfold path to consider. Larry #68292 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. joelaltman26 Dear James, friend in dhamma: James: I thought that it was clear from my question what I mean by Sangha- I mean the community of Buddhist monks and nuns. Joel: OK. so Sangah is Sangah. Sangah is not Buddha, and Sangah is not Dhamma. (and Sangah is Buddha and Dhamma) but it is clear that the Buddha taught taht Sangah, Buddha and Dhamma all go together... and that is our refuge. James: So, my question to you and Sarah is: Do you believe that the Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of time? Joel: So maybe, I wander what this means, to be a waste of time. What is not a waste of time? Panna, right now at this moment... wherever we are, whoever we are with, makes no difference right? where we are and who we are with depend on conditions. we have no control. But even still, panna is conditionned... so who is it that is wasting time? where else will the time go? who will take it somewhere else? It seems that the real question is not whether the Sangah is good in an absolute sense... this has no meaning anyway. But no matter where we are, no matter who we are with, no matter what we are doing, are we aware of the realities right now? (my intention with the questions in the last reply was trying to establish an understanding/interpretation of the sangah as whatever conditions help us to become aware of the present moment... that can be a group of people, or whatever...) with love, joel #68293 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > Isn't this the same as that other well known question: "Have you > stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!" > > Ken H > LOL! No, that type of question is designed to trap a person into admitting to doing something he/she didn't do. I am just asking for someone's opinion. I could ask you the same thing Ken- do you believe the Sangha is a complete waste of time, yes or no? Of course you can provide whatever explanation you wish for your answer, but to answer with just more questions isn't an answer at all; it is dodging the question. Metta, James #68294 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Joel, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "joelaltman26" wrote: > > Dear James, friend in dhamma: > James: > So, my question to you and Sarah is: Do you believe that the Sangha > (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of > time? > > Joel: > So maybe, I wander what this means, to be a waste of time. "A complete waste of time" is a common, everyday expression (slang) which means that something is unnecessary, needless, superfluous, not inherently beneficial or advantageous. Metta, James #68295 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:05 pm Subject: comfort zones nichiconn dear wandering esher fans, you might like this you tube presentation on a common type of walking meditation: http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/12/8922/ I like that 'uneasy silence'... talking ain't so easy sometimes either. c. pitaka-disclosure: 114. Now this Way that Leads Anywhere [is followed by those] of differing beliefs: some [believe] in sensual desires (cf M i 130), and some in performance of difficult feats, some are devoted to self-torment (cf M i 92f), some rely on [belief in] purity through the roundabout [of rebirths] (cf M i 81f), some [believe in] ineffectuality [of action (?)]. 117. Herein, when creatures are of such a belief, that [belief of theirs] they repeat, keep in being and make much of. When they repeat (?) it [thus], believing in it, that element sustains them. What is that? It is the sensual-desire element, the renunciation element, the ill-will element, the non-ill-will element, the cruelty element and the non-cruelty element that are believed in. Any other element beyond [namely the undetermined element beyond the determined element (see M iii 63)] they do not see; < obstinately misapprehending and insisting upon that alone, they assert "Only this is the true, the other is wrong" > (D ii 282), as was said by the Blessed One to Sakka Ruler of Gods. 118. Knowledge of how it is herein, is called the fourth Power of a Perfect One. #68296 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James, and Sarah) - > > Isn't this the same as that other well known question: "Have you > stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!" > > Ken H > ======================== The problem with that "old standard" question is that the question presumes a false presupposition. Whether one answers "yes" or " no" to it, one affirms the false presupposition. But I see no presupposition in James' question "Do you believe that the Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of time?" Do you see a presupposition there, Ken? If yes, what is it, please? With metta, Howard #68297 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] comfort zones upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 2/12/07 9:06:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, connieparker@... writes: > dear wandering esher fans, > you might like this you tube presentation on a common type of walking > meditation: > http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/12/8922/ > I like that 'uneasy silence'... talking ain't so easy sometimes either. > > ======================== I love Escher! They ought to entitle that video "Samsara"! ;-) With metta, Howard #68298 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:59 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters ( 24) nichiconn dear friends, Mettikaa. Ki~ncaapi khomhi dukkhitaati-aadikaa mettikaaya theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m pu~n~na.m upacinantii siddhatthassa bhagavato kaale gahapatikule nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m patvaa satthu cetiye ratanena pa.tima.n.ditaaya mekhalaaya puuja.m akaasi. The verses beginning Although I am pained, etc. are Therii Mettikaa's. She too performed meritorious deeds under previous Buddhas and accumulated merit in various lives as [her] basis for release. At the time of the Blessed One Siddhattha, she was born in the family of a householder, and when she came of age, she made an offering of a waistband decorated with gems at a shrine to the Teacher. Saa tena pu~n~nakammena devamanussesu sa.msarantii imasmi.m buddhuppaade raajagahe braahma.namahaasaalakule nibbatti. Sesa.m anantare vuttasadisa.m. Aya.m pana pa.tibhaagakuu.ta.m abhiruhitvaa sama.nadhamma.m karontii vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m paapu.ni. Through that meritorious deed she journeyed on among devas and men, and in this Buddha era she was born in Saavatthi in a wealthy brahman family. The rest [of her story] is similar to the immediately preceding [story] told [above]. But this [therii] performed the duty of a recluse after climbing up a comparable mountain peak. She increased her insight and attained Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. Tena vutta.m apadaane (apa. therii 2.1.20-25)- "Siddhatthassa bhagavato, thuupakaaraapikaa ahu.m; mekhalikaa mayaa dinnaa, navakammaaya satthuno. "Ni.t.thite ca mahaathuupe, mekhala.m punadaasaha.m; lokanaathassa munino, pasannaa sehi paa.nibhi. "Catunnavutito kappe, ya.m mekhalamada.m tadaa; duggati.m naabhijaanaami, thuupakaarassida.m phala.m. As it is said in the Apadaana: I had a monument built for the Blessed One Siddhattha, and I gave a waistband to the new building for the Teacher. When the great monument was finished, favourably disposed towards the Seer, the Protector of the World, I gave a waistband again with my own hand. In the ninety-four aeons since I gave that waistband, I am not aware of [birth in] any realm of misery. This is the consequence of having the monument built. "Kilesaa jhaapitaa mayha.m {, bhavaa sabbe samuuhataa; naagiiva bandhana.m chetvaa, viharaami anaasavaa. "Svaagata.m vata me aasi, buddhase.t.thassa santike; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasana.m. "Pa.tisambhidaa catasso, vimokkhaapi ca a.t.thime; cha.labhi~n~naa sacchikataa,} kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti. My defilements are burnt out, {all [future] births are completely destroyed. Having severed my bonds like an elephant, I live without taints. Welcome indeed was the presence of the Best of Buddhas to me. I have attained the three true knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. The four discriminations and also the eight liberations are mine. I have realized the six direct knowledges.} I have done the Buddha's teaching. arahatta.m pana patvaa attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa udaanavasena- 29. "ki~ncaapi khomhi dukkhitaa, dubbalaa gatayobbanaa; da.n.damolubbha gacchaami, pabbata.m abhiruuhiya. 30. "Nikkhipitvaana sa"nghaa.ti.m, pattaka~nca nikujjiya; nisinnaa camhi selamhi, atha citta.m vimucci me; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti.- Imaa dve gaathaa abhaasi. And after attaining Arahatship and looking over her attainment, she spoke these two verses as a solemn utterance: 29. Although I am pained, weak, with youth gone, I go [along] leaning on a stick, having climbed the mountain. 30. I threw down my out robe and turned my bowl upside down, I sat down on a rock. Then my mind was completely released. I have obtained the three true knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. [RD: Though I be suffering and weak, and all My youthful spring be gone, yet have I come, Leaning upon my staff, and clomb aloft The mountain peak. (29) My cloak thrown off, My little bowl o'erturned: so sit I here Upon the rock. And o'er my spirit sweeps The breath *134 of Liberty! I win, I win The Triple Lore! The Buddha's will is done!(30) *134 Lit., 'Now is my heart (or mind) set free!' For lovers of the mountain, the 'great air' and the sense of spiritual freedom will be tightly bound up. The age of the two climbers throws into relief the arduousness of their spiritual ascent. ] Tattha dukkhitaati rogaabhibhavena dukkhitaa sa~njaatadukkhaa dukkhappattaa. Dubbalaati taaya ceva dukkhappattiyaa, jaraaji.n.nataaya ca balavirahitaa. Tenaaha "gatayobbanaa"ti, addhagataati attho. 29. There, pained (dukkhitaa) means: pained because of overpowering illness, pain having arisen in my (sa~ngaata-dukkha), I have arrived at pain (dukkha-ppattaa). Weak (dubbalaa) means: I am without strength (bala-virahitaa) because of that very arrival at pain and because of being frail with old age. Therefor she says, with youth gone, meaning: having gone through [life's] journey. Atha citta.m vimucci meti selamhi paasaa.ne nisinnaa camhi, atha tadanantara.m viiriyasamataaya sammadeva yojitattaa maggapa.tipaa.tiyaa sabbehipi aasavehi mama citta.m vimucci. Sesa.m vuttanayameva. Mettikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 30. Then my mind was completely released means: and I was seated on a rock, on a stone, then immediately afterward, making use of properly balanced energy, my mind was completely released of all taints through the paths one after the other. The meaning of the rest has been explained. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Mettikaa. peace, connie #68299 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:19 pm Subject: Re: Conditions scottduncan2 Hi Herman, Dude: H: "This was quite a serendipitous selection, but no doubt fully caused. You may have heard of the guy who was trying to kayak from Tasmania to New Zealand. He has gone missing on the last 70 of a 1600 km journey, and his kayak was found without him. That was 4 days ago, and the search has been called off. Well, we were mates from way back. He would have quite some stories to tell about the great ocean. I don't think he was a universal or psychological determinist, though." "A candle for him lost at sea and gone below, still and cold, errant wanderer. N'er more port to grace nor friend embrace, though both lament." H: "Anyway, thanks for your caused post. I read it, through causes, and no doubt causes will play their role in getting this back into your inbox, where causes will have their merry way with it :-)" Condolences for the Mariner. Peace, man. Scott. #68300 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. ken_aitch Hi James, ----------- J: > LOL! No, that type of question is designed to trap a person into admitting to doing something he/she didn't do. I am just asking for someone's opinion. I could ask you the same thing Ken- do you believe the Sangha is a complete waste of time, yes or no? ------------- No, of course I don't believe the Sangha is a waste of time in any way whatsoever. But that is not how the question was originally put. You wrote: ------ > The message > >seems to be that one doesn't need to live a holy life to follow the > >Buddha's path to completion; that the Buddha's path can be followed > >to completion by anyone, anywhere, and under any circumstances. > > > >So, my question to you and Sarah is: Do you believe that the Sangha > >(the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of > >time? It is really a very simple, straightforward question and only > >requires a yes or no answer. ----- If Sarah had answered "No" in this context the implication would have been that joining the Sangha was essential for progress on the Path. If she had inadvertently answered "Yes," all hell would have broken loose. Of course, she would never have said `Yes' meaning the Sangha was a waste of time. However, I think she might have said, "If someone joins the Sangha in the belief that the donning of robes and the recitation of vows will condition Path progress then that person is wasting his time." Worse still (I would add), that person is contradicting the Buddha the Dhamma and the Sangha. But, of course, it's hard to convey all that in a yes or no answer. :-) Ken H PS: Just as I am about to send this, I notice the remainder of your message to me, which was: > Of course > you can provide whatever explanation you wish for your answer, but to > answer with just more questions isn't an answer at all; it is dodging > the question. > That's a funny thing to add after demanding a yes or no answer but, I must admit, it makes your question a little more reasonable. Even so, I don't think that was how you put the question originally, was it? #68301 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:03 pm Subject: re: comfort zones nichiconn > http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/12/8922/ ======================== I love Escher! They ought to entitle that video "Samsara"! ;-) With metta, Howard ======= no question! now we're on common ground ;) "Samsara" even when it's the stairway to heaven. how i cringed when realized i'd mispelt his name. Thanks for fixing that! delighted, c. #68302 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. ken_aitch Hi Howard, ----------------- H: > The problem with that "old standard" question is that the question presumes a false presupposition. Whether one answers "yes" or " no" to it, one affirms the false presupposition. But I see no presupposition in James' question "Do you believe that the Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is a complete waste of time?" Do you see a presupposition there, Ken? If yes, what is it, please? ------------------ I would have thought it was obvious. James believes joining the Sangha is essential for enlightenment. He can't accept the argument, "If your natural inclination is to live as a monk then you couldn't do better than to live as a Buddhist monk. However, if your natural inclination is to study and practice Dhamma as a householder then that is probably the best way for you." James got a bit carried away and, with no justification whatsoever, tried to link that point of view with, "So you must think the Sangha is a waste of time!" I am sure that is all there was to it, but I suspect there is also a more serious problem – especially in Thailand. Sorry if I am being paranoid, but I suspect that some people desperately want to discredit K Sujin and her students. If they could quote any of them as slandering the Sangha they would be very happy to do so. Feeding my paranoia is a statement made by James (a long time ago) in which he said there were anonymous DSG members encouraging him off-list to attack KS's teaching. I am sure there are people with a lot to lose if the "no formal meditation" understanding of the Dhamma were to become more widespread. Ken H #68303 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: About Mudita sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Joop & all), A little more on mudita (sympathetic joy)! --- Phil wrote: > Mudita is there for the having. Not so easy though, come to think > of it. Mudita would condition abstention from criticizing the Dhamma > approaches of others, for example, and would condition joy for their > confidence they have in the Dhamma. ..... S: You've raised an interesting point here. Again, I think it comes back to the cittas involved when we make such criticisms (as I'm about to do here!). Personally, I don't see mudita as arising if/when we consider others to be following a wrong path, such as when expressing confidence in a practice which takes them further away from the Dhamma. For a non-controversial example, if someone expressed the view that lying on a bed of nails was the way to develop the concentration which the Buddha advocated, it would be more likely to be a condition for karuna (compassion) or upekkha (equanimity), than for mudita, wouldn't you say? Similarly, if we feel others are likely to become more rather than less deluded by following a particular practice, no matter how joyful they may seem in the process, strong comments made with kind or sympathetic intentions cannot be wrong, surely? What may seem like unkind 'criticisms' or 'harsh' speech may be in the perception of the listener/reader only. In any case, it is our own cittas (as listener/reader) at such times that can be known only. If we are responding with aversion, that's the reality. Nina recently gave an example of some comments about 'just like now' which had seemed harsh but which on a lot of further reflection were appreciated. In fact, vipaka is just the moment of hearing the sound or seeing the visible object, so most of what we take for being criticism or harsh speech are our accumulated ideas and dosa. As Joel stressed, it always comes back to the present moment, to the present dhammas appearing now. So I see mudita as being the rejoicing in others' good fortune, in others' good vipaka and also as the appreciating of others' kusala. This appreciation is of course one of the the 10 punna kiriya vatthu (meritorious actions), kusala kamma patha that is a kind of generosity (anumodana dana). If we think wrong view has been expressed therefore, any rejoicing in it or its accompanying faith, would not be mudita to my mind. Metta, Sarah p.s Joop, thank you again for your good post on mudita. ======= #68304 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James) - In a message dated 2/13/07 12:29:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ----------------- > H: > The problem with that "old standard" question is that the > question presumes a false presupposition. Whether one answers "yes" > or " no" to it, one affirms the false presupposition. > But I see no presupposition in James' question "Do you > believe that the Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) is > a complete waste of time?" Do you see a presupposition there, Ken? If > yes, what is it, please? > ------------------ > > I would have thought it was obvious. James believes joining the > Sangha is essential for enlightenment. He can't accept the > argument, "If your natural inclination is to live as a monk then you > couldn't do better than to live as a Buddhist monk. However, if your > natural inclination is to study and practice Dhamma as a householder > then that is probably the best way for you." ----------------------------------------- Howard: I understand. You were looking beyond the sentence to the entire context. I would imagine, however, that the quoted position you gave above IS, in fact, James' position, or close to it. Certainly the most single-minded and dedicated approach to Dhamma practice is as a monk, but laypersons can go *extremely* far as well. --------------------------------------- > > James got a bit carried away and, with no justification whatsoever, > tried to link that point of view with, "So you must think the Sangha > is a waste of time!" > > I am sure that is all there was to it, but I suspect there is also a > more serious problem – especially in Thailand. Sorry if I am being > paranoid, but I suspect that some people desperately want to > discredit K Sujin and her students. If they could quote any of them > as slandering the Sangha they would be very happy to do so. Feeding > my paranoia is a statement made by James (a long time ago) in which > he said there were anonymous DSG members encouraging him off-list to > attack KS's teaching. I am sure there are people with a lot to lose > if the "no formal meditation" understanding of the Dhamma were to > become more widespread. ------------------------------------------- Howard: With this last sentence I do seem to detect the strained, discordant notes of paranoia, Ken! LOL! Unless someone is a huckster, meditation guru of some sort, with there not too likely being many on this list (!), this strikes me as "way out" to say the least. I would suggest that you either misunderstand or misinterpret what James said. Anyone, of course, can discuss anything offlist, and if some people took umbrage at Khun Sujin's idiosyncratic no-meditation views and were happy with James' doing so in posts to the list, so what? I'm sure there are some KS-admirers on DSG who, offlist, discuss how "formal meditation" is some atta-asserting perversion of the Dhamma and praise well-expressed posts opposing it. Shall the meditators presume them to be engaging in a plot against them? LOL! You speak as if there were an anti-KS cabal plotting away! Yep, sounds paranoid all right! I don't think are any plotters to be found anywhere around here, Ken. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Ken H ========================= With metta, Howard #68305 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:05 am Subject: Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > I would have thought it was obvious. James believes joining the > Sangha is essential for enlightenment. He can't accept the > argument, "If your natural inclination is to live as a monk then you > couldn't do better than to live as a Buddhist monk. However, if your > natural inclination is to study and practice Dhamma as a householder > then that is probably the best way for you." James: Since when did one's "natural inclination" determine Buddhist practice? There is nothing whatsoever "natural" about the Buddha's path. What is `natural' is for people to follow their craving; what is `unnatural' is for people to not follow their craving. Were you aware that the Buddha convinced his brother to become a monk by telling his brother that becoming a monk would eventually get him a lot of sex in deva realms?? So, the Buddha convinced his brother to become celibate so that he would eventually get a lot of sex. Would you say that becoming a monk was the `natural inclination' of the Buddha's brother? Do you think the Buddha even cared about his brother's `natural inclination'? > > James got a bit carried away and, with no justification whatsoever, > tried to link that point of view with, "So you must think the Sangha > is a waste of time!" James: I asked the question because I wanted to bring to light an issue that is so often ignored in this group: the Buddha specifically established a community of monks and nuns because he believed that that lifestyle was more suited to follow his teaching. When I read Joel, Sarah, and Nina talk about how they were laypeople in a Buddhist Sangha, but they suddenly realized the folly of their ways and left, I can't help but wonder if that is an indictment against the Sangha. How else am I supposed to see it? Now, if they talk about how great it is to leave the Sangha, but then claim that they have such high respect for the Sangha, then that is just hypocritical BS. > > I am sure that is all there was to it, but I suspect there is also a > more serious problem – especially in Thailand. Sorry if I am being > paranoid, but I suspect that some people desperately want to > discredit K Sujin and her students. If they could quote any of them > as slandering the Sangha they would be very happy to do so. Feeding > my paranoia is a statement made by James (a long time ago) in which > he said there were anonymous DSG members encouraging him off-list to > attack KS's teaching. I am sure there are people with a lot to lose > if the "no formal meditation" understanding of the Dhamma were to > become more widespread. James: Oh my goodness, you are paranoid! ;-)) I am not some sort of secret spy for the anti-KS Movement (if there is even such a thing??); I was just asking a question that seemed natural to me in the context of the discussion. I don't really believe that a quote from Sarah, either for or against the Sangha, would do anything to the reputation of KS. As far as those members who have contacted me off-list, they have not contacted me to encourage me to attack the teachings of KS. I do that quite on my own, thank you! ;-)) They just wanted to thank me for expressing my viewpoints because they couldn't do so on-list (for PC reasons). As Howard recently noted, I am not PC whatsoever so I am not afraid to say the things that others wish they could say. > > Ken H > Metta, James #68306 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:53 am Subject: Body as only Form: A painted puppet! bhikkhu5 Friends: Establishing the 4 Foundations of Awareness! How, Friends, does one view any Body only as a Form? While always acutely alert & clearly comprehending, thus removing any lust, urge, envy, frustration, & discontent rooted in this world, the intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating & regarding any & all Body as an alien frame of filthy & foul form... As something bound to emerge, decay and vanish... Not as mine, belonging to me or self! Not as lasting, stable & safe! Not as pleasant beauty & happiness! In this way the intelligent Bhikkhu keeps reviewing any & all body, whether internal or external and he notes the cause of its arising and the cause of its ceasing, or he just knows: There is this body! In this way he comes to live not clinging to & independent of body! This is one way to contemplate the body only as a transient form... Or he gains awareness of the body only as a form by Breathing: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Awareness_by_Breathing.htm Or he gains awareness of the body by Noting the 4 Postures: When walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, he notes that he is walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. However his body is placed he notes it to be exactly and just so. Or he gains body awareness by Clear Comprehension of all actions: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Clear_Comprehension.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Clear_and_Aware_Comprehension.htm Or he gains body awareness by Scanning the 32 Internal Organs: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Evil_smelling_body.htm Or he gains body awareness by Analysis of it into the 4 Elements: This body is only a cluster of solidity, fluidity, heat, and motion! Or he gains body awareness by The 9 Corpse Contemplations: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Evil_smelling_body.htm Remaining thus attentive & enthusiasticly noting, any memories & motivations related to the household life are left & with their total removal his mind gathers, settles inwardly, & dives into unification! In this way the intelligent Bhikkhu keeps reviewing any & all body, whether internal or external, and he notes the cause of its arising and the cause of its ceasing, or he just notice: There is this body! In this way he comes to live not clinging to & independent of body! This is the way to contemplate the body only as a transient, alien & ownerless form of matter, a complex structure of disgusting things, a constructed accumulation of putrid, rotting & decaying excrement, & a painful restricting & deceasing burden one have to carry around! This is how the intelligent Bhikkhu develops mindful awareness by focusing on the body as a deadly form of matter... As something bound to decay and vanish... Not as mine, belonging to me or my self! Not as lasting, stable or safe! Not as pleasant beauty or happiness!!! The reward is Fearlessness of Death & thereby Fearlessness of All! Without fear there is the mental elevation of gladness and free joy! It detaches and relinquishes from body & all form & frees thereby.. Clever Disgust by Anti-Porn cooling all lust & horny greed for body: For Inspiration have a collection of Corpse Pictures Viewable only by Adults (>18y) signed in with Yahoo ID! been deposited here: http://asia.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/clever_disgust/album?.dir=/f672 A painted puppet! A chain of bones plastered by skin with 9 oozing holes! A heap of sores & slimy rotten excrement with evil intentions! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68307 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Joop should stay. egberdina Hi Joop, Just something silly in between things. I have this stupid connection that every time I see your name I think of the Oome Joop character van Andre van Duin. Your students over the years may well have called you that behind your back, but to your face you were no doubt Meneer Romeijn, of zoiets. Anyway, I am just writing to you as one human being to another. I want to express my sincere appreciation of your input, and I'm also glad you were never my teacher :-). I agree with you on some big issues, and I also think it is good that we do not become political and join forces about those issues. DSG is good for discussion of ideas. There are many very smart people here. Some of them I hardly agree with, but they are still very sharp-minded. If you look to DSG to be guided, I think it is the wrong place. All you will get is many well-considered ideas, from different angles, but personal angles they will remain. You can take or leave what people here say, but you have to make up your own mind. (You would be well advised to ignore the ones who know that only their view is right). But if you do not participate, nobody will be able to consider what you have to say, to help make up their mind. And that would be both a loss and a pity. Kind Regards Herman #68308 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:15 am Subject: Re: was: pa~n~natti and cohesion. A center. philofillet HI JOel > Thank you for your generous offer... i am not so sure about the > cryptic arrangement that you and Scott have worked out, but if i > understand correctly, you will send the tapes to me and then i will > send them over to scott... is that right? Sorry for being so goofy and cryptic. I've arranged off-list to send them to Scott, and he will send them (or sell them, be careful of Albertans) to you later. (Ooops, more goofiness.) Actually, I shouldn't feed to many expectations re them. They are less edited and a bit harder to listen to than the CDs Sarah and Jon so kindly prepare and send out, but still contain many gems. There are also talks featuring the Ven Dhammadaro (I always forget his post-ordained name) who was a student of Acharn Sujin and speaks with beautiful eloquence. Sadly, he died in a traffic accident at a relatively young age. > J: > I am interested in knowing which of her "teachings" you have found to > be so wrong... would you mind sharing? My main objection is that there is a premature emphasis on wisdom (panna) and not enough firm guidance on issues of ethics/morality (sila.) Wholesomely abstaining from unwholesomeness is taught to be a rarefied event, and mundane right effort is scorned. You will hear people say that there is no need to worry about akusala, it has already fallen away. That as long as there is an understanding that the akusala dhamma is not-self, one is better off with that understanding than abstaining from evil with citta not accompanied by right understanding of not-self. This understanding of anatta, which all serious Buddhists have to a certain degree, will gradually develop, if it develops - but with Acharn Sujin's approach there is a premature emphasis on it, which is really all about desire for wisdom, which I have dubbed SOWS. (Sexiness of Wisdom Syndrome.) Wisdom is so desirable, isn't it? I think there is not enough care taken towards premature interest in panna in Acharn Sujin's approach. Although there is much talk of patience, it seems to me that there is in fact a kind of urging towards having attainments by thinking (or reflecting, or contemplating or in a misuse of the word "meditating") in daily life. It is taught that samma samadhi arises with any kusala citta, and that may be true, but it is also taught that this sort of samadhi sufficiently fulfills samadhi's role in conditioning insight, which from what I've heard elsewhere is not the case. I don't know much about the samadhi thing, though, so I only offer that as a question mark. Realy, don't pay attention to what I have said about samadhi - I jsut sense there is something fishy about Acharn Sujin's way of teaching. Members have said samma samadhi is "easy" - I don't think that's the case, but I really am not sure. I'll be posting more, though I'll try not to overdo it. There are lots of great points about Acharn Sujin. She has a lot of knowledge about Abhihdhamma, that's for sure. And if you are the type of person who has wholesome tendencies you might not need as much firm ethical guidance that is missing from Acharn Sujin. (At least in her English talks, I suspect that her Thai talks are different and she tailors her English talks in a way that guides her listeners from hungering from satipatthana, samadhi etc. Unfortunately in doing so she sets up a subtle hungering for panna, in my opinion.) It's quite possible I'm wrong on all counts. Enjoy the talks and the wonderful community of helpful friends here. Metta, Phil #68309 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: About Mudita philofillet Hi Sarah > Personally, I don't see mudita as arising if/when we consider others to be > following a wrong path, such as when expressing confidence in a practice > which takes them further away from the Dhamma. I guess you're right. But there is the "soothing balm" aspect of brahma-viharas that I've read a Thai monks (forget his name) right about. The development of understanding is so hard, will take so long. We are not always up to it. So if we are soothed by turning to Brahma- Viharas in an easygoing way, for example feeling sympathetic joy for someone who has debated something we disagree strongly with, why not? There can be times we are up to debating, other times we can just be happy for their confidence, something like that. I say that but I am hardly ever happy for your confidence in Dhamma anymore, to tell the truth, though I like you as a person. I don't know if this has ever been taught, but it seems to me that there are rather mundane conceptual brahma-viharas that we can turn to with liberality and more strictly defined paramattha brahma-viharas that can only be developed as meditative attainments, or something like that, i.,e very rare, and too rare to be of help to worldlings, so bring on the mundane feel-goody brahma-viharas, which help us to have more emotional stability (non-remorse etc) which the Buddha clearly taught in an AN sutta I have referred to recently as necessary condition for samadhi > insight. Hmm. Whatever. (Equanimity? :) ) Metta, Phil #68310 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: About Mudita egberdina Hi Sarah, I'm puzzled by this. > > Similarly, if we feel others are likely to become more rather than less > deluded by following a particular practice, no matter how joyful they may > seem in the process, strong comments made with kind or sympathetic > intentions cannot be wrong, surely? What may seem like unkind 'criticisms' > or 'harsh' speech may be in the perception of the listener/reader only. In > any case, it is our own cittas (as listener/reader) at such times that can > be known only. If we are responding with aversion, that's the reality. > You say in the same breath that we can only know our own citta, yet you imply we can know if others are expressing wrong view. I agree that if we are responding with aversion, that that is the reality, but what is the citta when we "hear" wrong view from another that we "need" to correct? Just who is deluded? Kind Regards Herman #68311 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Howard, I was interested in your comments. On 11/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > In the Sabba Sutta, the Buddha never restricts the category of persons > he is referring to. He never says this pertains to worldlings. He seems to > say that this "All" is literally ALL. > From my perspective, "the All" misperceived is samsara, and "the All" > correctly perceived is nibbana.In any case, the gist of this sutta, it seems > to me, is a pragmatic-phenomenalist one that asserts that whatever is claimed > to exist beyond experience "lies beyond range" and should not be considered as > existent, i.e. as part of the "All". > From my perspective (which was your opening phrase as well, but it's a good one so I'll copy it), any perception is samsara. It is in perception that the triad of anatta, anicca and dukkha have their being, and so even a perception of Nibbana would be anicca, anatta, and dukkha. Perception is not right or wrong perception, what is perceived is perceived, but all perception is fuelled by craving. Kind Regards Herman #68312 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Joop should stay. icarofranca Hi Herman, and all: -------------------------------------------------------------------- > But if you do not participate, nobody > will be able to consider what you have to say, to help make up their > mind. And that would be both a loss and a pity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh!!! Fearless Joop will depart away from DSG! All people here will miss his posts, his cunning interventions, clever citations and bold "butting in"s: it will be a loss on DSG's stuff of good members! I hope he will change his mind about it! Mettaya, Ã?caro #68313 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects icarofranca Hi Larry! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The keyboard is as much a part of consciousness > as focus and attention. It isn't something external to consciousness. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I would say this "non-externality" of a keybord comes only at the Paramattha Sacca level of approach. At sammuit-Sacca, a keybord is only a source of sensorial datum and some basic concepts like space, time and localization. Mettaya Ã?caro (main sponsor of the "Bring Back Joop") #68314 From: "Ben O'Loughlin" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:59 am Subject: shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? oloughlinben Dear Friends I am a member and moderator of e-sangha and it was suggested to me that I should post the following question here. Please keep in mind that while I have been a meditator for many years my knowledge of the abhidhamma is very weak. I am currently reading [i]The Great War[/i] by Les Carlyon , which focuses manily on the Australian battles in France from 1916 to 1918. I was reading a description of an event that lead one soldier to develop the 'new' psycho-physical pathology of shell-shock and I was wondering whether there is an explanation in the Abhidhamma. Your thoughts would be most welcome. [quote] In early 1917 the young poet Wilfred Owen fell asleep after an assault on German trenches and was blown into the air by a shell- burst. He ended up sheltering near the skewered remains of another officer, then began trembling and stammering. One of Owen's biographers wrote: [i]It seems probable that his courage was called into question in some way by the CO [Commanding Officer], who may have called him a coward[/i] Owen was diagnosed as having shell shock. The following year he was decorated for bravery. Shell-shock became relatively common during the battle of Loos in 1915 when soldiers arrived in hospitals with [i]hysterical manifestations[/i]. Only in early 1916 did the British army recognise these men as 'wounded' rather than 'sick'. Bean, just behind the front, undestood shell-shock because he had seen it. Pozieres was a 'mincing machine', he wrote in his diary early in August. [i] They have to stay here while shell after shell descends with a shriek close beside them, each one an acute mental torture, each shrieking, tearing crash bringing a promise to each man instantaneous - I will tear you into ghastly wounds, I will rend your flesh and pulp an arm or a leg; fling you half a gaping, quivering man like these that you see smashed round you to lie there rotting and blackening like all the things you saw by the awful roadside[/i][/quote] -- Carlyon, L., (2006), The Great War, Pan Macmillan, Sydney, Australia #68315 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: About Mudita sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I'm puzzled by this. <...> > You say in the same breath that we can only know our own citta, yet > you imply we can know if others are expressing wrong view. .... S: Actually, more than one breath, but good point taken. Yes, we cannot directly know another's cittas - only by inference. The reality remains the thinking at that moment. In this case it is thinking about ideas of 'a view', based on many, many moments of experience of visible object, marked by sanna and considered. Of course, such consideration may be right or wrong, depending on the understanding accumulated to date. .... >I agree > that if we are responding with aversion, that that is the reality, but > what is the citta when we "hear" wrong view from another that we > "need" to correct? .... S: It would depend......again, we can only know for ourselves at the time of such a so-called 'need'. Clearly, by your introducing a '"need" to correct', there is a suggestion that attachment is likely to be at work here:-) .... >Just who is deluded? .... S: Moha! No 'who':-) Let's link this to your other keyboard discussions: The purpose of discussions, however controversial they may be, is surely to help each other develop understanding. The kind of speech always depends on the cittas involved - kusala or akusala. If we don't appreciate this, we go on thinking in terms of situations - other people and oneself in particular. Even when we read the same sutta here, it depends on our different perceptions as to how we'll interpret it. As I was discussing with Joop, we always think we live in the world with people, but actually, we live alone with our own thinking about this and that. For example, we think someone has criticised us or is acting without sympathy, but these are just our ideas at that instant. We think we see a keyboard now, but seeing just sees visible object and then we're thinking according to our perceptions. The goal of the path is surely panna, right understanding. This is what enlightenment means - developed understanding. When we touch the keyboard, hardness is experienced. We don't need to use any special terms to explain it, but understanding can know that hardness for what it is. Each experience of hardness arises and falls away instantly and gradually the characteristics of that experiencing and the hardness itself can be known distinctly. It's the same when there is touching of the body - hardness or softness, heat or cold or motion is experienced. So is the hardness or the citta or the cetasikas a Self? Attachment, aversion, feelings, perceptions - they all arise when there are conditions and then fall away again instantly. Gone completely, so how can they be a Self either ? They can never come back. Appreciating that there are only these different realities arising and falling away is the goal, to be known clearly known as such - as not Self in anyway. So understanding has to develop on and on until it is hardness which is apparent, arising and falling away, not a keyboard. This reminds me of the lovely discussion we had a few years ago in the Botanic Gdns in Sydney. We discussed how there is only ever the world appearing through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense or mind-door at any moment. Briefly appearing and then gone for ever! Nothing to fear at all and nothing robotic about it:-). Metta, Sarah p.s Thx to you and others for your encouragement to our other Dutch friend. ======= #68316 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. ken_aitch Hi Howard and James, ------------- <. . .> H: > I understand. You were looking beyond the sentence to the entire context. I would imagine, however, that the quoted position you gave above IS, in fact, James' position, or close to it. Certainly the most single-minded and dedicated approach to Dhamma practice is as a monk, but laypersons can go *extremely* far as well. -------------- How, pray tell, could being a monk help with one's Dhamma practice? If anything, it would make it harder. All that rule keeping and alms gathering would take up a lot of time and energy. (Time and energy that could otherwise be spent hearing and learning Dhamma.) As it turns out, James was not actually talking about the Sangha. He was objecting to people who left meditation retreats (ashrams and the like) with the conviction it was beneficial for them to do so. Somehow, `meditation retreats' got confused with the Sangha. -------------------- KH: > > <. . .> I am sure there are people with a lot to lose > if the "no formal meditation" understanding of the Dhamma were to > become more widespread. Howard: > With this last sentence I do seem to detect the strained, discordant notes of paranoia, Ken! LOL! --------------------- It's a fair cop. :-) I was deliberately being over-the-top and I do deserve to be laughed at. ------------------------- H: > Unless someone is a huckster, meditation guru of some sort, with there not too likely being many on this list (!), this strikes me as "way out" to say the least. ------------------------- I suppose that's true. However, there are many, many meditators on the internet (some of whom post here occasionally) who do seem to be looking for students (followers, devotees). K Sujin and DSG's "no- controllers" must be a nuisance to them. ------------------ H: > I would suggest that you either misunderstand or misinterpret what James said. Anyone, of course, can discuss anything offlist, and if some people took umbrage at Khun Sujin's idiosyncratic no-meditation views and were happy with James' doing so in posts to the list, so what? --------------- I agree with the `so what?' part, but your reference "K Sujin's idiosyncratic views" gets my back up every time. Surely, you must mean "the original texts' idiosyncratic views" because that is where they come from! It is the formal meditators who, in order to make their practices seem to comply with the Buddha's teaching, have to explain away large chunks of the original texts. K Sujin doesn't have to explain away any of them. -------------------- H: > I'm sure there are some KS-admirers on DSG who, offlist, discuss how "formal meditation" is some atta-asserting perversion of the Dhamma and praise well-expressed posts opposing it. Shall the meditators presume them to be engaging in a plot against them? LOL! You speak as if there were an anti-KS cabal plotting away! Yep, sounds paranoid all right! I don't think are any plotters to be found anywhere around here, Ken. --------------------- No, I suppose not, and I was speaking out of turn. But I wasn't thinking so much of plots here at DSG. It was more the situation in Thailand I was speculating about. And if you think Buddhist organizations can't be so petty as to jealously guard their spheres of influence, you should watch the news reports more often. Ken H #68317 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:22 am Subject: Re: shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? robmoult Hi Ben, Welcome to DSG from a lurker! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ben O'Loughlin" wrote: > > Dear Friends > > I am a member and moderator of e-sangha and it was suggested to me > that I should post the following question here. Please keep in mind > that while I have been a meditator for many years my knowledge of > the abhidhamma is very weak. > ===== The final book of the Abhidhamma (Patthana / Conditional Relations) describes relationships between dhammas (phenomena). One of the relationships is called "pakatupanissaya-paccaya" or "natural decisive support condition". The triggering event for natural decisive support condition is any past "strong" dhamma (mental or non-mental) and some past "strong" concepts. Examples of what would be a "strong" are things that are habitual (such as metta meditation), things that are recent (such as how well your day went today) or dramatic events (a vow, a near-death experience or shell explosion). Natural decisive support works on every single mental state. In other words, it is quite possible that a dramatic event such as a vow, a near-death experience or a shell explosition can literally have an impact on how the person thinks from that point forward (and into their next life). Experiments conducted by Richard Davidson in Wisconsin USA showed that a brief exposure to vipassana meditation led to significant increases in activity in several areas of the left prefrontal cortex (the "happy" part of the brain) and measurable increase in antibodies (i.e. healthier and happier) even four months after stopping the meditation class. This is pakatupanissaya-paccaya in action. I believe that understanding that the mind is a "creature of habit" rather than "something that is controlled by a self" can lead to more effective treatment of conditions such as shell-shock. I hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) #68318 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/13/07 5:47:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > From my perspective (which was your opening phrase as well, but it's a > good one so I'll copy it), any perception is samsara. It is in > perception that the triad of anatta, anicca and dukkha have their > being, and so even a perception of Nibbana would be anicca, anatta, > and dukkha. Perception is not right or wrong perception, what is > perceived is perceived, but all perception is fuelled by craving. > ======================= That, I think, is the general view DSG, and perhaps in orthodox Theravada in general. I, however, distinguish dualistic knowing (and perception) from nondual realization of reality. I believe that a living arhant, buddha or not, perceives in a manner that goes beyond our subject-object awareness that we can't properly describe or even barely have an inkling of, and that such unsplit consciousness is inseparable from the reality it perceives. Actually, words would fail. But I do NOT believe that full awakening requires a cognitive nullity. The words are 'awakening' and 'enlightenment', not 'sleep' or 'stupor', and 'obscuration'. With metta, Howard #68319 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/13/07 6:57:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > How, pray tell, could being a monk help with one's Dhamma practice? > If anything, it would make it harder. All that rule keeping and alms > gathering would take up a lot of time and energy. (Time and energy > that could otherwise be spent hearing and learning Dhamma.) > ================== LOLOL! Ken, have you decided to replace the Buddha's leadership with your own? There is NO question that that the Buddha set up the bhikkhu sangha (and later the bhikkhuni sangha) as the primary venue for Dhamma practice. Not going forth is a lesser choice. It is my choice, but I'm not so foolish as to think it is the superior one for Dhamma progress. With metta, Howard #68320 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' scottduncan2 Hi Herman, I think this must be an Escher thread: Me: "Again, yes. There is no need to misunderstand these processes and think to create a 'practise' out of them, such as purposive recollection and reflection or concentrated focus with the aim being to make something else happen." H: "The following came to mind when I read your 'there is no need to ....'. Is there ever a case when there is a need to ......? Just curious." Me: "Hmm. A need to misunderstand? A need to 'create' a practise? A need to 'make something happen'? I'm not sure, Herman. What do you think?" H: "You're answering questions with questions, man :-)." Am I? Are you sure? What's going on? Sorry. H: "From my perspective, with a little bit of mindfulness it is readily observable that we spend most of our days filling needs. And that we act in the world to make things happen all the time. In fact, that' s the only reason why we act. Even in writing to each other we are seeking to change the way things are. Need, lack, is fundamental to our being. It is not particularly pleasant or beneficial to be aware of need all day long, but I think it's better to see that then not see that, and acknowledge that, but I can't give you any good reasons. But I imagine that folks who "practice" do that with a view to lessening their needs, and that folks who look down their noses at this adaptive behaviour are possibly unaware of their own behaviours to lessen their needs, or awareness of them." I see a bit what you are saying here, I think. Sati can notice craving. Craving (tanhaa) is root condition (at least) for many acts of volition. Not to disappoint, I'd note, technically and not to decry common usage, that 'need, lack, is fundamental to our being' refers to this craving (tanhaa) being a root condition in existence. 'Our being' is a series of moments of consciousness. Action (such as communicating), considered as kamma, does in fact 'change the way things are' since these actions serve as condition for as yet unarisen states. 'Seeking to change' is, as I see it, is also a state rooted in craving, and misunderstood to be a self seeking something. If sati is aware of tanhaa this can be condition for further 'beneficial' states to arise, so I agree that 'its better to see than not to see' but don't postulate, as you know, any one who sees - it is the function of certain of these mental factors. 'Folks who practise' and 'folks who look down their noses', to be technical again, don't exist ultimately. Dosa, tanhaa, wrong view - these do exist. I think we should be civil in discourse, tolerant of others and all that but I think, to borrow from your own penchant for dialectical discourse, if there is wrong view, there must be right view. I'll stop the diaclectics now because there is no synthesis possible of these two. Why didn't you just let me be with my little questions? I shudder to await your reply. Sincerely, Scott. #68321 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' scottduncan2 Hi Herman, Apoplectic about: "..I'll stop the diaclectics now..." I say 'dialectics' and am done with it. S. #68322 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Gentle Wisdom, part II joelaltman26 Dear All: so grateful for the gentle reminders... no self... no self: "Everyone speaks about the self, not with direct understanding of th eself, just the word self, in the book. How to experience the direct self? When we talk about self its not just the word, there is the idea about self and how can there be the direct understanding of that self? There is right understanding and wrong understanding. There is right view and wrong view. Can it be diretly experienced? Because it is real. All realitlies are real. Cetasikas are real. Cittas are real. And this is true that we just talk about concepts of realities but there must be the way to understand directly the reality of citta, cetasika, rupa, because they are now ... citta, cetasika and rupa. When thre is no understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa, right now, its impossible to have it grow any other time. If we wait we keep on waiting, while right now citta and cetasikas, rupa arise and fall away." Kh Sujin, Bankok 2006-02-15 Joel: It seems like there is much discussion of ideas here... one idea then gives rise to a whole flood of other ideas, but what about the direct immediate realities that can be experienced? when the concepts aren't even based in the direct understanding of these realities, it seems like we are just getting carried away by the flood of ideas, further and further from the moment, further and further from real understanding ... and the eradication of self-view. but instead, we cling to the specific ideas and concepts, and try to construct a map of reality without direct experience... what good is the map if not for right now, right here. metta, joel #68323 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:09 am Subject: Re: Gentle Wisdom, part II robmoult Bonjour Joel, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "joelaltman26" wrote: > > Dear All: > > so grateful for the gentle reminders... no self... no self: > > "Everyone speaks about the self, not with direct understanding of th > eself, just the word self, in the book. How to experience the direct > self? When we talk about self its not just the word, there is the idea > about self and how can there be the direct understanding of that self? > There is right understanding and wrong understanding. There is right > view and wrong view. Can it be diretly experienced? Because it is > real. All realitlies are real. Cetasikas are real. Cittas are real. > And this is true that we just talk about concepts of realities but > there must be the way to understand directly the reality of citta, > cetasika, rupa, because they are now ... citta, cetasika and rupa. > When thre is no understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa, right now, > its impossible to have it grow any other time. If we wait we keep on > waiting, while right now citta and cetasikas, rupa arise and fall > away." > > Kh Sujin, Bankok 2006-02-15 > > Joel: It seems like there is much discussion of ideas here... one idea > then gives rise to a whole flood of other ideas, but what about the > direct immediate realities that can be experienced? when the concepts > aren't even based in the direct understanding of these realities, it > seems like we are just getting carried away by the flood of ideas, > further and further from the moment, further and further from real > understanding ... and the eradication of self-view. but instead, we > cling to the specific ideas and concepts, and try to construct a map > of reality without direct experience... what good is the map if not > for right now, right here. > > metta, > joel > ===== Let us consider the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN 1): The mind takes an object (can be a "dhamma" or a "concept") and then, because of latent defilements, there is perversion of perception, perversion of thought and perversion of views (unless one is already a Sotapanna, in which case there are no perversion of views). Because we have not fully understood the object (understood the characteristics), we delight in the object and ego-conception driven by craving, conceit and views distorts how we think by twisting experience to match an egocentric view. Through views we equate ourselves with the object. Through views and conceit we see ourselves as "part of" or "separate from" the object. Through views and craving we conceive "the object is mine". Until conditions support the arising of a Sotapanna path citta (the first time that Nibbana is taken as object), these views will be present and will continuously cause conceiving (mannita). " `I am' is a conceived idea. `I am this' is a conceived idea. `I shall be' is a conceived idea. `I shall not be'... `I shall be possessed of form'... `I shall not be possessed of form'... `I shall be percipient'... `I shall not be percipient'... `I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a conceived idea. Conceived ideas are a disease, conceived ideas are a cancer, conceived ideas are an arrow. By going beyond all conceived ideas, he is called a sage at peace." – MN 140 Metta, Rob M :-) #68324 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. nilovg Hi James, just a small correction: I never was in a kind of sangha. I went from the beginning straight to Kh Sujin who taught me about nama and rupa right away. It happened all by conditions, I never asked to be in such or such situation. I never asked to go to Bgk, it was Lodewijk's work. I wanted to learn Thai and also to understand the Thai culture. I went to a Temple where I met an American monk, and Kh Sujin was appointed as his advisor. My Thai guru spoke to me about Kh Sujin and said I should meet her. This is more than forty years ago. Kh Sujin also taught me the manner to pay respect to monks and I do this with my whole heart. She told me to have the greatest respect for them since they observe so many rules. And these rules are very meaningful. There is also a difference between a bhikkhu as person and the sangha of bhikkhus. As a sangha they perform the specific duties of the sangha. We find this in the Vinaya which you studied. In India we always offer a great sangha daana. Nina. Op 13-feb-2007, om 9:05 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > When I read > Joel, Sarah, and Nina talk about how they were laypeople in a > Buddhist Sangha, but they suddenly realized the folly of their ways > and left, #68325 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > just a small correction: I never was in a kind of sangha. I went > from the beginning straight to Kh Sujin who taught me about nama and > rupa right away. It happened all by conditions, I never asked to be > in such or such situation. I never asked to go to Bgk, it was > Lodewijk's work. James: Okay, thanks for explaining that. I should have stated Nina speaking about KS when I was referring to the stay at the 'center'. > I wanted to learn Thai and also to understand the Thai culture. I > went to a Temple where I met an American monk, and Kh Sujin was > appointed as his advisor. James: A layperson being appointed as the advisor to a monk?? That sure doesn't seem very smart!! My Thai guru spoke to me about Kh Sujin and > said I should meet her. This is more than forty years ago. > Kh Sujin also taught me the manner to pay respect to monks and I do > this with my whole heart. She told me to have the greatest respect > for them since they observe so many rules. James: I am glad that you pay respect to monks, but I don't think you know what you are really paying respect to and why. KS told you to have respect for monks because they observe so many rules!?! That is the most superficial reason I have ever heard of! If following rules was so important, why not show more respect to Jain ascetics? They follow even more rules! You should pay respect to monks because they have sacrificed a sensual, pleasure-driven life to live a holy life. They have more wisdom than laypeople and they more closely follow the Buddha's teaching. The number of "rules" they follow is not important at all. And these rules are very > meaningful. James: If KS knew the meaning of the rules, she wouldn't be placing so much emphasis on them. Actually, the Buddha didn't consider them that important at all. Before he died, he told the Sangha that they could eliminate the minor rules whenever they saw fit. It is not about 'rules'; it is about living a life filled with wisdom. > There is also a difference between a bhikkhu as person and the sangha > of bhikkhus. As a sangha they perform the specific duties of the > sangha. We find this in the Vinaya which you studied. James: I am not sure what you mean by this. You would have to be more specific if you wanted to discuss it further. > In India we always offer a great sangha daana. James: That's good. It will be of great benefit/merit for you. > Nina. Metta, James #68326 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > How, pray tell, could being a monk help with one's Dhamma practice? > If anything, it would make it harder. All that rule keeping and alms > gathering would take up a lot of time and energy. (Time and energy > that could otherwise be spent hearing and learning Dhamma.) James: Thank you for answering my question so distinctly. I can see from your answer that, by your following the teaching of KS, you are not learning about Buddhism at all. We could never see eye-to-eye because you aren't a Buddhist, you are a K. Sujianian. I am not trying to mock you or insult you, but that is how I see it. If you reject the importance of the Sangha you aren't a Buddhist and you could never become a sotapanna. > > As it turns out, James was not actually talking about the Sangha. He > was objecting to people who left meditation retreats (ashrams and the > like) with the conviction it was beneficial for them to do so. > Somehow, `meditation retreats' got confused with the Sangha. James: I wasn't really confusing the two- they are related. But you couldn't possibly understand that so I won't bother to explain. Metta, James #68327 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:48 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily lIfe, no 4 nilovg Dear friends, Some people feel that the development of samatha can give a more immediate result. Samatha, when it has been developed in the right way, has tranquillity as its result. When jhåna is attained, lobha, dosa and moha are temporarily eliminated. However, the attainment of jhåna is extremely difficult and many conditions have to be cultivated. If one develops samatha, the five hindrances are bound to arise: there will be sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness, worry and doubt. until ``access-concentration'' or jhåna have been attained. The aim of vipassanå is not tranquillity, but the eradication of wrong view and eventually of all defilements. This goal may seem far off, but each short moment of right awareness of nåma and rúpa is very fruitful; it will help to eliminate clinging to the concept of self. While one is mindful, there are no lobha, dosa or moha. Although tranquillity is not the aim of vipassanå, at the moment of right mindfulness there is kusala citta, and kusala citta is accompanied by calm. Vipassanå or insight is the development of right understanding of all nåmas and rúpas which present themselves in daily life. Insight is developed in different stages and in the course of its development the characteristics of nåma and rúpa will be understood more clearly, and their arising and falling away will be known through direct experience. When insight has been developed stage by stage, the nåma and rúpa which present themselves through the six doors can be clearly seen as impermanent, dukkha and non-self, anattå. When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be attained, the unconditioned reality, nibbåna, is directly experienced. The direct experience of nibbåna is different from thinking about nibbåna. Nibbåna is directly experienced during a mind-door process of cittas. Nibbåna cannot be experienced through any of the five senses, it can be experienced only through the mind-door. In the process during which enlightenment is attained, the manodvåråvajjana-citta (the mind-door-adverting-consciousness) takes as its object one of the three characteristics of reality: impermanence, dukkha or anattå. This means that the reality presenting itself at that moment is seen either as impermanent, or as dukkha or as anattå. Anicca, dukkha and anattå are three aspects of the truth of conditioned realities. Thus, if one sees one aspect, one also sees the other aspects. However, the three characteristics cannot be experienced at the same time, since citta can experience only one object at a time. ******* Nina. #68328 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:51 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 7, no 6 nilovg Dear friends, You had a discussion about knowing the difference between kusala and akusala. We know in theory that they are different but we find it difficult to know directly when the citta is kusala and when it is akusala. When we help someone there are kusala cittas, but there are also akusala cittas with attachment to the person we help or with attachment to "our kusala". Cittas are very intricate and they change very quickly. Khun Sujin said that it is important to know the difference between kusala and akusala, otherwise we cannot develop kusala. She explained that we can only know the present moment: "If we do not talk about this moment how can we know whether the citta is kusala or akusala? It is helpful to know this in daily life. When you think of the other person's benefit without attachment there can be kusala at the level of dåna. People have kusala cittas in a day but they don't know it. Right understanding can understand that there are different nåmas." Khun Duangduen had offered coffee to Jonothan and while she was thinking of his benefit without attachment the citta was kusala. Generally we worry too much about the development of kusala. Khun Sujin remarked that some people think and think and think how they can have more kusala whereas others just perform it whenever there is time and opportunity. We keep on worrying about kusala and also about our akusala. I noticed that Khun Sujin stressed several times that one should not worry and that one should develop right understanding at ease. She repeated what she had said in India about her anger. She said that it is no problem to her when she gets angry since it has conditions for its arising. She does not think, "O, I studied a lot and therefore I should not have anger." Gabi had listened to the tapes which were recorded in India and she wrote to me about her reactions concerning this subject: "I was so surprised when I heard Khun Sujin say, 'I am not bothered by my dosa, I don't want to control it'. I was struck by these words and they made me have a totally new approach to dosa and anattå, not self. Khun Sujin had often said, 'It is not your dosa', but this had not convinced me. Should one not work on oneself, should one not pull oneself together, and if one has the will to do this can one not succeed? Seminars are organised to help people with problems in relationship and to make them change their behaviour, and these seminars are successful. And now I hear from Khun Sujin, 'I am not bothered by my dosa and I don't want to control it'. Why am I bothered by my dosa? Because the accompanying feeling is unpleasant and my fellowmen do not like me for it, or they do not admire me. We cannot prevent thinking, but it is important not to forget that dhammas are anattå , beyond control. I think that one could say that Khun Sujin does not want to control 'her' dosa and that she is therefore not disturbed by it." That is the answer. When we realize that whatever appears is "only a reality", that it is conditioned, not self, we shall be less disturbed by it. This does not mean that we should not develop wholesome qualities. ******** Nina. #68329 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: monkhood. nilovg Hi James, just a short answer: The rules pertain to the whole of the monk"s life: a life with fewness of wishes, no violence, a life that is in truth the brahmafaring, that has as goal arahatship. I mean to include all this! The rules are deep in meaning. They should not be separate from satipatthana. They help to see danger even in the slightest faults. We laypeople can learn a great deal from the Vinaya. Nina. Op 13-feb-2007, om 17:12 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: I am glad that you pay respect to monks, but I don't think you > know what you are really paying respect to and why. KS told you to > have respect for monks because they observe so many rules!?! That is > the most superficial reason I have ever heard of! #68330 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:23 am Subject: gentle wisdom, 2. nilovg Dear Joel, You make me very happy with your quotes and your own comments. It is good to hear the same truth again and again, it sinks in only slowly. -------- From Joel's quote: And this is true that we just talk about concepts of realities but there must be the way to understand directly the reality of citta, cetasika, rupa, because they are now ... citta, cetasika and rupa. When thre is no understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa, right now, its impossible to have it grow any other time. If we wait we keep on waiting, while right now citta and cetasikas, rupa arise and fall away." -------- Nina's quote English session in Bgk (jan. 2007) : The teaching of anatta, of what is not self: seeing, hearing, etc. All are not self. One has one's own ideas about it, because there is not yet the direct experience of those realities. It has to be right now. Pa~n~naa grows from this moment. If there is no understanding at this very moment it cannot grow. We should have no expectations about moments other than this moment. There is always something, what is seen is something. There is no understanding of its arising by conditions and then falling away instantly. Sati arises when there is understanding. Nobody can do anything. At this moment there is dhamma, but we do not understand this. If we do this or that, if we believe we have to think in this way of that way, we do not understand that there is dhamma now. ---------- N: It is true that we almost all the time see a person or a table in visible object, not just what appears through eyesense, because we forget. When there is understanding of what the object of sati is, understanding that it needs conditions for its arising, then understanding grows. Understanding will see more and more that there is dhamma now, and then there will be mindfulness of dhamma now without us trying to have mindfulness. Nina. #68331 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:47 am Subject: was pa~n~natti, Kh Sujin's teachings. nilovg Hi Phil, I will not go into a debate, we both are disinclined to debates. Perhaps I could make a few points on account of your answer to Joel. I just select, otherwise it is too long. I do not expect you to agree, but this does not matter. It is really good you say what you think. --------- Ph: .....This understanding of anatta, which all serious Buddhists have to a certain degree, will gradually develop, if it develops - but with Acharn Sujin's approach there is a premature emphasis on it, which is really all about desire for wisdom, ... --------- N: I can see that you did not get what she meant. The whole of the teachings is about detachment, having less attachment. Understanding leads to detachment. Without understanding we cannot grasp what the Buddha meant. We need understanding from the beginning, also when reading suttas, like you do. ---------- Ph:Although there is much talk of patience, it seems to me that there is in fact a kind of urging towards having attainments by thinking (or reflecting, or contemplating or in a misuse of the word "meditating") in daily life. -------- N: We should not wish for any attainments, but study what is right in front of us. In that way understanding can grow. All of us are seeing, thinking about what we see, hearing, thinking about what we hear. Should we remain ignorant of all these phenomena? -------- Ph: I'll be posting more, though I'll try not to overdo it. There are lots of great points about Acharn Sujin. She has a lot of knowledge about Abhihdhamma, that's for sure. .... she tailors her English talks in a way that guides her listeners from hungering from satipatthana, samadhi etc. Unfortunately in doing so she sets up a subtle hungering for panna, in my opinion.) ------- N: It is detachment which is empasized and I have not heard other teachers emphasizing this so much, have you? What about the Sayadaws you are listening to? Lobha is the second noble Truth, it is the cause of dukkha, of being in the cycle. We should know that attachment to the growth of pa~n~naa is the very thing that obstructs its growth. Kh Sujin reminds us all the time of this. ****** Nina. #68332 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:16 pm Subject: Re: About Mudita m_nease Well-said Sarah, thanks (no reply necessary). mike #68333 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions egberdina Hi Scott, > > "A candle for him lost at sea > and gone below, > still and cold, errant wanderer. > N'er more port to grace nor > friend embrace, > though both lament." > Thanks, man. Very nice! Kind Regards Herman #68334 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects egberdina Hi Larry, On 13/02/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > H: "This keyboard in front of me is not changing as I look at it. What I > notice to be changing is focus and attention on details and relations of > details to each other. I leave the room, and in my absence I need not > have a view about the keyboard. But I do, and expect to find it there > when I return. And yes, it is there, unchanged." > > L: It occurred to me that this doesn't support your idea that only > consciousness changes. The keyboard is as much a part of consciousness > as focus and attention. It isn't something external to consciousness. > Thanks for your comments. The keyboard as being is not dependent on consciousness. The keyboard as essences/qualities/properties/appearances/function is dependent on consciousness. The keyboard as being pre-exists whatever consciousness does with it. It seems that is also the view expressed in MN28, in the section on dependent arising. I am not quoting it because quoting it makes it true, just that it is the same sort of view as mine. "Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness." And there is also this from SN12:61. " this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another." This is not talking about the body as it is in itself, but about the body as apprehended by consciousness. It is said that the consciousness of this object (consciousness-dependent body) changes at a great rate of knots, but the object is seen to be standing for years ..... When I push the keyboard with my hand, (that other instrument that is always in range when I am posting), there is not a movement of only the "enter" key in relation to the desk or screen, no, all the keys move as one, and the surrounding frame, and even my projected bottom of the keyboard which I cannot see, is moved as one. The keyboard as being pre-exists consciousness of it. That is borne out by it being there each time I expect to find it. The keyboard as object of consciousness is an inference, an on-going inference, and while it remains a self-consistent inference it is known to be other than the consciousness of it. The object of perception/conception does not rise or fall. Consciousness does. Kind Regards Herman #68335 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects egberdina Hi TG, > > > > This keyboard in front of me is not changing as I look at it. What I > notice to be changing is focus and attention on details and relations > of details to each other. I leave the room, and in my absence I need > not have a view about the keyboard. But I do, and expect to find it > there when I return. And yes, it is there, unchanged. > > TG: Unchanged? No. It is changed. Note some quotes from the Buddha... > > > "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view > could treat anything as permanent – there is no such possibility." > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka > Sutta, #115) > "Whether Tathagatas (Buddhas) arise in the world or not, it still remains a > fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are > impermanent … that all formations are subject to suffering … that all things > are non-self. > A Tathagata (Buddha) fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having > fully awakened to it and penetrating it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it > known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all > formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that > all things are non-self." > (The Buddha . . . NDB, pg. 77) > > > "When, Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks), a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice > looks at the handle of his adze, he sees the impressions of his fingers and his > thumb, but he does not know: 'So much of the adze handle has been worn away > today, so much yesterday, so much earlier.' But when it has worn away, the > knowledge occurs to him that it has worn away." > (The Buddha . . . The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (CDB), (Samyutta > Nikaya), vol. 1, pg. 960 – 961) > "Monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathagata > (Buddha), this causal law of nature, this orderly fixing of things prevails, all > phenomena are impermanent." > Thanks for the quotes. I do not read any one of them as saying that all phenomena are momentarily impermanent, by which I mean that they arise and vanish each moment. But what I do see, as in the adze handle, is an inference of change when there is no perceptible change. I do not for a moment argue for the permanence of any form, but I reject out of hand the doctrine of momentariness that seems to have crept in post-Abhidhamma. In the suttas, forms have duration, and they have different durations. One thing lasts a second, others a hundred years. > Certainly if the Buddha wanted to state that only "experiences" were of > importance in regards to impermanence, etc., he could have easily done so. The > Buddha is either a terrible teacher, who has trouble expressing himself with > any clarity, or he actually means to say that all formations, experienced and > otherwise, are impermanent. Not only this, but also that clear awareness of > that fact is a very important part of his teaching. > If you are you saying that the Buddha taught momentary existence of forms only, then it is probably best if we agree to differ. Because we both are refering to the same books to come up with diametrically opposed views of what he taught :-) And if we allow the inclusion of personal experience, I cannot for the life of me experience imperceptible change, but I can infer change as having occured from one observation to another. As to how or when that would have happened, is also all inference. Kind Regards Herman #68336 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/13/2007 3:08:30 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Thanks for the quotes. I do not read any one of them as saying that all phenomena are momentarily impermanent, by which I mean that they arise and vanish each moment. But what I do see, as in the adze handle, is an inference of change when there is no perceptible change. I do not for a moment argue for the permanence of any form, but I reject out of hand the doctrine of momentariness that seems to have crept in post-Abhidhamma. In the suttas, forms have duration, and they have different durations. One thing lasts a second, others a hundred years. TG: Hi Herman. I've never argued for the "momentariness" you speak of in my life. I am opposed to this abhidhamma view. I basically agree with what you've said here. What I don't understand is why you would think otherwise? Although various forms may be recognizable for various periods of time, they are still changing within that framework. The rate of change just depends on the conditions/formations. TG #68337 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects lbidd2 Hi Icaro, I: "I would say this "non-externality" of a keybord comes only at the Paramattha Sacca level of approach. At sammuit-Sacca, a keybord is only a source of sensorial datum and some basic concepts like space, time and localization." L: I would say at the sammuti sacca level a keyboard is infinite. There is no end to associations of identity. A keyboard is a plate, a book, a hat, almost anything. Larry #68338 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "The keyboard as being pre-exists consciousness of it. That is borne out by it being there each time I expect to find it. The keyboard as object of consciousness is an inference, an on-going inference, and while it remains a self-consistent inference it is known to be other than the consciousness of it. The object of perception/conception does not rise or fall. Consciousness does." L: I agree, but you have two logics working together like chopsticks. If you accept "keyboard as being" then you may as well accept molecular impermanence. If you want to focus on experience then you have to concede that the experience of keyboard is never the same. The unchanging keyboard is a myth. Larry #68339 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:14 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,133 Vism.XVII,134 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII [2. (b) 'At Rebirth-Linking] 133. But what was said above, namely, 'as to the remaining nineteen, there is none that does not occur as a rebirth-linking appropriate to it' (par.130), is hard to understand since it is too brief. Hence, in order to show the details it may be asked: (i) How many kinds of rebirth-linking are there? (ii) How many kinds of rebirth-linking consciousnesses? (iii) Where and by what means does rebirth-linking come about? (iv) What does rebirth-linking [consciousness] have as its object? 134. (i) Including the rebirth-linking of non-percipient beings there are twenty kinds of rebirth-linking. (ii) There are nineteen kinds of rebirth-linking consciousnesses, as already described. (iii) Herein, rebirth-linking by means of the unprofitable-resultant root-causeless and mind-consciousness element (56) comes about in the states of loss. Rebirth-linking by means of the profitable-resultant comes about in the human world among those blind from birth, born deaf, born mad, born drivelling (see M.i.20; MA.I,118), the sexless, and so on. Rebirth-linking by means of the eight principal resultant consciousnesses with root-cause ((42)-(49)) comes about among deities of the sense sphere and the meritorious among men. That by means of the five fine-material resultant kinds comes about in the fine-material Brahmaa-world. That by means of the four immaterial-sphere resultant kinds comes about in the immaterial world. So rebirth-linking [consciousness] conforms to the means by which, and the place in which, it comes about. (iv) Briefly, rebirth-linking [consciousness] has three kinds of objects, namely, past, present, and not-so-classifiable. Non-percipient rebirth-linking has no object. ********************* 133. ya.m pana vutta.m ``sesesu ekuunaviisatiyaa na ki~nci attano anuruupaaya pa.tisandhiyaa na pavattatii''ti, ta.m atisa.mkhittattaa dubbijaana.m. tenassa vitthaaranayadassanattha.m vuccati, kati pa.tisandhiyo, kati pa.tisandhicittaani, kena kattha pa.tisandhi hoti, ki.m pa.tisandhiyaa aaramma.nanti. 134. asa~n~napa.tisandhiyaa saddhi.m viisati pa.tisandhiyo. vuttappakaaraaneva ekuunaviisati pa.tisandhicittaani. tattha akusalavipaakaaya ahetukamanovi~n~naa.nadhaatuyaa apaayesu pa.tisandhi hoti. kusalavipaakaaya manussaloke jaccandhajaatibadhirajaatiummattakajaatie.lamuuganapu.msakaadiina.m. a.t.thahi sahetukakaamaavacaravipaakehi kaamaavacaradevesu ceva manussesu ca pu~n~navantaana.m pa.tisandhi hoti. pa~ncahi ruupaavacaravipaakehi ruupiibrahmaloke. catuuhi aruupaavacaravipaakehi aruupaloketi. yena ca yattha pa.tisandhi hoti , saa eva tassa anuruupaa pa.tisandhi naama. sa"nkhepato pana pa.tisandhiyaa tii.ni aaramma.naani honti atiita.m paccuppanna.m navattabba~nca. asa~n~naa pa.tisandhi anaaramma.naati. #68340 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:26 pm Subject: Re: was pa~n~natti, Kh Sujin's teachings. philofillet Hi Nina > Hi Phil, > I will not go into a debate, we both are disinclined to debates. > Perhaps I could make a few points on account of your answer to Joel. Please do. I should have added a note to encourage students of Acharn Sujin to add their comments if they'd like. I won't get into a debate, don't worry. I just need to get some things off my chest. I will write one more post in response to Joel's question tonight, and then perhaps my venting will be done. Well, probably not, but I think it'll be done soon once I touch on a few more points. But please do clarify any misprepresentations you think I've made. Metta, Phil #68341 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/13/2007 5:57:58 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: H: "The keyboard as being pre-exists consciousness of it. That is borne out by it being there each time I expect to find it. The keyboard as object of consciousness is an inference, an on-going inference, and while it remains a self-consistent inference it is known to be other than the consciousness of it. The object of perception/conceptithan th not rise or fall. Consciousness does." Hi Herman, Larry All conditions rise and fall through the course of interaction. Larry was right earlier when he alluded that consciousness is not separate from the object. In fact, without the object there is no consciousness. CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT SOMETHING "STANDING BY" WAITING TO EXPERIENCE PHENOMENA. CONSCIOUSNESS IS GENERATED AND DEPENDENT ON THE VERY PHENOMENA IT EXPERIENCES. TG #68342 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. rjkjp1 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > wrote: How, pray tell, could being a monk help with one's Dhamma practice? If anything, it would make it harder. All that rule keeping and > alms gathering would take up a lot of time and energy. (Time and energy > > that could otherwise be spent hearing and learning Dhamma.) ________ Dear Ken I met an ex monk in Thailand who had the same idea as you. He disrobed because he wanted to have more time to practice. He stayed in a hut for the next 25 years but never got anywhere as far as I could see. Even Devadata gained great merit by joining the order. "" so by whatsoever method an increase in the virtue of living things can be brought about, by that method does he contribute to their good. If Devadatta, O king, had not entered the Order, then as a layman he would have laid up much Karma leading to states of woe, and so passing for hundreds of thousands of Kalpas from torment to misery, and from one state of perdition to another, he would have suffered constant pain. It was knowing that, that in his mercy, the Blessed One admitted Devadatta to the Order. It was at the thought that by renouncing the world according to His doctrine Devadatta's sorrow would become finite that, in his mercy, he adopted that means of making his heavy sorrow light.""" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3512.htm#page_137 Robert #68343 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:15 pm Subject: Two-faced (Re: monkhood.) buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > just a short answer: The rules pertain to the whole of the monk"s > life: a life with fewness of wishes, no violence, a life that is in > truth the brahmafaring, that has as goal arahatship. I mean to > include all this! The rules are deep in meaning. They should not be > separate from satipatthana. They help to see danger even in the > slightest faults. We laypeople can learn a great deal from the Vinaya. > Nina. At least Ken H. is straightforward with what he believes! This is just about the most hypocritical BS I have ever read! Nina, you could get a job in politics! ;-)) You write again and again that the Buddha's path doesn't require any special type of lifestyle; that even attempting to have a special lifestyle increases attachment to self. Yet here you write that: The rules pertain to the whole of the monk's life: a life with fewness of wishes, no violence, a life that is in truth the brahmafaring that has as goal arahatship... They help to see danger even in the slightest faults. We laypeople can learn a great deal from the Vinaya. Yet in your book The Buddha's Path you write: "There were many monks, nuns and laypeople who developed the Path and realized the goal, each in their own situation. The development of the eightfold Path does not mean that one should try to be detached immediately from all pleasant objects…The development of understanding cannot be forced, it must be done in a natural way. When one is a layfollower one enjoys all the pleasant things of life, but understanding of realities can be developed. The monk who observes the rules of monkhood leads a different kind of life, but this does not mean that he already is without attachment to pleasant objects…" Nina, you are completely two-faced and you misrepresent what the Buddha taught. (But you are a sweet and kind lady nonetheless ;-)). Metta, James #68344 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > You should pay respect to monks because they > have sacrificed a sensual, pleasure-driven life to live a holy life. > They have more wisdom than laypeople and they more closely follow the > Buddha's teaching. The number of "rules" they follow is not > important at all. > > And these rules are very > > meaningful. > > James: If KS knew the meaning of the rules, she wouldn't be placing > so much emphasis on them. Actually, the Buddha didn't consider them > that important at all. Before he died, he told the Sangha that they > could eliminate the minor rules whenever they saw fit. \ ++++++++ Dear James The Vinaya (rules) for monks is exceedingly profound and wonderful. Even the arahats at the first council did not think to change even the monst minor ones. ==From the Introduction to the Pa.t.thaana, translated by Naarada: THE OCEAN OF METHOD "A person looking at the ocean, which has not been measured, will not know its exact measurements, but at least he will be able to form an estimate of its vastness. In the same way the reader who has gone through this Introduction to Pa.t.thaana will be able to form an estimate that Pa.t.thaana consists of innumerable methods; that is very expansive and that it is the province of Omniscience. "Of the four oceans (I) the ocean of repeated births, (II) the ocean of waters, (III) the ocean of method, and (IV) the ocean of knowledge, the ocean of method is Pa.t.thaana. In the Expositor I, p. 14, it is stated as follows: 'Which is the ocean of method? The three Pi.takas, the word of the Buddha. For in reflecting upon the two Pi.takas, infinite rapturous joy arises in the sons of clansmen who are faithful, abundantly believing and endowed with superior knowledge. Which are the two? The VINAYA and the Abhidhamma. Infinite rapturous joy arises in those bhikkhus who learn the VINAYA text and reflect that it is the province of the Buddhas, and not of others, to lay down the rule for each fault or transgression according to its gravity.==== Robert #68345 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Two-faced (Re: monkhood.) jonoabb Hi James If you see a contradiction in the 2 passages of Nina's that you quote, then by all means spell it out (I don't find any contradiction myself). But I do urge you to stick to discussing dhamma points, and avoid making things so personal. Jon #68346 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Two-faced (Re: monkhood.) buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi James > > If you see a contradiction in the 2 passages of Nina's that you quote, > then by all means spell it out (I don't find any contradiction myself). James: The contradiction is self-evident and obvious. If you can't see it then you will never see it, even if I jump through lots of hoops to spell it out for you. > > But I do urge you to stick to discussing dhamma points, and avoid making > things so personal. James: I am not trying to hurt Nina's feelings; and I'm sure she is used to my bombastic posts by now! ;-)) Anyway, how can I adress Nina about Nina's view, Nina's posts, and Nina's book, without mentioning Nina?? That is an impossibility. It is personal. Let me close with this quote by the Buddha: "Furthermore, he is endowed with unwavering faith in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight individuals — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.' This is the third pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean." Does this mention anything about having faith in householders?? > > Jon Metta, James #68347 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:21 pm Subject: Re: was pa~n~natti, Kh Sujin's teachings. scottduncan2 Hi Phil, Just a thought on the below, if you don't mind and since you open it up: P: "...I should have added a note to encourage students of Acharn Sujin to add their comments if they'd like..." I don't consider myself a student of Kh. Sujin. I consider myself a student of the Dhamma. I listen regularily to the discussions I've down-loaded. I find that she teaches Dhamma. Dhamma, not the teacher, is important. For what that's worth (and I agree, please no debates - this is just an expression of how I see it)... Sincerely, Scott. #68348 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. buddhatrue Hi Robert and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > > You should pay respect to monks because they > > have sacrificed a sensual, pleasure-driven life to live a holy > life. > > They have more wisdom than laypeople and they more closely follow > the > > Buddha's teaching. The number of "rules" they follow is not > > important at all. > > > > And these rules are very > > > meaningful. > > > > James: If KS knew the meaning of the rules, she wouldn't be > placing > > so much emphasis on them. Actually, the Buddha didn't consider > them > > that important at all. Before he died, he told the Sangha that > they > > could eliminate the minor rules whenever they saw fit. \ > ++++++++ > Dear James > The Vinaya (rules) for monks is exceedingly profound and wonderful. > Even the arahats at the first council did not think to change even > the monst minor ones. This isn't according to my understanding. The Buddha said that the minor rules could be abandoned before his paranibbana. The arahants at the first council asked Ananda which minor rules the Buddha meant (as there are quite a few). Ananda said that the Buddha didn't say, so they decided to keep all of the rules just to be on the safe side. This is hardly "they did not think to change even the most minor ones". Metta, James ps. I am starting to reach my burn-out point with this group. I don't like to discuss the Sangha with householders who believe the lay lifestyle is the same as or superior to the monastic lifestyle. It's just plain stupid and irritating to discuss such a thing! I am going to quit the group for a while so I won't be reading the posts. #68349 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions egberdina Hi KenH, On 13/02/07, ken_aitch wrote: > Hi all, > > I should be writing replies to Sarah, Connie and Herman, but I can't > resist coming in on this thread. > Ah, that is the unable-to-resist condition coming to the fore :-) > Herman wrote: > ----------- > > A bit more about conditions. > > For RSA's (really serious anattists), everything is conditionality. > ----------- > > Yes, but do the non-RSA's know what the RSA's mean? Unfortunately, > they don't. The way the non-RSA's see it, conditionality relates to > an illusory world in which people and cars (for example) exist. They > think it means a car accident is the inevitable, predetermined, > result of conditions already set in place. It would be helpful to me, a non-RSA from way back, if you could tell me what an illusion is, and how an illusion is different from something not illusional. It's not a trick question, and I'm not equivocating, and I'm looking forward to a happy and healthy discussion on the matter. > > ----------------- > Herman: > > > Their position is simply that everything is caused. Make no mistake, > > this is only a view, and nothing more than a view. It is the taking > of > > a metaphysical position, without the possibility existing of > > verification or falsification. > > But a really interesting feature of this view is that the view makes > > no difference to anything. Everything that has ever happened will > > still have happened, and everything that will happen will still > > happen. > ------------------ > > Note that Herman is talking about a world in which `past' `present' > and `future' are equally real. No such world exists! The Dhamma > cannot be appreciated until people face the fact that there is only > the present moment. This is an interesting suggestion, that there is only the present, because it denies the possibility of events happening. Does the Dhamma deny that events happen? If it does, then I certainly have misunderstood the Dhamma. > > The way I see it, Howard is taking Herman's misunderstanding of the > RSA position a step further, and is actually misrepresenting it > (unintentionally, of course). Why would the name "volition deniers" > be given to the RSA's? Of all people! The RSA's believe volition is a > paramattha dhamma - an absolute reality!!! It is the non-RSA's (the > formal-meditators) who tend to think volition is a mere concept. They > see volition as an `event' that can take place in illusory places - > for example, by the side of a road. I think many of the problems to do with RSA arise from the inability of its protagonists to express themselves from within the limits implied by their position. Flitting about from paramattha dhammas to formal meditators in one sentence is hardly a convincing example of any understanding of the matter. I wouldn't mind betting that Howard understands the implications of the RSA position far better than most RSA's. I'm only guessing here, but I assume that because of this understanding he rejects it. On the other hand, you KenH, and others, don't seem to understand the implications of RSA at all, and that is why you can maintain it. > > Phil, I think, gets a little bit offended when he feels he is being > told he "just doesn't get it.'" However, no one will `get it' while > they continue to disregard the Abhidhamma. Anatta and volition (like > other absolute realities) exist in the loka – the conditioned world > of the present moment. When we try to apply them to an *illusory* > world we cannot fail but come up with some sort of wrong view - e.g., > that everything is caused by the past. > I'll wait to get a clarification on what an illusion is before I proceed. Perhaps you could also give the paramattha dhamma counterpart of what an illusion is. Cheers Herman #68350 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) egberdina Hi Sarah, On 11/02/07, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Connie, Herman & all, > > Another great therii....Therii Sumanaa > > This is also relevant to questions about parinibbana (such as one Herman > recently asked me about the Buddha's parinibbana). No Buddha, no Therii > Tissaa in an ultimate sense - just 'elements as pain' (dhaatuyo > dhukkhato). I can easily accept that there would be no Buddha, you or me in an ultimate sense, but find it less acceptable that an ultimate sense is somehow meaningful, or even possible. An ultimate sense sounds to me like a viewpointless point of view, something that cannot be. All consciousness is consciousness of something other than itself, so all consciousness is a point of view. What is an ultimate sense? Kind Regards Herman #68351 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Distances (Was: Re: About Mudita egberdina Hi James, On 11/02/07, buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Phil and Joop, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Joop > > > > I'm sure like me and I'm sure like others here you have found > > thoughts about DSG popping up an awful lot during meditation... > > From my perspective, DSG cannot be blamed to interrupting one's > meditation. Actually, I found jhanas impossible anytime I was posting. Sure, that is not the fault of dsg. But it is the fault of filling your head with thinking. But that is what dsg is all about, isn't it? If it wasn't thoughts about DSG arising, it would be > thoughts about other subjects. The thing about meditation is that > the mind should be kept within the body. When the mind wanders > outside of the body, just bring it back. There is the involuntary thing about jhana, once in you stay in. But before you're in, you don't know when your mind is wondering. Just like a state of jhana is involuntary, the realisation that the mind has wondered is also quite involuntary. You can't bring the mind back till you know it was gone. And you can't make yourself realise that :-) > > One needs to withdraw from the outside world. Good wishes for your > continued practice!! > I agree with you 100%. And even though I agree with you, I have stopped meditating altogether. I was having this lovely jhana experience, quite involuntary, when I lost all sense of identity as Herman, and became a fox. It was terrifying and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. With hindsight, I was at that point stark raving certifiably insane. It is now actually very nice to accept in myself that I'd rather be Herman than enlightened, if the latter may mean having to go mad in the process. I well understand the frustrations you are experiencing in your efforts to have a coherent discussion. I have had a post on Buddhism 101 sitting in my draft folder. But then again I think that posting a statement of the bleeding obvious to people who are prepared to deny history and divorce Buddhism from it's historical, monastic roots, and instead make it a tradition that started as Abhidhamma studies for householders, will be nothing but wasted effort. But rather than leave dsg altogether, perhaps you would like to comment on my decision to stop meditating. I will not be bothered by whatever tenor you may adopt :-) Kind Regards Herman #68352 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:17 pm Subject: Kammic effects can be modified! bhikkhu5 Friends: Effect of action is not fixed, but modifiable by new action: Painful effects of wrong action is reduced by new right action. Painful effects of wrong action is enhanced by more wrong action. Pleasurable effects of right action is reduced by new wrong action. Pleasurable effects of right action is enhanced by more right action. Good Action dilutes Evil Kamma http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Good_Action_dilutes_Evil_Kamma.htm Good Action boost Good Kamma http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Good_Action_enhances_other_Good_Kamma.htm Evil Kamma enhances other Evil Kamma http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Evil_Kamma_enhances_other_Evil_Kamma.htm Effect of Action (kamma) is Delayed http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Effect_of_Action_(kamma)_is_Delayed.htm AN 3.99 Lonaphala Sutta The Salt Crystal: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html Kamma & the Ending of Kamma: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b Kammic effects can be modified! Kamma is improvable! Never give up! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68353 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:25 am Subject: Re: pa~n~natti and cohesion. ken_aitch Hi Robert, Thank you very much for this reply. I want people to know that I by no means speak for K Sujin, or for her students. I regard myself as a student of the students, and a very poor one at that. Provided all DSG members realize this I can have the freedom to speak my mind without incriminating anyone else. :-) -------- KH: > > How, pray tell, could being a monk help with one's Dhamma practice? If anything, it would make it harder. All that rule keeping and > alms gathering would take up a lot of time and energy. (Time and energy > that could otherwise be spent hearing and learning Dhamma.) R: > Dear Ken I met an ex monk in Thailand who had the same idea as you. He disrobed because he wanted to have more time to practice. He stayed in a hut for the next 25 years but never got anywhere as far as I could see. -------- So it would seem that being a monk didn't help, and not being a monk didn't help. :-) This is because we are talking in concepts, aren't we? And if we think concepts have any efficacy in path progress (or in any other absolute reality) we should think again. When we are speaking in terms of absolute realities, a "monk" exists only as a fleeting moment of pariyatti, patipatti, or pativedha citta. I think there is a sutta in which the Buddha says that anyone can be a monk in this way. --------------------- R: > Even Devadata gained great merit by joining the order. "" so by whatsoever method an increase in the virtue of living things can be brought about, by that method does he contribute to their good. If Devadatta, O king, had not entered the Order, then as a layman he would have laid up much Karma leading to states of woe, and so passing for hundreds of thousands of Kalpas from torment to misery, and from one state of perdition to another, he would have suffered constant pain. It was knowing that, that in his mercy, the Blessed One admitted Devadatta to the Order. It was at the thought that by renouncing the world according to His doctrine Devadatta's sorrow would become finite that, in his mercy, he adopted that means of making his heavy sorrow light.""" -------------------- Thanks again, Robert, I won't pretend to know how to interpret that, but I have great faith in the teaching of conditionality. Undoubtedly, there can be nothing in the above to say that Path consciousness or any other dhamma can be controlled by the mere recitation of vows (or by any other kind of rite or ritual (belief in the efficacy of concepts)). Ken H #68354 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mudita and DSG-ending sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- sarah abbott wrote: > Please publish your search-results about Ananda, I think i will lurk > now and then. And more important: the result can be important for > others too. Not because it will prove that not only according Joop > but also according the commentary Ananda was not yet an arahant when > speaking the "gatha" 1034-1036. > But for understanding better attachment to people (or the Buddha) and > the importance of the mourning-process for a really detachement. .... S: Ananda became an arahat immediately before the convening of the First Council. There are many accounts of this. Before the Buddha's Parinibbana, Ananda was so overpowered with grief because the Buddha was about to die that it did not occur to him to ask the Master what the minor rules were. We also read in the Parinibbana Sutta that Ananda could have asked the Buddha to live longer 'throughout a world period', but 'the venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his mind was influenced by Mara, he did not beseech the Blessed One: 'May the Blessed One remain.' ' Comy: "As his mind was possessed by Mara:.....Mara possesses the mindof any person whose twelve perversions (vipallaasa) have not been given up completely. The elder had not given up four perversions and so Mara possessed his mind...." I've lost track of the gatha. If there's still any question, pls let me know. Metta, Sarah ======== #68355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two-faced (Re: monkhood.) nilovg Hi James, Of course I am used to your bombastic posts. Perhaps you did not quite grasp the meaning of what I wrote. Perhaps if you reread what I wrote? A monk still has attachment to sense objects, this is only eradicated when he becomes a non-returner. His lifestyle is different, and he leads a higher kind of life. His conduct is supposed to be the conduct of an arahat. But he should develop right understanding of realities, otherwise he is not worthy to be called a true recluse, we read in the Kindred Sayings. Nina. Op 14-feb-2007, om 4:21 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: I am not trying to hurt Nina's feelings; and I'm sure she is > used to my bombastic posts by now! ;-)) Anyway, how can I adress > Nina about Nina's view, Nina's posts, and Nina's book, without > mentioning Nina?? That is an impossibility. It is personal. #68356 From: "icarofranca" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects icarofranca Hi Larry! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > L: I would say at the sammuti sacca level a keyboard is infinite. >There > is no end to associations of identity. A keyboard is a plate, a book, >a > hat, almost anything. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- You can knit an infinite blanket of concepts like these, but such blanket, even with an infinite surface, will be devoid of one dimension. At Paramattha Sacca, the focus is removed from object, as an alienated form of perception, and put over the "negation of negation" of the duality perceptions/external object. And since the "negation of a negation" is an affirmation of a new definition that hangs up the former ones (in German "Aufheben"), you get in hands a new universe of meaning, a DIALECTIC knowledge, called "Paramattha Sacca". Your Keyboard is no more an alienated object of perception and thoughts, an infinite , amalgamated, set of constitutive notes, but a "phase" of your own Citta and its concomitant cetasikas. As you can perceive, Larry,I am reading some Philosophy nowadays... and I am very excited with some conclusions on...heheheheheeh!!!!! Mettaya, Ã?caro #68357 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:26 am Subject: A final venting from phil, probably. philofillet Hi all I wrote this earlier on my other computer. I'd like to send it off and be done with criticizing Acharn Sujin for awhile, though I see there is already a bit of a ruckus going on. Selfishly, I will post it anyways. Please feel free not to read it! :) ***** I apologize in advance for criticizing Acharn Sujin so much recently. It's something I need to get out of my system. I'm pretty sure this is last post I will write in this vein. (For a few days at least!) Joel, you asked me about the shortcomings of Acharn Sujin's's teaching that I'd come across. I posted yesterday about over- reliance on panna, under-emphasis on morality (which was not taught by the Buddha as an end in itself, but as a necessary condition of deeper attainments) and a dubious approach to samadhi. Today I will address the following points: the disuse of suttas, misrepresentation of wrong view and under-emphasis on mindfulness of the body. I'm not trying to sway you, honestly. But since you asked, this letter is addressed principally to you. Remember when you read it that I am just a beginner who might be completely wrong and feel free to ignore it completely. Please don't let my rather bizarre behaviour scare you away from DSG, I won't pester you or harass you about your growing interesting in Acharn Sujin's teaching, I assure you. OK, the venting re-beginneth. First the disuse of suttas. I could have called this section the spinning of suttas, or misrepresentation of suttas. As you know, Acharn Sujin place a large emphasis on Abhidhamma. You will rarely hear her mention suttas in the talks, though she apparently does so more in Thai talks. (I think I have heard Nina say this.) Abhidhamma is very deep, and very important, but I question the emphasis Acharn Sujin puts on it. I think of the Burmese Sayadaws I listen to. As you may know, in Myanmar young monks memorize many parts of the Abhidhamma, to begin their training. Burmese Buddhism puts great imoprtance on Abhidhamma. But when you hear Burmese sayadaws giving Dhamma talks, the references to Abhidhamma are to support certain points, to clarify certain points. The emphasis is on suttas.I think (or guess) they understand that it is the suttanta that contains the clearest exhortations and guidance from the Buddha, and is therefore the most suitable for busy worldlings, for their inspiration and guidance. Now, as you will see at DSG, very often suttas are quoted that quite clearly contradict aspects of Acharn Sujin's teachings. ("They quote suttas!" I heard Nina say once in a talk, hinting at the difficulty of dealing with pesky people who quote suttas.) The most common approach for students of Acharn Sujin to deal with suttas is to say that they represent an understanding of people of the day and age of the Buddha that is beyond our understanding. I used to love to say this, without ever having any textual support for saying so. It is true that there are some suttas that are addressed to or refer to people of supramundane attainments. But it is clear from commentarial notes provided by Bhikkhu Bodhi (the best translator, in my opinion) which those suttas are. Most suttas are offered to monks and non-monks alike, and are generally quite clear, unless the translations are really poor. (I doubt it.) The other approach to suttas is to choose one that suits one's purposes, and ignore many others on the same point that don't suit one's purposes. (Mind you, everybody's guilty of this at times, I'm sure.) The "seclusion" issue comes to mind. Now there are so many suttas in which the Buddha explicitly refers to seclusion to mean just what we think seclusion means. Getting away from people, for the quiet and withdraw from sensory overload that is needed for serious meditation. I think of this passage from AN VII, 58: "dwellings where there are few sounds and little noise, which are fanned by cool breezes, remote from human habitation, suitable for seclusion." There are many – empty huts, roots of trees. The Buddha made it crystal clear that it is necessary to have sensory seclusion from the world to seek his way deeply. But Acharn Sujin and her students have latched on to a single sutta in SN ( I forget the exact reference, sorry) which refers to the momentary seclusion that is provided by the understanding of a dhamma, wherever one is. (I don't have a clear recollection of that sutta, but I am pretty sure that is the gist.) Sarah has said that it was reading this sutta, when at her temple, that she found a new way. I think this is somewhat delusional, to tell the truth. Grasping that sutta that refers to a subtle meaning of seclusion that is rarely used in order to ignore the meaning of seclusion that the Buddha used again and again and again. This point is particularly important for you to reflect on, I think, lest you be misled permanently by your disappointing experience in the Quebec ashram in combination with the attractiveness of the idea of seclusion of the citta through deep understanding (it is too soon for us, that kind of understanding, in my opinion) that is offered by Acharn Sujin and her students. Another way suttas are misrepresented is by ignoring the great mass of evidence by suggesting a point is only taught in one sutta. (Sorry, Sarah, but this is yours, again.) I once heard Sarah in a talk referring to a sutta that clearly states that insight is conditioned by samadhi, that it is samadhi that reveals the true nature of things, or words to that effect. As anyone who has studied suttas knows, this teaching is repeated again and again and again. I dare say that if one were to make a list of the suttas in which it is taught that samadhi is a necessary precondition for insight, it would be several pages long. I paraphrase what Sarah said, but those who have heard it will know it is something like "there is a sutta, perhaps a dhammapada passage, in which this is said concentration reveals insight into the true nature of things" or something like that. Now, does she really believe that there is just this one sutta passage, that she suggests was fairly obscure, and only in Dhammapada? Does she not know how many suttas in which it is said that it is through concentration that the true nature of things is revealed? It suggests that Acharn Sujin's teaching leads her students further away from an understanding of the clear teaching of the suttanta. Again, sorry Sarah for seeming to get personal. It just happened that you were involved twice here. I don't worry about this, because I know how confident you are. I guess I should stop there, but I want to finish this today. Thanks. Next, confusing presentation of wrong view – this is an important point. I don't have enough understanding to go into it thoroughly. My point is that the kind of wrong view that we should be concerned about, the kind of wrong view that the Buddha stressed above all and is always mentioned first by modern teachers, is the wrong view that is not believing that there is a result to our deeds. (i.e not believing in kamma.) Not being able to see though the vipallasas (which if I recall correctly are such things as thinking the ugly to be beautiful, the impermanent to be permanent, the dissatisfactory to be pleasant, the anatta to be atta ) is not the wrong view - or should I say lack of right view - that we should be concerned about at this point, though of course we should be gradually beginning to develop understanding that will help us to see through these "perversions of view." The sotapanna (stream-enterer) has right view of that degree, but it sometimes seems that Acharn Sujin is saying that we should all be like that right from the beginning. As Howard often said, a line that got in my brain and eventually helped me back onto a more suitable path "we begin where we are, not where we want to be." Any time Acharn Sujin asks something like "who meditates?" she is suggesting that we should all be sotapannas right from the beginning. Only sotapannas are free from wrong view of self, so to keep pushing the issue of anatta at beginners is putting the cart before the horse, to use a very obvious metaphor. We cannot get rid of wrong view of self by thinking and reflecting and contemplating on how all dhammas are not-self, though this is helpful. It is helpful, and taught by the Buddha, but in no way takes away the value of intentional practices exhorted by the Buddha. There are many suttas which don't make sense if it is assumed that the listener is free from view of self. For just one example, I think of AN X 51 in which we are urged to look at ourselves and ask ourselves if we are often full of ill-will, or often free of ill-will. And sensual desire. And sloth and torpor. And laziness. And 6 other factors. The idea that this recommended practice could be done by an operation of paramattha dhammas without a self involved is absurd. Acharn Sujin and her students also misrepresent the wrong view related to rules and rites. (I forget the Pali.) They say that modern day meditators are by necessity demonstrating a clinging to this form of wrong view when they intentionally meditate. This is incorrect. The Buddha taught that form of wrong view related to obviously wrong rituals that were popular in his day and age. As I have heard in talks from other teachers, an example that would have been common in his day is animal sacrifice, or worshipping fire. I agree that there are some aspects to modern meditation that are a bit fishy on this point – I am always suspicious when I hear teachers suggest that doing long retreats will guarantee liberating insights, and though I am keen these days on the Burmese sayadaws I find there are too many references to insight arising from diligent meditation practice, too many promises. That' could certainly lead to wrong view related to rules and rituals. But to suggest that all meditators are suffering from this wrong view because they are expecting results here and now is incorrect, I think. I certainly don't expect immediate results when I meditate. I am just following the Buddha's recommended practices. If it's true that anything anyone does intentionally related to Dhamma with the hope of developing understanding is wrong view related to rules and rites than students of Acharn Sujin should look at the obsessive listening to Acharn Sujin talks that people do (I certainly did) and they should ask themselves why they make pilgrimages to India and other holy sites. Third. Dubious teaching re mindfulness of the body in specific and mindfulness in general Now that you're getting into Acharn Sujin' s teaching, you'll probably find yourself listening to talks a lot. And thinking a lot. And reflecting on paramattha dhammas in daily life a lot. So much will be going on in your head. (The first thing I noticed when I returned to meditating was the way the Dhamma seemed to slide down from always being into my brain into being more harmonized with body and mind.) The Buddha taught that it is mindfulness of the body that should be the foundation for the other three foundations. I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi, referring to AN 1:27 in which this is made clear: "The great stress laid on contemplation of the body derives from the fact that meditative comprehension of the impermanent, painful and selfless nature of body processes forms the indispensable basis for a comprehensive comprehension of mental processes, and it is only the comprehension of both that will lead to liberating insight and the noble path." As you know meditation as taught to beginners is almost always based on choosing or being assigned a meditation object related to mindfulness of the body. (e.g mindfulness of breathing, or mindfulness of the wind/pressure/motion rupa involved in movement of the abdoment, etc.) By foregoing meditation Acharn Sujin and her students also forego giving mindfulness of the body its central role. They get around this by saying that people who meditate on a mindfulness of the body object don't actually have mindfulness of the body, it's all lobha. (Attachment, longing.) This notion of attachment to mindfulness is something I have never ever heard taught anywhere else. Also, sati (mindfulness) is taught by Acharn Sujin in a very subtle, difficult-to-understand way that is unique to Acharn Sujin, as far as I know. I have not heard sati taught in a difficult-to-understand way elsewhere. Which could very well mean that it is taught badly elsewhere, I acknowledge that, even as I go ahead and pay more attention to where it is taught in an easy-to- understand way. Sati is not a rare attainment. Clear Comphrehension (in its early stage) is not a rare attainment. Wise attention (yoniso manasikara) is not a rare attainment. They are often there in daily life for those of us who have come across the Buddha's teaching (at least they are in the suttas) unless we want to get drawn towards a very seductive teaching that by virtue of being cryptic and difficult to grasp and therefore sounds deep, deep, deep and therefore very attractive in a Sexiness of Wisdom Syndrome way. (As Jon says in one talk, "Acharn Sujin always ends with a riddle.") I don't think the Buddha taught in a riddle-ridden, enigmatic way. There are supra-mundane path factors, of course, for the liberated ones, but I personally think we are taking ourselves away from what is really important for sensory-drunken worldlings if we spend too much time getting into considering those. We can have sati, we can have wise attention, we can have clear comprehension. They are there for us. Only in the teaching of Acharn Sujin are they taught to be rare or difficult-to-understand factors. Well, I think that just about wraps it up. Joel, if you are still reading, thanks. I just needed to vent. I have a feeling I am done with it. No need to respond, and I won't be commenting any further on this post.. Enjoy the talks – I say that sincerely. Acharn Sujin' s teaching might be suitable for you. It just wasn't for me. Students of Acharn Sujin, please feel free to add any comments. I won't be responding, but it is good if you clarify anything you feel I have misrepresented. Thanks. Metta, Phil p.s Jon, I think it'll be a couple of weeks until I get back to you. I have been too vocal at DSG recently. If it weren't for Acharn Sujin and her teaching, DSG wouldn't be here, so it's sensible and good manners for her critics to practice self- restraint. I'll most certainly be responding to your post when I'm back from a little quiet spell. #68358 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A final venting from phil, probably. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Thanks for articulating all your misgivings. As Nina said, far from minding about disagreements, we warmly welcome them:-) Just on one point quickly in passing for now - --- Phil wrote: >....I once heard Sarah in a > talk referring to a sutta that clearly states that insight is > conditioned by samadhi, that it is samadhi that reveals the true > nature of things, or words to that effect. As anyone who has studied > suttas knows, this teaching is repeated again and again and again. .... S: Yes, samma samadhi conditions samma ditthi and vice versa! This is very clear. They are 'yoked together' at moments of insight. ..... >I > dare say that if one were to make a list of the suttas in which it > is taught that samadhi is a necessary precondition for insight, it > would be several pages long. I paraphrase what Sarah said, but those > who have heard it will know it is something like "there is a sutta, > perhaps a dhammapada passage, in which this is said concentration > reveals insight into the true nature of things" or something like > that. .... S: Yes, many references to the various path factors conditioning each other, inc. samadhi conditioning insight and vice versa. Also many, many references to mundane jhana - no one denies this. The Dhp passage qu/discussion was particularly related to Dhp 368-376 (if I recall correctly) and relates to the many discussions here concerning the 2 meanings of jhana. It's an intricate point. See: Dhammapada2-Jhana; Nibbana -see also 'Jhana-Two Meanings' 31767, 67402 .... S: In other words, it's not just concerned with the usual (many) sutta references concerning samadhi and insight or mundane jhana prior to enlightenment. .... >Now, does she really believe that there is just this one > sutta passage, that she suggests was fairly obscure, and only in > Dhammapada? .... S: This is one of the most often-quoted references here from people who believe that mundane jhana is an essential condition for enlightenment. It's easy to miss the full significance of the pithy verse. Many topics we raise in live discussions follow topics raised here. .... >Does she not know how many suttas in which it is said > that it is through concentration that the true nature of things is > revealed? .... S: For each context we have to check the meaning. How many times is it also said that samma ditthi is the forerunner? How many times does it say that the factors condition each other? What is samma-samadhi? Can it arise without right understanding? There's a lot more to discuss even here.....and as you know, I love the topic of seclusion:-). You can help us all to reflect further, thank you. I hope James and Joop see your post because I'm sure it'll cheer them up! (I don't think that's mudita, mind you!! More like good old attachment to old friends:-)) Metta, Sarah ======== #68359 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A final venting from phil, probably. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Nina & All, --- sarah abbott wrote: > S: Yes, samma samadhi conditions samma ditthi and vice versa! This is > very > clear. They are 'yoked together' at moments of insight. .... S: For example, from Nina's recent study of the Canki Sutta (M 95)which ties in here, I think: text: pure, not deluded. Thus faith gets established in him, with faith he > approaches to associate. When associating he lends ear to listen to > the Teaching and to bear it in his mind. When the Teaching is borne > in the mind it is examined. ------- N: We see here the emphasis on remembering the Dhamma and examining it. Verifying it with regard to one's own life. The Co. states that here siila and samaadhi (in connection with examining the teaching) have been shown. N: There are many degrees and kinds of siila. The four kinds of siila consisting of purity (paarisuddhisiila) includes the guarding of the sense doors. Siila is kusala, as is stated in the beginning of this sutta. Kusala through body, speech and mind can be seen as siila. There is higher siila: adhisiila: that is at the moment of satipa.t.thaana. At such a moment there is also higher concentration or calm: adhicitta and there is adhipa~n~naa, higher understanding. .... S: We see how they are closely interlinked. There cannot be higher concentration without higher understanding. ..... > S: Yes, many references to the various path factors conditioning each > other, inc. samadhi conditioning insight and vice versa. Also many, many > references to mundane jhana - no one denies this. > > The Dhp passage qu/discussion was particularly related to Dhp 368-376 > (if > I recall correctly) and relates to the many discussions here concerning > the 2 meanings of jhana. .... S: Nina gave a summary on this same point in the same letter about the Canki Sutta (#68205): N: "As understanding of naama and ruupa develops, also calm develops. When magga-citta is realized, there is a high degree of calm, since defilements are being eradicated. Also those who did not develop mundane jhaana have a high degree of calm that is equal in strength to the calm of the first stage of ruupajhaana. But at the moment of magga-citta the object is nibbaana and defilements are not temporarily suppressed but eradicated for good." .... S: This is also the kind of line that usually gets misunderstood (in the Canki sutta): N: Sutta: Then realises the highest truth even with the body, also sees it with penetrating wisdom. Co: He makes an effort to realize magga-citta, and realizes the highest paramattha sacca, ultimate truth. This is nibbaana. Body refers here to the mental body, naamakaaya, namely the conascent cetasikas. N: All the sobhana cetasikas cooperate together to realize nibbaana. .... S: So even when we read about 'the body', we need to be clear of what is meant. Even at the beginning, the conascent sobhana cetasikas have to 'cooperate' together to follow the path. Concentration without right understanding is not either the development of samatha or the development of satipatthana, even at a basic foundation level. Metta, Sarah ======== #68360 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? sarahprocter... Dear Ben, Welcome to DSG! --- Ben O'Loughlin wrote: > I am currently reading [i]The Great War[/i] by Les Carlyon , which > focuses manily on the Australian battles in France from 1916 to > 1918. I was reading a description of an event that lead one soldier > to develop the 'new' psycho-physical pathology of shell-shock and I > was wondering whether there is an explanation in the Abhidhamma. > Your thoughts would be most welcome. <....> .... S: thx for your interesting post and questions. I used to appreciate reading the War Poets and I believe my father always suffered from shell-shock syndromes for his whole life. As children, we could discuss and argue about any topic, but anything to do with WW1 & 2 was banned. He was also a very active pacifist..... I'm glad to see Rob M replied and made some good comments on natural decisive-support condition. Sa~n~naa (perception/memory) arises with every single moment of consciousness and marks every object experienced so that later they can be recalled. So all the ways we think and act and even read posts now would be impossible without sa~n~naa. Tastes, sounds, smells and so on are familiar to us because of past sanna. How we respond depends on such accumulated sanna, our attachments and aversions and so on. Sometimes we become obsessed with a way of thinking or a particular object and live in a dream-world or nightmare-world which cannot be shaken off. We can see how all these experiences and the sanna marking them all are conditioned. No one would choose it to be like this. Sanna is so powerful that even if a limb has been amputated, the sensations are still experienced by the mind. The same when we dream - fantasies and memories because of the perversion of sanna. The arahat without anymore perversions or distorted ways of thinking and recollecting, dreams no more. So mostly shell-shock is symptomatic of particular results of kamma and the accumulated tendencies (particularly the perceptions)which cling again and again to particular experiences. All anatta, beyond control. Let us know how you find these and Rob M's comments. Do you live in Australia, Ben? Thanks again for your interesting question. Look forward to hearing more from you. Metta, Sarah ======= #68361 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two-faced (Re: monkhood.) jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > James: The contradiction is self-evident and obvious. If you can't > see it then you will never see it, even if I jump through lots of > hoops to spell it out for you. > > ... > Let me close with this quote by the Buddha: > > "Furthermore, he is endowed with unwavering faith in the Sangha: 'The > Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who > have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced > methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the > four pairs, the eight individuals — they are the Sangha of the > Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, > worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of > merit for the world.' This is the third pleasant mental abiding in > the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind > that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean." > > Does this mention anything about having faith in householders?? > The term 'Sangha' can mean either (a) the community of ordained monks or (b) the community of enlightened ones, whether ordained into the order or still householders. When the reference is to the third of the Three Gems, the meaning is the latter (see Nyanatiloka extract below). In the passage you have quoted, Sangha has the meaning of the third of the Three Gems, that is to say, all those disciples who have attained enlightenment (including those who are still householders). Happy to discuss further if you'd care to. Jon From Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary': << << << sangha (lit.: congregation), is the name for the Community of Buddhist monks. As the third of the Three Gems or Jewels (ti-ratana) and the Three Refuges (ti-sarana), i.e. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, it applies to the ariya-sangha, the community of the saints, i.e. the 4 Noble Ones (ariya-pugga), the Stream-winner, etc. >> >> >> #68362 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/14/07 12:38:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > It would be helpful to me, a non-RSA from way back, if you could tell > me what an illusion is, and how an illusion is different from > something not illusional. It's not a trick question, and I'm not > equivocating, and I'm looking forward to a happy and healthy > discussion on the matter. > ======================= Your position, from a phenomenalist perspective, whch I presume you are taking here, is an interesting one. It seems to be the question of what it means to distinguish illusion from reality given (the assumption) that everthing is merely appearance. Why is not one appearance/perception just as good as another? My answer, in short (very short!!), is that the bases we use for distinguishing valid from invalid perceptions are manifold, and can all ultimately be expressed in phenomenological terms. Among these are predictability of experience, consistent hanging together of multi-sense-door experiences, and intersubjectivity. These three criteria will not, under all circumstances, provide certainty, of course. But, in fact, they, and probably other phenomenological "tests" that don't come to mind at the moment, are what we go by. Even those folks who are absolutely convinced of a self-existent world of external "things" in fact rely on such criteria. With metta, Howard P.S. You have expressed the presumption that I reject an RSA position. I'm not clear on what the "really serious" part of that is. I take anatta very seriously, but I undertand it as a middle-way, emptiness view that, on the one hand, countenances an experiential existence even to such things as trees, persons, and Dhamma discussion lists due to relations holding among dhammas and to sankharic construction, and, on the other hand, denies self-existence even to such "realities" as sights and hardnesses. If that makes me non-serious, so be it. LOL! #68363 From: "joelaltman26" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:17 am Subject: Re: A final venting from phil, probably. joelaltman26 Dear Phil, thank you so much for your deep, heart-felt and sincere sharing of your experience and understandings. i think it is so useful for people to share their views and understandings... not only does it bring us closer as people/family, but it helps us to better understand the path. Thank you for taking the time to express all of that in such detail, and for your attention to remaining open and not taking an "authoratative" position. It shows that you don't take yourself too seriously and in my understanding that is a great quality. I feel very grateful to have so many people opening up and sharing their experiences... in peace, in truth, in dhamma. joel #68364 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A final venting from phil, probably. upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 2/14/07 5:28:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi all > > I wrote this earlier on my other computer. I'd like to send it > off and be done with criticizing Acharn Sujin for awhile, though I > see there is already a bit of a ruckus going on. Selfishly, I will > post it anyways. Please feel free not to read it! :) > > ======================= IMO, the time, effort, and attention you gave to this is *anything* but selfish. A applaud you, and I thank you for your post, which, IMO, is wonderful. With metta, Howard #68365 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:33 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily lIfe, Ch 26, no 5 nilovg Dear friends, It depends on one's accumulations which of the three characteristics is realized in the process of cittas during which enlightenment is attained: one person views the reality appearing at that moment as impermanent, another as dukkha, and another again as non-self, anattå. The mano-dvåråvajjana-citta, mind-door-adverting- consciousness, of that process adverts to one of these three characteristics and is then succeeded by three or four cittas which are not yet lokuttara cittas, but mahå-kusala cittas (kusala cittas of the sense-sphere) accompanied by paññå [1]. The first mahå-kusala citta, which is called parikamma or preparatory consciousness, still has the same object as the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta. Whichever of the three characteristics of conditioned realities the mano-dvåråvajjana- citta adverted to, the parikamma realizes that characteristic. The parikamma is succeeded by the upacåra or proximity consciousness which still has the same object as the mano-dvåråvajjana citta. This citta, the second mahå-kusala citta in that process, is nearer to the moment the lokuttara cittas will arise. The upacåra is succeeded by the anuloma, which means conformity or adaptation. This citta still has the same object as the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta. Anuloma is succeeded by gotrabhú which is sometimes translated as change of lineage. This citta is the last kåmåvacara citta in that process. There is gotrabhú in samatha and in vipassanå. Gotrabhú is the last kåmåvacara citta in a process before a citta of another plane of consciousness arises. The other plane of consciousness may be rúpåvacara, arúpåvacara or lokuttara. In samatha, gotrabhú is the last kåmåvacara citta before the rúpa-jhånacitta or the arúpa- jhånacitta arises. In vipassanå, gotrabhú is the last kåmåvacara citta of the non-ariyan before the lokuttara citta arises and he becomes an ariyan. The object of the gotrabhú arising before the lokuttara cittas is different from the object of gotrabhú in samatha; the gotrabhú preceding the lokuttara cittas experiences nibbåna. It is the first citta in that process which experiences nibbåna, but it is not lokuttara citta. At the moment of gotrabhú the person who is about to attain enlightenment is still a non-ariyan. Gotrabhú does not eradicate defilements. Gotrabhú is succeeded by the magga-citta which eradicates the defilements that are to be eradicated at the stage of the sotåpanna. The magga-citta is the first lokuttara citta in that process of cittas. When it has fallen away it is succeeded by two (or three) phala-cittas (fruition-consciousness) which are the result of the magga-citta and which still have nibbåna as the object. As we have seen, the magga-citta is succeeded immediately by its result, in the same process of citta. ------------- [1] See Visuddhimagga, chapter XXI, 129-136, and also “The Path of Discrimination” (Paìisambhidåmagga) I, Treatise on Knowledge, chapter VI-chapter X. ********** Nina. #68366 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:36 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana, 7, no 7 nilovg Dear friends, We notice that we often fail but instead of having aversion there can be a moment of understanding of what appears and then the citta is kusala. Dosa will arise again but then there can be a moment of understanding of its characteristic. When we really consider realities and we are aware of them there will be a keener understanding of their characteristics. "One does not worry, one keeps on developing understanding", as Khun Sujin said. You were having tea and squeezing a lemon, and then Khun Sujin reminded you of the present moment. She said: "When you squeeze a lemon there can be, instead of thinking of awareness, understanding of the characteristic which appears". We think and worry about awareness but we forget to attend to characteristics of softness or hardness which appear time and again through the bodysense. Jonothan remarked that the characteristic of anattå does not appear. Khun Sujin answered: "Now there is visible object. There can be understanding of it as only visible object. One learns to begin to separate the eye-door from the mind-door. Visible object is just a reality. By understanding this one can take away the idea of something in it. When one begins to develop understanding there is no distinction between nåma and rúpa, they are all mixed up. Then there cannot be elimination of the idea of self from any reality. By developing understanding of realities one at a time one can learn that the reality which experiences now is just an element, that it is a reality different from visible object which is seen. If one understands this one will learn that there is nobody who experiences, and nobody, no thing in the visible object. It takes time to have clear understanding of visible object, seeing, sound, hearing, of all realities appearing through the six doorways. When we notice people we can remember that this is the same as looking into a mirror, since only visible object is experienced and there are no people. We only make up our stories about people. We begin to see that it is visible object, not a thing or a person. Is this not a beginning of understanding of the nature of anattå of visible object?" ******** Nina. #68367 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:19 am Subject: final venting from Phil nilovg Hi Phil, I am glad you say straight how you feel about things you hear from Kh Sujin. Sarah answered some of your points. I choose just one point. --------- Ph: This notion of attachment to mindfulness is something I have never ever heard taught anywhere else. Also, sati (mindfulness) is taught by Acharn Sujin in a very subtle, difficult-to-understand way that is unique to Acharn Sujin, as far as I know. I have not heard sati taught in a difficult-to-understand way elsewhere. ---------- N: True, I never heard from anyone else that attachment to mindfulness is counterproductive. No one else stresses so much detachment. Mindfulness accompanies kusala citta, and at that moment there is no lobha, dosa or moha. Attachment arises with akusala citta and there is no sati. Sati has a present object like seeing now, is that difficult? I was just reading the commentary to the 'Guide', the Netti, I received in Thailand. It is about the stream of kilesas that are shut off by sati and cut off by pa~n~naa, as the Buddha said to Ajita (p. 25). The Co: < sati is sati that accompanies vipassana. Sati takes up the reality of the present moment as object. It only takes and knows rupa and nama of the present moment. There is no self, no mine, no man, no woman appearing in the reality (sabhava dhamma) that sati receives and knows. The stream of defilements that take as object a concept cannot arise. > The Co also deals with samatha that can be the proximate cause or base for vipassanaa. ***** Nina. #68368 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' -- Miss Interpretation says Hi. egberdina Hi Sarah and Colette, > .... > S: No, we can never step into each other's shoes --- we can't experience > each other's namas and rupas. It's an illusion, Colette. > Realistically, we do not experience our own namas and rupas either. It is namas that experience "we". And even more realistically, it isn't namas that do any experiencing either. Moving the locus of experience from an illusory human to an equally illusory nama is just sleight of ignorance. What is left is experience. There is nothing or noone that experiences, but experience just is. But experience isn't just. All experience is dependent on the body. All seeing is dependent on the eyes, all hearing is dependent on the ears etc etc. So, we are back to the body as locus of experience. And the dependency of this body on other bodies, and the shared reality amongst them. Turns out that you were right after all, Colette, and the illusion was just an illusion :-) Kind Regards Herman #68369 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:32 pm Subject: Re: Conditions ken_aitch Hi Herman, ----------------- <. . .> H: > Ah, that is the unable-to-resist condition coming to the fore :-) ----------------- Thanks, I will look for that in The Paccaya. :-) --------------------- <. . .> H: > It would be helpful to me, a non-RSA from way back, if you could tell me what an illusion is, and how an illusion is different from something not illusional. ---------------------- Sorry to disappoint, but illusion is illusion and reality is reality. What else can I say? --------------------------- H: > It's not a trick question, and I'm not equivocating, and I'm looking forward to a happy and healthy discussion on the matter. --------------------------- Try as I might, I can't think of anything intelligent to say about it. A different question would be, "How did the Buddha describe the reality of the present moment?" but I don't think you are asking that. ----------------- KH: > > Note that Herman is talking about a world in which `past' `present' > and `future' are equally real. No such world exists! The Dhamma > cannot be appreciated until people face the fact that there is only > the present moment. H: > This is an interesting suggestion, that there is only the present, because it denies the possibility of events happening. Does the Dhamma deny that events happen? If it does, then I certainly have misunderstood the Dhamma. ------------------ Can you see that events are concepts? When viewed as being absolutely real, 'concept' is synonymous with `self.' According to the Dhamma (e.g., in The All Embracing Net of Views): "The self exists" is wrong view, and "The self does not exist" is also wrong view. Now, at this point, the people you and I have been referring to as non-RSA's (non-Really Serious Anatta'ists) will go off the rails. They will say the middle way is to somehow partly believe "The self exists" and partly believe "The self does not exist." With that convenient quirk of reasoning they feel justified in trying to create vipassana events. But the Buddha would have none of that. The sutta goes on to include as wrong view, "The self both exists and does not exist," and also, "The self neither exists nor does not exist." So it's back to square one for the non-RSA's! ------------------------------------ KH: > > > The way I see it, Howard is taking Herman's misunderstanding of the > RSA position a step further, and is actually misrepresenting it > (unintentionally, of course). Why would the name "volition deniers" > be given to the RSA's? Of all people! The RSA's believe volition is a > paramattha dhamma - an absolute reality!!! It is the non-RSA's (the > formal-meditators) who tend to think volition is a mere concept. They > see volition as an `event' that can take place in illusory places - > for example, by the side of a road. H: > I think many of the problems to do with RSA arise from the inability of its protagonists to express themselves from within the limits implied by their position. Flitting about from paramattha dhammas to formal meditators in one sentence is hardly a convincing example of any understanding of the matter. I wouldn't mind betting that Howard understands the implications of the RSA position far better than most RSA's. I'm only guessing here, but I assume that because of this understanding he rejects it. On the other hand, you KenH, and others, don't seem to understand the implications of RSA at all, and that is why you can maintain it. ------------------------------------ Sorry, but that seems to me like just so many words. As I said in the next part of my post, while you continue to disregard the Abhidhamma you will never "get it." You will never understand how it is wrong to believe "the self exists" and yet also wrong to believe "the self does not exist." Until we take the Abhidhamma seriously, our conversations will be nothing more than smoke screens (used to hide the appalling ignorance of uninstructed worldlings). Ken H #68370 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Scott, On 12/02/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Glad to continue: > > H: "Thanks for your post. I can relate to joy, worry, anger. I know > what they are." > > These then, known as objects of experience, are something one can have > confidence in. > > > I actually think that 'confidence' might even be a better word than > faith, but yeah, it sounds as if what you describe is faith. > It is not so significant a difference to me. Con fide is with faith. But let's proceed. > But, and I'm quite curious about this, how far does your confidence > extend? What are its limits? The bottom of the keyboard? The next > room? The corner store? The existence of the next series of life > processes after this series ends? Cessation? My confidence, and therefore it's limits, is displayed by what I do. My confidence in the keyboard is displayed by my use of it to communicate with you, who I also sincerely (that word again :-)) believe in, though I have never even seen your top or your bottom :-). If I thought that I was going to die in the next three minutes, I am sure this post would end up having to wait, though. > > And what are its objects? The unseen bottoms of computer keyboards? > The existence of a country yet unvisited? Devas and other realms of > existence? Tathaagatas? The objects that I have faith in tend to be the ones that I trust to maintain me in my life as I want to lead it. > > And what of the Dhamma? Here you are: Can you say more of what > confidence you have of Dhamma? I'd be pleased if you would. > I have confidence in a belief in the way things are. That belief happens to be that all phenomena are anatta, anicca and dukkha. I also have confidence that no matter what I believe, the way things are is not altered by my belief. My beliefs are epiphenomenal, so to speak, when it comes to reality. My beliefs only condition other beliefs, they do not change reality, as in the underlying structure of all consciousnesses. Believing as I do, that all phenomenal reality is anatta, anicca and dukkha, the notion of salvation or liberation or release within phenomenal reality is not a possibility for me. That would simply mean that some phenomenal reality is actually not anatta, anicca and dukkha. The question may then arise, is it possible to live without beliefs? I don't believe so :-) And could I ask you, how is your confidence in your Dhamma made manifest? And how should I interpret what I assume to be the case, that despite your Dhamma beliefs, you wilfully act in the world as though it is real? Thanks for giving me an opportunity to get on my soap box. Kind Regards Herman #68371 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions egberdina Hi KenH, On 15/02/07, ken_aitch wrote: > Hi Herman, > > > H: > This is an interesting suggestion, that there is only the > present, because it denies the possibility of events happening. Does > the Dhamma deny that events happen? If it does, then I certainly have > misunderstood the Dhamma. > ------------------ > > Can you see that events are concepts? When viewed as being absolutely > real, 'concept' is synonymous with `self.' > I cannot see anything which isn't a concept/percept. That is why I am asking you to differentiate between illusion and something that isn't. It is you who asserts that there are non-conceptual things, I am just asking you to tell me about them, how you know them, that sort of thing.. > Until we take the Abhidhamma seriously, our > conversations will be nothing more than smoke screens (used to hide > the appalling ignorance of uninstructed worldlings). > > I like it, I like it ( as a piece of oratory) :-) Kind Regards Herman #68372 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects egberdina Hi Larry, On 14/02/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > H: "The keyboard as being pre-exists consciousness of it. That is borne > out by it being there each time I expect to find it. The keyboard as > object of consciousness is an inference, an on-going inference, and > while it remains a self-consistent inference it is known to be other > than the consciousness of it. The object of perception/conception does > not rise or fall. Consciousness does." > > L: I agree, but you have two logics working together like chopsticks. If > you accept "keyboard as being" then you may as well accept molecular > impermanence. If you want to focus on experience then you have to > concede that the experience of keyboard is never the same. The > unchanging keyboard is a myth. > Thanks as always. You are quite right about the two logics. But I do have justification for my acceptance of the keyboard pre-existing my perception of it, while I have none for molecular impermanence. There is method in my madness. And certainly, the experience "keyboard" is never the same. I liked what you said to Icaro about there being an infinity of associations. But I disagreed when you equated keyboard with hat, plate etc. Having identified an object as keyboard, the form now has a name, and the name now has a form. The keyboard as infinite associations, which are being added to by this very seeing, now is "that keyboard". It is not a keyboard in general, nor is it a hat or a plate in general, it is a specific keyboard. The identity of the keyboard is now fixed, and unchangeable. Regardless of whether a key is broken off, whether it has coffee spilt on it, even if it is totally destroyed (a fallacy BTW) by fire, it will always remain "that keyboard". That keyboard that no longer is, that once was brand new, that had the missing keys, and the coffee stains all over it, it will remain unchangeably that keyboard, just richer in associations. Kind Regards Herman #68373 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views., only a few mins. ksheri3 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > Without mind (that includes eye consciousness) your eye can not have > consciousness what is consciousness? "This notion of momentariness is essential to understanding Yogacara's concept of perception for between two moments of perception there must exist causal continuity. Since each perception arises and perishes momentarily, their causal continuitycan be explained only if a third party exists. gots ta run. toodles, colette unless you could suceed in getting a cybernetic eye system - > but then some don't recognize artificial/simulated awareness. > > The object must exist (even if it is only in the imagination) before YOU CAN > HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITS EXISTENCE. <....> #68374 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions egberdina Hi Howard, > Your position, from a phenomenalist perspective, whch I presume you > are taking here, is an interesting one. It seems to be the question of what it > means to distinguish illusion from reality given (the assumption) that > everthing is merely appearance. Why is not one appearance/perception just as good as > another? > My answer, in short (very short!!), is that the bases we use for > distinguishing valid from invalid perceptions are manifold, and can all ultimately > be expressed in phenomenological terms. Among these are predictability of > experience, consistent hanging together of multi-sense-door experiences, and > intersubjectivity. These three criteria will not, under all circumstances, provide > certainty, of course. But, in fact, they, and probably other phenomenological > "tests" that don't come to mind at the moment, are what we go by. Even those > folks who are absolutely convinced of a self-existent world of external > "things" in fact rely on such criteria. No disagreements here. > > P.S. You have expressed the presumption that I reject an RSA position. I'm > not clear on what the "really serious" part of that is. I take anatta very > seriously, but I undertand it as a middle-way, emptiness view that, on the one > hand, countenances an experiential existence even to such things as trees, > persons, and Dhamma discussion lists due to relations holding among dhammas and to > sankharic construction, and, on the other hand, denies self-existence even to > such "realities" as sights and hardnesses. If that makes me non-serious, so be > it. LOL! You're a pretty non-serious guy, Howard :-) Sartre writes about the "spirit of seriousness". It is a view of man as an object in the world, that is subordinated to the world. In this view, values have an absolute existence, independent of human reality. Of course, only an RSA could hold that to be so :-) Cheers Herman #68375 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:54 pm Subject: Herman's take w/ a twofold reply ksheri3 Good day Herman and Sarah, Thanx Sarah, for the compliments, they're few and fare between. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > S: No, we can never step into each other's shoes colette: There ain't no way you can even begin to get any person to believe that. All of Buddhism, All of Western Religious teachings and I haven't gotten there yet but I've seen a lot of Hindu teaching the exact same concepts: mainly that we are INDENTICLES. InterChangible. --- we can't experience > > each other's colette: I cannot feel your pain or joy? Do you mean to actually tell me that you are not open in any way whatsoever? We most certainly experience pleasures and pains from those around us and in this world. I can say a thing or two here or there and it will have an effect on money as it travels around the globe, the end result will be you feeling pain or pleasure. <....> namas and rupas. colette: nothing more than ways to manifest a thought in the mind. Names are nothing but ways to identify a thing. Can a force such as Gravity, be given a name? How come you can't touch gravity? It's an illusion, Colette. > > > > Realistically, we do not experience our own namas and rupas either. colette: stop saying that anybody or anything owns something else. you cannot tell me that you own something since it isn't real and is a way to pervert another person into thinking that your possession is more valuable than their possession. Transience does not come with possession. Possession comes with transience however. Wehn you claim you own it then it is no longer valid. <....> On everything below I believe that you missed the point on Sunyata. You can't possibly see the illusory value of things if you do not grasp the reality of Sunyata, emptiness. I'll get back on this later. toodles, colette And even more realistically, it isn't > namas that do any experiencing either. Moving the locus of experience > from an illusory human to an equally illusory nama is just sleight of > ignorance. What is left is experience. There is nothing or noone that > experiences, but experience just is. > > But experience isn't just. All experience is dependent on the body. > All seeing is dependent on the eyes, all hearing is dependent on the > ears etc etc. So, we are back to the body as locus of experience. And > the dependency of this body on other bodies, and the shared reality > amongst them. > > Turns out that you were right after all, Colette, and the illusion was > just an illusion :-) > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > #68376 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects lbidd2 Hi Icaro, Interesting philosophical lingo, which I didn't all together understand! Can you explain "negation of negation" a little further? I would just add that the experience of paramattha sacca is the experience of impermanence, dukkha, or not self. Larry ------------------------ Icaro!: "Hi Larry! ---------------------------------------------- L: I would say at the sammuti sacca level a keyboard is infinite. >There is no end to associations of identity. A keyboard is a plate, a book, >a hat, almost anything. ---------------------------------------------- You can knit an infinite blanket of concepts like these, but such blanket, even with an infinite surface, will be devoid of one dimension. At Paramattha Sacca, the focus is removed from object, as an alienated form of perception, and put over the "negation of negation" of the duality perceptions/external object. And since the "negation of a negation" is an affirmation of a new definition that hangs up the former ones (in German "Aufheben"), you get in hands a new universe of meaning, a DIALECTIC knowledge, called "Paramattha Sacca". Your Keyboard is no more an alienated object of perception and thoughts, an infinite , amalgamated, set of constitutive notes, but a "phase" of your own Citta and its concomitant cetasikas. As you can perceive, Larry,I am reading some Philosophy nowadays... and I am very excited with some conclusions on...heheheheheeh!!!!! Mettaya, Ã?caro" #68377 From: connie Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:11 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (25) nichiconn continuing Mittaa, friends, part two arahatta.m pana patvaa attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa piitisomanassajaataa udaanavasena- 31. "caatuddasi.m pa~ncadasi.m, yaa ca pakkhassa a.t.thamii; paa.tihaariyapakkha~nca, a.t.tha"ngasusamaagata.m. 32. "Uposatha.m upaagacchi.m, devakaayaabhinandinii; saajja ekena bhattena, mu.n.daa sa"nghaa.tipaarutaa; devakaaya.m na pattheha.m, vineyya hadaye daran"ti.- Imaa dve gaathaa abhaasi. Then having attained Arahatship and looking over her attainment, joy and gladness having arisen, she spoke these two verses as a solemn utterance: 31. On the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth [days] of the fornight, and the special [days] of the fortnight I kept the observance day [that is] well connected with the eightfold [precepts], longing for [rebirth in] a deva group. 32. Today with a single meal [each day], with shaven head, clad in the outer robe, I do not wish for [rebirth in] a deva group. I have removed the fear in my heart. [RD: Reflecting thereon, joy and gladness stirred her to say: On full-moon day and on the fifteenth day, And eke the eighth of either half the month, I kept the feast; I kept the precepts eight, The extra fasts, *137 enamoured of the gods, And fain to dwell in homes celestial. (31) To-day one meal, head shaved, a yellow robe - Enough for me. I want no heaven of gods. Heart's pain, heart's pining, have I trained away. (32) *137 See Rhys Davids, Buddhism, 139-141.] Tattha caatuddasi.m pa~ncadasinti catuddasanna.m puura.nii caatuddasii, pa~ncadasanna.m puura.nii pa~ncadasii, ta.m caatuddasi.m pa~ncadasi~nca, pakkhassaati sambandho. Accantasa.myoge ceta.m upayogavacana.m. Yaa ca pakkhassa a.t.thamii, ta~ncaati yojanaa. Paa.tihaariyapakkha~ncaati parihara.nakapakkha~nca caatuddasiipa~ncadasii-a.t.thamiina.m yathaakkama.m aadito antato vaa pavesaniggamavasena uposathasiilassa pariharitabbapakkha~nca terasiipaa.tipadasattamiinavamiisu caati attho. 31. There, The fourteenth (caatuddasi.m), fifteeth (pa~ncadasi.m) [days] means: the ordinal number for fourteen (caatuddasii) is "fourteenth" (cuddasanna.m); the ordinal number for fifteen (pa~ncadasii) is "fifteenth" (pa~nca-dasanna.m); that is the fourteenth and fifteenth. There is a connection [of these] with fortnight. This is the accusative of the duration of time. For And the eighth [day] of the fortnight, "on that one too" is to be understood. And the special [days] of the fortnight (paa.tihaariya-pakkha~n ca) means: and the [days] of the fortnight to be kept (parihara.naka-pakkha~nca) - the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth - in due order, before or after, because of the way they are entered or exited, and keeping the virtuous conduct of an observance day on [additional days] of the fortnight (uposatha-siilassa pariharitabba-pakkha~n ca): the thirteenth, first, seventh, or ninth day of the fortnight. This is the meaning. A.t.tha"ngasusamaagatanti paa.naatipaataa verama.ni-aadiihi a.t.thahi a"ngehi su.t.thu samannaagata.m. Uposatha.m upaagacchinti upavaasa.m upagami.m, upavasinti attho. Ya.m sandhaaya vutta.m- Well connected with the eightfold [precepts] (a.t.tha"nga-susamaagata.m) means: well endowed (su.t.thu samannaagata.m) with the eight factors (a.t.thahi a"ngehi) beginning with refraining from killing living beings. I kept the observance day (uposatha.m upagacchi.m) means: I kept the observance (upavaasa.m upagami.m), I observed it (upavasi.m). As has been said with reference to that [the observance day]: "Paa.na.m na hane na caadinnamaadiye, musaa na bhaase na ca majjapo siyaa; abrahmacariyaa virameyya methunaa, ratti.m na bhu~njeyya vikaalabhojana.m. "Maala.m na dhaare na ca gandhamaacare, ma~nce chamaaya.m va sayetha santhate; eta~nhi a.t.tha"ngikamaahuposatha.m, buddhena dukkhantagunaa pakaasitan"ti. (Su. ni. 402-403). (1) [A householder] should not kill a living creature, and (2) he should not take what is not given. (3) He should not speak falsely, and (4) he should not drink intoxicating drink. (5) He should abstain from the unchaste life, from sexual intercourse. (6) He should not eat food at the wrong time, at night. (7) He should not wear a garland, and he should not use perfume. (8) He should sleep on a couch or on the ground or on a mat. For this, they say, is the eightfold observance day declared by the Buddha, who had gone to the end of misery. Devakaayaabhinandiniiti tatruupapatti-aaka"nkhaavasena caatumahaaraajikaadi.m devakaaya.m abhipatthentii uposatha.m upaagacchinti yojanaa. Longing for [rebirth in] a deva group means: Aspiring to a deva group such as that of the Four Great Kings, etc. I kept the observance day because I desired rebirth there. That is the connection. Saajja ekena bhattenaati saa aha.m ajja imasmi.myeva divase ekena bhattabhojanakkha.nena. Mu.n.daa sa"nghaa.tipaarutaati mu.n.ditakesaa sa"nghaa.tipaarutasariiraa ca hutvaa pabbajitaati attho. 32. In today with a single meal [each day] ... I ... (saajja [= saa + ajja] ekena bhatena), I (saa) means: I (aha.m). Today (ajja) means: on this very day with a single opportunity for a meal (bhatta-bhojana-kkha.nena). With shaven head (mu>n.daa), clad in the outer robe (sa"nghaa.ti-paarutaa) means: with the hair of my head saven (mu.n.dita-kesaa) and my body clad in the outer robe (sa"nghaa.ti-paaruta-sariiraa), I went forth. This is the meaning. Devakaaya.m na patthehanti aggamaggassa adhigatattaa ka~nci devanikaaya.m aha.m na patthaye. Tenevaaha- "vineyya hadaye daran"ti, cittagata.m kilesadaratha.m samucchedavasena vinetvaati attho. Idameva cassaa a~n~naabyaakara.na.m ahosi. Mittaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. I do not wish for (na patthe 'han) [rebirth in] a deva group (deva-kaaya.m) means: having attained the highest path, I do not desire (aha.m na patthaye) [rebirth in] any group whatsoever (ki~ncid eva nikaaya.m). Therefore she said: I have removed (vineyya) the fear (dara.m) in my heart (hadaye). This means: having removed (vinetvaa) the mind-made (citta-gata.m) anxiety of the defilements (kilesa-daratha.m) by cutting it off. And this became her declaration of perfect knowledge. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Mittaa. ===================================== to be followed with verse rd XXVI -- Abhayaa's Mother amidst pruitt's & vri's approximate renderings of what was spoken then etc, c. #68378 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing scottduncan2 Hi Herman, Nice. "My confidence, and therefore it's limits, is displayed by what I do...The objects that I have faith in tend to be the ones that I trust to maintain me in my life as I want to lead it...I have confidence in a belief in the way things are. That belief happens to be that all phenomena are anatta, anicca and dukkha. I also have confidence that no matter what I believe, the way things are is not altered by my belief. My beliefs are epiphenomenal, so to speak, when it comes to reality. My beliefs only condition other beliefs, they do not change reality, as in the underlying structure of all consciousnesses. Believing as I do, that all phenomenal reality is anatta, anicca and dukkha, the notion of salvation or liberation or release within phenomenal reality is not a possibility for me....That would simply mean that some phenomenal reality is actually not anatta, anicca and dukkha. The question may then arise, is it possible to live without beliefs? I don't believe so :-)" I appreciate your sharing this with me. H: "And could I ask you, how is your confidence in your Dhamma made manifest? And how should I interpret what I assume to be the case, that despite your Dhamma beliefs, you wilfully act in the world as though it is real? "Thanks for giving me an opportunity to get on my soap box." No problem. Thanks for giving me a sense of the scope of saddhaa you experience. Now me: Saddhaa in the Dhamma of the Buddha first and and foremost leads me to a swift rejection of 'my Dhamma' whenever I encounter it. I can't abide my own views. They are invariably incorrect. I hate what I come up with and refuse as much as I can to theorize and call the product Dhamma. I can't stand my own theories about Dhamma. My ideas are idiotic. They are banal, mundane, insufficient, inaccurate, flimsy, stupid, ill-conceived, nonsensical, and in every way and utterly incorrect. Saddhaa in the Dhamma of the Buddha also seems to lead me to an abhorrence of eclecticism. Mixing my ideas (see above) with those of the Buddha is useless. Wrong View mixed with a little Right View is still Wrong View. If this happens I'm never impressed with myself. Saddhaa in the Dhamma of the Buddha leads me to a lot of effort to learn as much as possible what Dhamma as taught by the Buddha actually is. I want to adopt it entirely and learn its complexities, subtleties, and depth as well as possibly I can. Further, I accept a View that is so radically and beautifully different than any I have ever had before that it is nearly impossible to express the difference this makes to me. Sincerely, Scott. #68379 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Objects lbidd2 Hi Herman, I don't follow this (below). Are you asserting that ideas are eternal? I think I was going after conventional truth in the sense that even conventionally permanence is untenable. The business about using a keyboard as a plate or a hat was just my attempt at Brazilian esprit! An attempt to show that there is no fixed limit to conventional objects because their identities are relational. The furniture in this room changes its nature with changes in the light, or even changes in my mood. It is not only different every moment for me, it is different every moment in different ways for everyone else. However, the chair is better for sitting than writing, and the table is better for writing than sitting. But the chair is not me, this body is not me, and this thought is not me. Larry ------------------------- H: "Thanks as always. You are quite right about the two logics. But I do have justification for my acceptance of the keyboard pre-existing my perception of it, while I have none for molecular impermanence. There is method in my madness. And certainly, the experience "keyboard" is never the same. I liked what you said to Icaro about there being an infinity of associations. But I disagreed when you equated keyboard with hat, plate etc. Having identified an object as keyboard, the form now has a name, and the name now has a form. The keyboard as infinite associations, which are being added to by this very seeing, now is "that keyboard". It is not a keyboard in general, nor is it a hat or a plate in general, it is a specific keyboard. The identity of the keyboard is now fixed, and unchangeable. Regardless of whether a key is broken off, whether it has coffee spilt on it, even if it is totally destroyed (a fallacy BTW) by fire, it will always remain "that keyboard". That keyboard that no longer is, that once was brand new, that had the missing keys, and the coffee stains all over it, it will remain unchangeably that keyboard, just richer in associations." #68380 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing scottduncan2 Hi Herman, P.S. I don't exist. Saddhaa is impersonal and Right View has nothing to do with a person - nor does Wrong View for that matter. I was using the conventions of speech in my last reply to you. Sincerely, Scott. #68381 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Herman) - In a message dated 2/14/07 11:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Hi Herman, > > P.S. I don't exist. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Do you realize, Scott, that that sentence is entirely meaningless??? -------------------------------------------- Saddhaa is impersonal and Right View has nothing> > to do with a person - nor does Wrong View for that matter. I was > using the conventions of speech in my last reply to you. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ===================== With metta, Howard #68382 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:03 pm Subject: The 32 Body Parts! bhikkhu5 Friends: Establishing the Awareness of Body as Body! How, Friends, does one view any Body only as a Form? Herein, Bhikkhus & Friends, the Bhikkhu contemplates the body from the soles of the feet upward, and from the top of the hair downward: This filthy frame with skin stretched over it, which is filled with many impurities consists of head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, vomit diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestine, membrane, stomach, excrement, brain, bile, lymph, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin, tallow, spit, snot, joint-fluid, and urine. Just as if a man with good sight would examine a sack with openings at both ends, filled with various kinds of grain; paddy, beans, sesame, on opening it would recognize its contents thus: That is paddy, this is beans, that is sesame, this is husked rice: Exactly so does the Bhikkhu investigate this body... While always thus aware & clearly comprehending, & thus removing any lust, urge, envy, frustration, & discontent rooted in this world, the intelligent Bhikkhu keeps contemplating & regarding any & all Body as a remote carcass of filthy foul form. As something bound to emerge, decay & vanish... Not as mine, belonging to me or my self! Not as lasting, stable & safe! Not as pleasant beauty or happiness! In this way the intelligent Bhikkhu keeps reviewing any & all body whether internal or external and he notes the cause of its arising and the cause of its ceasing, or he just knows: There is this body! In this way he comes to live not clinging to & independent of body! This is the way to contemplate the body only as a transient shell... Source Text: Majjhima Nikaya 119: Kayagata-Sati Sutta http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm The reward is Fearlessness of Death & thereby Fearlessness of All! Without fear there is the mental elevation of gladness and free joy! It detaches and relinquishes from body & form and frees thereby... Clever Disgust by Anti-Porn cooling all lust and greed for body: For Inspiration have a collection of Corpse Pictures Viewable only by Adults (>18y) signed in with Yahoo ID! been deposited here: http://asia.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/clever_disgust/album?.dir=/f672 Just a painted puppet! A chain of bones plastered by skin with 9 oozing holes! A heap of sores & rotten excrement with evil intentions! The 32 Body Parts! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68383 From: "Bob Hurley" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing bhurley57 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > ... In the case of the cockroaches, they are generally considered to > > spread disease. Or the farmer who must kill to attend to his crops. Even > > organic farmers have to kill insects. > > > > There are ways of getting rid of insect pests other than by killing. > Takes more effort (and skill), but can be done I believe. > > Jon > Do you have any access to some specific information on that? (I mean the question respectfully, not as a challenge). I'll be putting my garden in the ground before long, and I already know that the bugs will get nearly all of it if I don't do something. Other than interplanting borage, marigolds, and maybe a castor bean plant or two, I've been unable to find any specific solutions. I'm not looking for 100% success, but I want the critters to leave us some food, too. Last year I used an organic product that was mostly diatomaceous earth and applied it very sparingly to only the infested plants, but that still kills some bugs. While this method will kill only a fraction of what commercial farmers do for the same amount of food, I'd like to refrain from even using that - I'd rather *discourage* the bugs than kill them, if that's at all possible. Thanks for any help anyone can offer. #68384 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing ken_aitch --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Scott (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 2/14/07 11:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, > scduncan@... writes: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > P.S. I don't exist. > > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Do you realize, Scott, that that sentence is entirely meaningless??? > -------------------------------------------- Hi Howard (and Scott), It has a lot of meaning for me. According to my Dhamma study there are only dhammas - no people. I suppose it might be meaningless (or self-contradictory, at least) to someone who had not heard the Dhamma. To someone who had *misheard* the Dhamma it could be meaningful and terrifying at the same time - perhaps leading to some sort of psychosis. But not meaningless, surely.(?) Ken H #68385 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing ken_aitch Hi Bill, Living in a sub-tropical climate I can do most of my gardening in winter when there are fewer pests. I have tried repellant sprays (based on pepper, garlic, chili and so on) on several occasions with mixed success. I don't have a recipe, but I see it on television gardening programs from time to time. The thing I have learnt there is to do it properly or not at all. Make it into a sprayable liquid and apply it evenly all over. Otherwise, the pests just graze around it. Last winter I had a lovely crop of basil that a plague of little green grasshoppers moved in on. I used to pick them off by hand once a day and throw them into a patch to sweet potatoes which they loved just as much, and which they were welcome to. Ken H > refrain from even using that - I'd rather *discourage* the bugs than > kill them, if that's at all possible. > > Thanks for any help anyone can offer. > #68386 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi KenH, > > Hi Howard (and Scott), > > It has a lot of meaning for me. Who the hell is me? #68387 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing nilovg Hi Howard, I understand what Scott means and what you mean. It is hard to formulate matters precisely. You would be a person to help Lodewijk. Can you try to formulate again? Nina. Op 15-feb-2007, om 5:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > P.S. I don't exist. > > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Do you realize, Scott, that that sentence is entirely meaningless??? #68388 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing jonoabb Hi Bob Bob Hurley wrote: >> There are ways of getting rid of insect pests other than by killing. >> Takes more effort (and skill), but can be done I believe. >> >> Jon >> > > Do you have any access to some specific information on that? > Sorry, but I don't. > (I mean > the question respectfully, not as a challenge). I'll be putting my > garden in the ground before long, and I already know that the bugs > will get nearly all of it if I don't do something. Other than > interplanting borage, marigolds, and maybe a castor bean plant or two, > I've been unable to find any specific solutions. I'm not looking for > 100% success, but I want the critters to leave us some food, too. > > Last year I used an organic product that was mostly diatomaceous earth > and applied it very sparingly to only the infested plants, but that > still kills some bugs. While this method will kill only a fraction of > what commercial farmers do for the same amount of food, I'd like to > refrain from even using that - I'd rather *discourage* the bugs than > kill them, if that's at all possible. > I admire your resolve to tackle this. Good luck! > Thanks for any help anyone can offer. > Anyone? Jon #68389 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina On 15/02/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Hi Herman, > > P.S. I don't exist. Saddhaa is impersonal and Right View has nothing > to do with a person - nor does Wrong View for that matter. I was > using the conventions of speech in my last reply to you. What, and I DO exist? PS It is a requirement to greet and sign off when posting on this site. I think, given the absence of both sender and recipient, we can dispense with BS (the full rendition of which will get you moderated, because after all, this is a nice site) #68390 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Dear Nina, It will be an act of kindness if you leave Lodewijk. Do something nice for him, and become a nun or something. No need to go to his funeral either, it is only seeing and hearing. #68391 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? christine_fo... Hello Ben, Glad to see you did make it over here. :-) Some back up reading as well: Sanna (from Cetasikas ~ by Nina van Gorkom) http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas5.html Conditions by Nina van Gorkom http://www.dhammastudy.com/Conditions.html metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Ben, > > Welcome to DSG! > > > --- Ben O'Loughlin wrote: > > > I am currently reading [i]The Great War[/i] by Les Carlyon , which > > focuses manily on the Australian battles in France from 1916 to > > 1918. I was reading a description of an event that lead one soldier > > to develop the 'new' psycho-physical pathology of shell-shock and I > > was wondering whether there is an explanation in the Abhidhamma. > > Your thoughts would be most welcome. > <....> > .... > S: thx for your interesting post and questions. I used to appreciate > reading the War Poets and I believe my father always suffered from > shell-shock syndromes for his whole life. As children, we could discuss > and argue about any topic, but anything to do with WW1 & 2 was banned. He > was also a very active pacifist..... > #68392 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Dear Nina, > > It will be an act of kindness ... > > ... it is only seeing and hearing. > This is getting a tad personal, don't you think? I know you have difficulty maintaining compsure when the discussion tursn to certain aspects of 'not-self', but please keep the discussion nice and friendly. Jon #68393 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:50 am Subject: Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing sukinderpal Hi Herman ( Nina and Lodewijk), 'Thinking', which is the activity by which concepts are formed, happens all the time after any sense-door and mind-door process. Therefore when there is seeing (at both the sense door and mind door), this is followed by 'thinking about' that which is seen, same with hearing, touching, smelling and tasting. Also when there is perception of feeling, anger, attachment, awareness and so on. When there is understanding (panna) this likewise will be followed by thinking, so too when there is misunderstanding. Thinking about 'beings' and 'persons' can either be with akusala or kusala, the latter with or without any level of understanding. There is no control over what the object will be and what the roots. Nina, I believe, will mostly have thoughts rooted in attachment when it comes to Lodewijk. Sometimes however, there must also be experience of the brahmavihaaras and other forms of kusala. As she has admitted many times, her understanding of anatta re: "no Lodewijk", is quite weak, being mostly at the intellectual level and this arises much too rarely. This being kusala of a kind arising only with hearing the Dhamma. Invaluable I would say, much more than any of the Brahmavihaaras, not to mention other teachings and philosophy any where!! And even if such an understanding were to arise more often, does this stop any accumulated attachment or the Brahmavihaaras to "Lodewijk" from arising? I don't think so. I think you are being overly critical of the Abhidhamma perspective. This I believe is due to your not understanding it, and also perhaps that you came in this time, fascinated and strongly influenced by other lines of thought, the `existentialism' of Sarte ….?? If nothing else, I hope that you see the value of kusala in general. But even here it seems, you think to be `human invention' with no direct correspondence to reality and may be the reason why you think it right to just say what you want? Please tell me that I misunderstand you!! With metta, Sukin Ps: It just occurred to me that perhaps your reaction is due to seeing some contradiction in the `no self' perspective and that of `beings' and `objects'? If so, we can discuss this. But right now, I just want to send this off. Pps: I just saw that Jon has responded, but I will post this anyway. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > It will be an act of kindness if you leave Lodewijk. Do something nice > for him, and become a nun or something. > > No need to go to his funeral either, it is only seeing and hearing. > #68394 From: "Ben O'Loughlin" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:16 am Subject: Re: shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? oloughlinben --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: <....> > > The final book of the Abhidhamma (Patthana / Conditional Relations) > describes relationships between dhammas (phenomena). > > One of the relationships is called "pakatupanissaya-paccaya" > or "natural decisive support condition". > > The triggering event for natural decisive support condition is any > past "strong" dhamma (mental or non-mental) and some past "strong" > concepts. Examples of what would be a "strong" are things that are > habitual (such as metta meditation), things that are recent (such as > how well your day went today) or dramatic events (a vow, a near- death > experience or shell explosion). > > Natural decisive support works on every single mental state. > > In other words, it is quite possible that a dramatic event such as a > vow, a near-death experience or a shell explosition can literally > have an impact on how the person thinks from that point forward (and > into their next life). > > Experiments conducted by Richard Davidson in Wisconsin USA showed > that a brief exposure to vipassana meditation led to significant > increases in activity in several areas of the left prefrontal cortex > (the "happy" part of the brain) and measurable increase in antibodies > (i.e. healthier and happier) even four months after stopping the > meditation class. This is pakatupanissaya-paccaya in action. > > I believe that understanding that the mind is a "creature of habit" > rather than "something that is controlled by a self" can lead to more > effective treatment of conditions such as shell-shock. > > I hope that this helps. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Dear Rob Thanks very much for that explanation. And my apologies I didn't respond sooner. The demands of a small family being what they are! It is interesting what you say about pakatupanissaya-paccaya. For a while I was the archivist at a hospital in melbourne that had its genesis as a army general hospital where wounded soldiers were treated after returning from the Dardenelles and France during the Great War. I remember reading the story of one doctor who attempted to treat shell-shock by getting patients to dig trenches during the night in full combat-kit and at dawn the doctor would blow a whistle and the patients had to scramble over the top. As you can imagine, the therapy wasn't a roaring success. However, the doctor's heart was in the right place. That article by Richard Davidson looks interesting. If you have the citation I would greatly appreciate it. Metta Ben #68395 From: "Ben O'Loughlin" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? oloughlinben --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: <..> > I'm glad to see Rob M replied and made some good comments on natural > decisive-support condition. > > Sa~n~naa (perception/memory) arises with every single moment of > consciousness and marks every object experienced so that later they can be > recalled. So all the ways we think and act and even read posts now would > be impossible without sa~n~naa. Tastes, sounds, smells and so on are > familiar to us because of past sanna. How we respond depends on such > accumulated sanna, our attachments and aversions and so on. Sometimes we > become obsessed with a way of thinking or a particular object and live in > a dream-world or nightmare-world which cannot be shaken off. We can see > how all these experiences and the sanna marking them all are conditioned. > No one would choose it to be like this. <...> Dear Sarah Thank you for your kind words. I am familiar with sanna but, as I mentioned in my first note, I have an elementary intellectual understanding. Partly an artefact of my busy lifestyle where I will rather devote any available time to meditation then study. I think what is becoming clear to me is the need to do some Dhamma study. Unfortunately, I'm so time poor that my only time would be sitting by the swimming pool when my kids were having lessons. I tried reading the Vissudhimagga that way last year amongst prams, getting splashed and a 100dB+ cacophany going on. Its not so bad if one's samadhi is strong but if I had missed my morning 'sit' it was impossible! Yes, I live in Australia. In the small central Victorian town of Creswick which is 100km west of Melbourne and 15 north of Ballarat. Metta Ben #68396 From: "Ben O'Loughlin" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] shell-shock, is there an explanation in the abhidhamma? oloughlinben Dear Chris Thanks so much for your kind welcome, the references, and for introducing me to DSG!! Metta Ben --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Ben, > > Glad to see you did make it over here. :-) > Some back up reading as well: > Sanna (from Cetasikas ~ by Nina van Gorkom) > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas5.html > Conditions by Nina van Gorkom > http://www.dhammastudy.com/Conditions.html <....> #68397 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina > This is getting a tad personal, don't you think? > > I know you have difficulty maintaining compsure when the discussion > tursn to certain aspects of 'not-self', but please keep the discussion > nice and friendly. > Who am I unfriendly to? Do you think Lodewijk's funeral is not seeing and hearing? Nina as a nun would sparkle, not? Perhaps a U.P. on the rules of this game will help the less fortunate. #68398 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina > I know you have difficulty maintaining compsure when the discussion > tursn to certain aspects of 'not-self', but please keep the discussion > nice and friendly. PS The presumption of my loss of composure defines you, not me. You realise, of course, I'm going to have to sue you now. No matter, there is only this present lawsuit, errrr ahhm, moment. There are lawsuits, but noone who sues or gets sued. #68399 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing scottduncan2 Hi Howard, Me: "P.S. I don't exist..." Howard: "Do you realize, Scott, that that sentence is entirely meaningless???" Why do you say that, my good man? I had read over the substantive portion of my answer, which, of course, had to be written a certain way given that Herman (Provocateur Extraordinaire) had asked me about saddhaa in 'my Dhamma'. Given that I had understood him to make note of his own confidence in anatta, and given that I didn't feel I'd made the above noted point regarding the impersonal nature of dhammas such as saddhaa vis-a vis the reply, I added the post-script to Herman. 'I don't exist' merely highlights the fact that the 'I' in 'my Dhamma' is a fiction. Seems straight forward. Perhaps you have some thoughts on the other post in which the main points were made (or perhaps, through the miracle of displacement, you have already made your thoughts about the original known). No matter. Allow me: Since what I wrote is an opinion of 'mine', I consider the whole thing (and not merely the post-script) to be meaningless, banal, stupid, vacuous, prattle, babble, dross, cretinous, insignificant, moronic, insubstantial, fatuous, ridiculous, ill-conceived, for-the-compost-bin, etc., I only have to agree whole-heartedly with you! Now, the Dhamma of the Buddha, on the other hand: AN V,194: "...Just as a man who has found satisfactions in the choicest of tastes will not yearn for other tastes of an inferior kind; so too, dear sir, one will no longer have a liking for the doctrines of those many other ascetics and brahmins, after one has listened to Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts. "Just as a man weakened by hunger who comes upon a honey cake, wherever he eats it he will enjoy a sweet, delicious taste; so too, dear sir, whatever one hears of Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, one will derive from it satisfaction and confidence in one's heart. "Just as a man who comes upon a piece of yellow or red sandalwood, wherever he smells it - be it at the top, the middle, or the lower end - will enjoy a fragrant, delicious scent; so too, dear sir, whatever one hears of Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, one's sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair will vanish. "Just as if there were a beautiful pond with a pleasant shore, its water clear, agreeable, cool, and limpid, and a man came by, scorched and exhausted by the heat, fatigued, parched, and thirsty, and he would step into the pond, bathe and drink, and thus all his affliction, fatigue, and feverishness would be allayed, so too, dear sir, whenever one hears Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, all one's affliction, fatigue and feverish burning are allayed." And, AN IV,52: "When one has faith in the Tathaagata, Unshaken and well established, And good conduct built on virtue, Dear to the noble ones and praised; When one has confidence in the Sangha And view that has been rectified, The say the one is not impoverished, That one does not live in vain. Therefore the person of intelligence, Remembering the Buddha's Teaching, Should be devoted to faith and virtue, To confidence and vision of the Dhamma" Sincerely, Scott.