#68800 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer programming /was Re: Acceptance speech egberdina Hi Kenh, I wonder, are there still any other Ken's active? Not having to type that additional H at the end of what isn't even your name would sure make a big difference to me :-) On 23/02/07, ken_aitch wrote: > Hi Herman, > > > Thanks Herman. I won't limit myself to those classifications if you > don't mind. :-) But thanks for pointing them out. I haven't seen them > before, but I have seen others elsewhere in the Abhidhamma. For > example, there are 'concepts that refer to concepts' and there > are 'concepts that refer to paramattha dhammas.' No, you can use any classifications you want, Ken. Let's face it, all verbal communication uses concepts. > > But, getting back to my question: do any of those concepts have a > reality in their own right? > Nibbana, and paramattha dhammas, cannot be talked about, without first conceiving of them, which completely misrepresents them. Just for the record, I don't buy the concept of paramattha dhammas, but I do buy all sorts of realities. But in order to talk about them I have to conceive of them first. So, we are always going to be talking about our conceptions of what is real, and never about what is real. Because that is well before words. > > PS: I am sending this straight away before I get even further behind > with my replies to you. I think there are two or three pending. Sorry > about that. > No need to fret, whenever is good for you, if at all, is fine with me. Kind Regards Herman #68801 From: han tun Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Herman (and Nina), > Herman: You agree with Nina that you shouldn't select the recipient of your dana, and I agree too :-) But surely, giving to monks, any monk, is also selection. How many needy people does one walk past and ignore to get to the temple? Han: My agreement on this point refers to making offering to monks. Of course, overall, one has to consider which person(s) one wishes to donate: whether to give to the worthiest recipients or to give to the most needed persons or, as Nina had earlier said, to whoever we can assist and not to select any persons in order to have more merit. That’s why I said the subject of ‘Recipients’ is a very wide subject. Respectfully, Han #68802 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,136 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 136. [From happy to unhappy destiny.] For example, firstly in the case of a person in the happy destinies of the sense-sphere who is an evil-doer, when he is lying on his death-bed, his evil kamma according as it has been stored up, or its sign, comes into focus in the mind door. For it is said, 'Then [the evil deeds that he did in the past] ... cover him [and overspread him and envelop him]' (M.iii,164), and so on. Then next to the cognitive series of impulsions ending in registration22 that arose contingent upon that [kamma or its sign], death consciousness arises making the life-continuum's objective field its object. When it has ceased, rebirth-linking consciousness arises contingent upon that same kamma or kamma sign that had come into focus, and it does so located in the unhappy destiny, being driven there by the force of defilements that have not been cut off. This is the kind of rebirth-linking that has a 'past' object and comes next to death consciousness with a 'past object'. ------------------------- Note 22. Burmese ed. of Sammohavinodanii adds 'suddhaaya va javanaviithiyaa' here, as in par. 140 below in all texts. ************************* 136. seyyathida.m -- kaamaavacarasugatiya.m taava .thitassa paapakammino puggalassa ``taanissa tasmi.m samaye olambantii´´tiaadivacanato (ma0 ni0 3.248) mara.nama~nce nipannassa yathuupacita.m paapakamma.m vaa kammanimitta.m vaa manodvaare aapaathamaagacchati. ta.m aarabbha uppannaaya tadaaramma.napariyosaanaaya javanaviithiyaa anantara.m bhava"ngavisaya.m aaramma.na.m katvaa cuticitta.m uppajjati. tasmi.m niruddhe tadeva aapaathagata.m kamma.m vaa kammanimitta.m vaa aarabbha anupacchinnakilesabalavinaamita.m duggatipariyaapanna.m pa.tisandhicitta.m uppajjati. aya.m atiitaaramma.naaya cutiyaa anantaraa atiitaaramma.naa pa.tisandhi. #68803 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:47 pm Subject: Guarding the Senses (Re: Music and Lyrics) buddhatrue Hi Robert, Thanks for sharing this dialogue. You have a very nice way of explaining things, but sometimes it's hard to pin down exactly what you are saying. Your speech is surreal, confusing, and seems to lack intrinsic meaning. It seems like you are saying something, but really you aren't saying anything specific that I can see. I don't think that I will do much to change your mind, but perhaps for those others reading I could explain again what the Buddha taught about guarding the senses (I don't have the time right now to find all the relevant suttas, but if you or anyone has any doubt about anything I can find the relevant sutta). Overall, the Buddha defined guarding the senses as not giving unwise attention to sensuous objects and giving wise attention to wholesome objects. The senses are the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, body, and mind. In the Vinaya there are several rules about protecting the various physical senses: keeping the eyes cast downward, not listening to music, not wearing colognes and perfumes, not wearing expensive robes, etc. Some of these same things can be translated into the householder lifestyle where such things give rise to the three poisons. In other words, one person can watch the news and not experience aversion, another person experiences extreme aversion. That person who experiences extreme aversion should avoid watching the news. The same goes for the other physical senses. There is also a guarding of the mind door. Not everything is going to be blocked out and still be able to function in the world. Even for monks and nuns, sensuous objects will contact the senses and enter the mind. Therefore, the Buddha taught to guard the mind one should see only the seen, hear only the heard, etc. In other words, don't allow mental proliferation to increase the three poisons. Also, to guard the mind door one shouldn't see anything as me or mine. I hope that this is a more straightforward and understandable explanation of guarding the senses, Robert, than the one you provide. Maybe you thought that you were being clear and straightforward already, but I couldn't see it. If you want to comment directly on what I have written here we could have a more productive dialogue. Metta, James #68804 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:01 pm Subject: Guarding the Senses (Re: Music and Lyrics) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Therefore, the Buddha taught to guard the mind one > should see only the seen, hear only the heard, etc. In other words, > don't allow mental proliferation to increase the three poisons. > Also, to guard the mind door one shouldn't see anything as me or mine. > > I hope that this is a more straightforward and understandable > explanation of guarding the senses, Robert, than the one you > provide. ______________ Dear James Yes I think it is. Thanks Robert #68805 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:08 am Subject: RE: Dynamics! bhikkhu5 Friend Sarah wrote: > awareness and understanding now! If Awareness come now, then understanding will Emerge a little later! Things take time! Patience is the highest praxis! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68806 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters ( 24) sarahprocter... Dear Connie, Han and all in the Sisters & Dana corners, Han, firstly - many thanks for your installments and guidance in the Dana corner. I'm appreciating all the discussions there. Connie & all - Mettikaa's verses (#68298) are very inspiring (similar to the previous one of Therii Cittaa in #68226)as are the acts of dana mentioned as in so many of the other accounts: --- connie wrote: > 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. .... S: Such is the result of such dana. It didn't release her from samsara, but as it said earlier, the accumulated merit as a basis (or support) for her enlightenment during her last life. It was the condition for her to have been born at the time of Gotama Buddha and to hear the teachings. ***** S: She was old and weak and climbed a mountain (like Therii Cittaa). There, she sat on a stone and became enlightened, experiencing all the paths (stages of enlightenment) one after the other: .... > 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. <....> > 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. ... (> 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.) .... S: No concern about the rewards of her dana I'm sure, but the result was aeons and aeons of happy rebirths until she had the accumulations and opportunity to develop insight. When she realised the stages of enlightenment, one after the other, there would be no indication outwardly of such cittas (until she threw down her outer robe and turned her bowl upside down, perhaps). No special physical seclusion, unless one considers climbing the mountain as such. However, all the enlighenment factors were in place and the conditions were ready for such great insight to occur, having listened to and really appreciated the words of the Buddha. Metta, Sarah ======= #68807 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are all the bad things that happen to us results of our deeds? sarahprocter... Dear Scott, We were discussing and sharing quotes on elements and I like the one you gave here very much on 'Tathaagata': --- Scott Duncan wrote: 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. " ..... Sarah: Let me add two more quotes from this section on 'Tathaagata' which you refer to: 1."Why is he called the Tathaagata because he is a seer of the real? In this world together with its gods, etc., in this generation with its rulers and its men, whatever visible form object there is that enters the threshold of the eye-door of the innumerable beings throughout the innumerable world-systems - that the Exalted One knows and sees in all its modes....." .... 2. "Furthermore, he is the Tathaagata because he has 'gone through reality' (tathaaya gata) and because he has 'really gone' (tatha'm gata). Here 'gone' (gata) has the meanings of undergone (avagata), gone beyond (atta), attained (patta), and practised (pa.tipanna). Thus he is the Tathaagata because he has gone through - i.e. undergone-reality by fully understanding the entire world [note: Sub Cy: 'The world' here is the noble truth of suffering...] through the scrutinization (of its essential characteristics, as impermanent, suffering, and not-self). He is the Tathaagata because he has gone through - i.e. gone beyond - reality by fully understanding the world through the abandonment of its origin. He is the Tathaagata because he has gone through - i.e. attained - reality by realizing the cessation of the world. And he is the Tathaagata because he has really gone along - i.e. practised - the way leading to the cessation of the world." ***** Metta, Sarah ===== #68808 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing sarahprocter... Hi Bob, Ken H & all, --- Bob Hurley wrote: >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. .... S: I asked my mother for any advice just now. She's always had large gardens and doesn't use sprays as I mentioned (or plastic or electronic gadgets....!) She said she sticks to what is mostly trouble-free! So, for example, in her present garden which is surrounded by fields with rabbits, she grows courgettes, leeks, onions, runner beans and potatoes, but doesn't bother with greens such as spinach and lettuce because they'd get eaten for sure. She grows tomatoes in a small green-house and also suggests marigolds amongst them to prevent greenfly, for example. Also, half a grapefruit out for slugs..... Let us know how you get on and which country you're in. Metta, Sarah ========= #68809 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:30 am Subject: If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi all - I view nibbana as the unique and actual nature of reality. Reality as opposed to illusion. Reality as opposed to mere appearance. I believe nibbana to be literally indescribable and incapable of being truly communicated, though much of what it is *not* can be communicated, and some of what it *is* can be *suggested*. There are a *good* number of Buddhists - not I - who interpret the Buddha's statements about nibbana as describing "it" as a zero, an absolute nothingness, the absence of all experiencing and all experience in every possible sense, wherein there is no knowing and nothing known, and there are not only no separate dhammas, but nothing at all. Utter oblivion. The question I raise here is "If that is what nibbana 'is', how did the Buddha know it?" Some will say he knew it by means of direct apprehension of nibbana during path consciousness and fruition consciousness. Some will say he knew it by means of supermundane wisdom. But magga and phala are mindstates, and when there are mindstates, there is not oblivion. Also, pa~n~na is a cetasika, and it only arises concomitant to vi~n~nana, and when there is a citta and cetasikas, there is not oblivion. Some might say that nibbana as absolute absence simply "exists", along with other dhammas. But that is saying that complete and utter oblivion coexists with its opposite, a multiplicity of actually existing realities, each with its own nature and being - what some folks here are wont to call "realities". Some might think of countering that the Buddha knew *about* nibbana through wisdom, indirectly, at a distance, but they will quickly draw back from that position, as it gives up far too much. And the Buddha never did report to us, nor could he, on "the nibbana" beyond the death of the Buddha, for once the Buddha died, he was not around to report on anything. The only people who reported on that were *other* (living) people, people who thus had no knowledge of what they were talking about, because they literally could not have that knowledge, not being passed-on arahants. So, I repeat the subject heading of this post: "If so, how did he know it?" With metta, Howard #68810 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are all the bad things that happen to us results of our deeds? scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the post. In the stuff I transcribed: "...All these characteristics are real, not unreal. Thence he is the Tathaagata because he has come to the real characteristic...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. " I like this. Sabhaava. Function. Anatta. A lot packed in. This reminds me of what Jon noted recently about the Noble Person in the Sangha of refuge referring actually to the magga-phala-citta alone. This makes total sense and perhaps Tathaagata can also be understood in this sense: the most venerable moment of consciousness that has as characteristic all of which is said to relate to the meaning of Tathaagata. What do you think is meant when this notion of 'without falling away from it' is used? Eradication? Totally developed wisdom? I guess the corollary is that we are always 'falling away from it'. I wonder what this means. Undeveloped wisdom? Sarah: Let me add two more quotes from this section on 'Tathaagata' which you refer to: 1."Why is he called the Tathaagata because he is a seer of the real? In this world together with its gods, etc., in this generation with its rulers and its men, whatever visible form object there is that enters the threshold of the eye-door of the innumerable beings throughout the innumerable world-systems - that the Exalted One knows and sees in all its modes....." Aakaara, I think for 'modes', right? Knowing and seeing everything from this perspective. This is omniscience. 2. "Furthermore, he is the Tathaagata because he has 'gone through reality' (tathaaya gata)...'The world' here is the noble truth of suffering...] through the scrutinization (of its essential characteristics, as impermanent, suffering, and not-self). He is the Tathaagata because he has gone through - i.e. gone beyond - reality by fully understanding the world through the abandonment of its origin. He is the Tathaagata because he has gone through - i.e. attained - reality by realizing the cessation of the world. And he is the Tathaagata because he has really gone along - i.e. practised - the way leading to the cessation of the world." And again, all of this is at the level of paramattha dhammas. The verbs in the above description don't even refer to any one doing anything - it all happened at the moment 'he' 'became' 'the Tathaagata' and was one scintillating, universe-shattering moment of consciousness - the Tathaagata. Sincerely, Scott. #68811 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner nilovg Dear Han, You moderate this dana corner eminently, with great wisdom and a touch of humor. I was a bit venting, but you spoke the right words. I love it when you quote Burmese sayings, they contain great wisdom. Perhaps you may consider another corner when dana is finished: siila or any other subject. Maybe Phil can suggest something. Nina. Op 23-feb-2007, om 22:38 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Can I tell you an anecdote? In Burma we used to say > (as a joke) to keep your sword ready in dhamma > discussions. Here, there is a play of words. In > Burmese language, dhamma is dhamma, and the sword is > dhaama. Speaking quickly the two words sound almost > the same. So if you cannot win your argument on dhamma > hit your opponent with the dhaama. (But please don’t > actually do it! Anyway, one is safe on internet > because we are not sitting face to face! (:-)) #68812 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:06 am Subject: Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you for providing this 'material'. A question and request for clarification, if I may: N: "...ruupa does not know anything...The sense objects as well as the sense organs are ruupas..." Ruupas exist as separate realities in and of themselves. Is this correct? Sincerely, Scott. #68813 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:34 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 8, no 7 nilovg Dear friends, The meditation subjects of samatha are concepts. The aim of samatha is not to realize the truth of non-self, but the aim is to have less attachment to sense objects. In vipassanå the object changes from moment to moment, since it is the reality appearing at the present moment. One never knows what will appear next. It is different in samatha since one has to develop calm with a meditation subject in order to reach calm to the degree of jhåna. One may not have the accumulated skill to develop calm to the degree of jhåna. However, one can also develop calm in daily life, naturally, as the occasion arises. For example, when there is sati-sampajañña which knows the characteristic of mettå, mettå can naturally arise in daily life, without the need to think, "I should have more mettå". There can also be a moment of satipatthåna when one realizes for example mettå as a conditioned reality, a type of nåma which is not self. Moments of calm and moments of developing understanding can arise naturally in daily life, depending on conditions. As we have seen, there are different levels of sati-sampajañña and they are all beneficial. In order to have right understanding of nåma and rúpa there should be awareness of whatever reality appears through one of the six doors. This is very difficult and therefore you wonder whether in the beginning it would not be better to be aware of only what appears, for example, through the body-door. Should one not limit the object of awareness? You find that some suttas seem to suggest this. You quote the story of Pothila from the Dhammapada commentary (282, commentary to verse 282). A novice who was an arahat instructed the monk Pothila by way of a simile. If there are six holes in an anthill and a lizard enters the anthill by one of these holes, one could catch the lizard by stopping up five of these holes, leaving the sixth one open. Then he could catch the lizard in the hole by which he entered. In the same way should Pothila deal with the six doors of the senses and the mind; he should close five of the six doors, and devote his attention to the door of the mind. We then read that he was mindful of the body and began mind development. After hearing a stanza from the Buddha he attained arahatship. It was the following stanza: From meditation springs wisdom, From lack of meditation wisdom dwindles away. He that knows this twofold path of gain and loss Should so settle himself that wisdom may increase. When wisdom has reached perfection one will not be shaken anymore by gain and loss and the other worldly conditions. What will happen if one tells oneself that one now will concentrate on only one doorway, such as the body-door? Then there would not be awareness of the reality which appears, but there is an idea of self who sets his mind on one object, who selects the object of awareness. He thinks of it and tries to concentrate on it. While he tries to control sati he will not know that each reality arises because of its own conditions, that it is beyond control. ******* Nina. #68814 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:38 am Subject: Rupas, Introduction, 2. nilovg Dear friends, As regards physical phenomena or rúpa, there are twentyeight kinds of rúpa in all. Rúpas are not merely textbook terms, they are realities that can be directly experienced. Rúpas do not know or experience anything; they can be known by nåma. Rúpa arises and falls away, but it does not fall away as quickly as nåma. When a characteristic of rúpa such as hardness impinges on the bodysense it can be experienced through the bodysense by several cittas arising in succession within a process. But even though rúpa lasts longer than citta, it falls away again, it is impermanent. Rúpas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. What we take for our body is composed of many groups or units, consisting each of different kinds of rúpa, and the rúpas in such a group arise together and fall away together. The reader will come across four conditioning factors that produce rúpas of the body: kamma, citta, temperature and food. The last three factors are easier to understand, but the first factor, kamma, is harder to understand since kamma is a factor of the past. We can perform good and bad deeds through body, speech and mind and these can produce their appropriate results later on. Such deeds are called kamma, but when we are more precise kamma is actually the cetasika volition or intention (cetanå) that motivates the deed. Kamma is a mental activity and thus its force can be accumulated. Since cittas that arise and fall away succeed one another in an unbroken series, the force of kamma is carried on from one moment of citta to the next moment of citta, from one life to the next life. In this way kamma is capable to produce its result later on. A good deed, kusala kamma, can produce a pleasant result, and an evil deed can produce an unpleasant result. Kamma produces result at the first moment of life: it produces rebirth-consciousness in a happy plane of existence such as the human plane or a heavenly plane, or in an unhappy plane of existence such as a hell plane or the animal world. Throughout life kamma produces seeing, hearing and the other sense-impressions that are vipåkacittas, cittas that are results. Vipåkacittas are neither kusala cittas nor akusala cittas. Seeing a pleasant object is the result of kusala kamma and seeing an unpleasant object is the result of akusala kamma. Due to kamma gain and loss, praise and blame alternate in our life. ******** Nina. #68815 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Dear Scott, Ruupas arise due to conditions. As you will see, the rupas of the body are produced by four factors. See may last post. I would not say that they exist as separate realities in and of themselves. They need conditioning factors, they are dependent. Or do you mean something else? Nina. Op 24-feb-2007, om 17:06 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > N: "...ruupa does not know anything...The sense objects as well as the > sense organs are ruupas..." > > Ruupas exist as separate realities in and of themselves. Is this > correct? #68816 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply: N: "Ruupas arise due to conditions. As you will see, the rupas of the body are produced by four factors. See my last post. I would not say that they exist as separate realities in and of themselves. They need conditioning factors, they are dependent." Yes, thanks, I did just read your last post. N: "Or do you mean something else?" I see that ruupa requires conditioning factors and are, hence, not 'independent'. I think I mean to ask whether there are ruupas having a conditioned existence separate from consciousness? Sincerely, Scott. #68817 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? egberdina Hi Howard, Good question. I have a shorter and longer answer. The short one below, the long one interspersed through your post. AN IX.34 "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. ****So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."***** On 25/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi all - > > I view nibbana as the unique and actual nature of reality. Reality as > opposed to illusion. Reality as opposed to mere appearance. I believe nibbana > to be literally indescribable and incapable of being truly communicated, > though much of what it is *not* can be communicated, and some of what it *is* can > be *suggested*. > There are a *good* number of Buddhists - not I - who interpret the > Buddha's statements about nibbana as describing "it" as a zero, an absolute > nothingness, the absence of all experiencing and all experience in every possible > sense, wherein there is no knowing and nothing known, and there are not only no > separate dhammas, but nothing at all. Utter oblivion. I do not see why a lack of experience would amount to annihilation. In the absence of the conditions for consciousness, why would you assume that all conditionality has ceased? The being of all there is doesn't rely on consciousness (of it ) for it's being. A world of which there is no consciousness still is. > The question I raise here is "If that is what nibbana 'is', how did > the Buddha know it?" Some will say he knew it by means of direct apprehension of > nibbana during path consciousness and fruition consciousness. Some will say > he knew it by means of supermundane wisdom. But magga and phala are mindstates, > and when there are mindstates, there is not oblivion. Also, pa~n~na is a > cetasika, and it only arises concomitant to vi~n~nana, and when there is a citta > and cetasikas, there is not oblivion. Some might say that nibbana as absolute > absence simply "exists", along with other dhammas. But that is saying that > complete and utter oblivion coexists with its opposite, a multiplicity of actually > existing realities, each with its own nature and being - what some folks here > are wont to call "realities". Some might think of countering that the Buddha > knew *about* nibbana through wisdom, indirectly, at a distance, but they will > quickly draw back from that position, as it gives up far too much. I draw back from the position that needs the Buddha to be transcendental, a superman. The omniscience of the Buddha is a quality of those who ascribe it to him, not of the Buddha. Other religions too have taken a man, made of flesh and bones, and turned him into a God. The need for this transcendental Being lies at the heart of all consciousness. We do not want to be what we are, we want to be God. > And the Buddha never did report to us, nor could he, on "the nibbana" > beyond the death of the Buddha, for once the Buddha died, he was not around to > report on anything. The only people who reported on that were *other* > (living) people, people who thus had no knowledge of what they were talking about, > because they literally could not have that knowledge, not being passed-on > arahants. Quite right. And so the knowledge of God, and how to become God, becomes vested in the hands of the priesthood, who with the passing of time have less and less of a clue. But the Buddha appointed anyone as his successor, rather instructed everyone to find out for themselves. > So, I repeat the subject heading of this post: "If so, how did he know > it?" > See the short answer :-). "So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant." The way things are beyond experience/consciousness is hammered out by reason. Kind Regards Herman #68818 From: han tun Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind encouragements. Yes, I will consult with Phil for the next “corner” when I finish with the present one. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Perhaps you may consider another corner when dana is > finished: siila > or any other subject. Maybe Phil can suggest > something. #68819 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) egberdina Hi Sarah, Some more replies to this post. > ..... > >An ultimate sense sounds to me > > like a viewpointless point of view, something that cannot be. > .... > S: So no need to use it. I could just as easily have written that there is > no Buddha, no Therii - just elements. The elements of Buddhism are always elements of consciousness, are they not? All elements are/have a known quality. It is this knowing which is the point of view. All consciousness is consciousness of an object, and therefore all consciousness is a point of view. An unknown element would be like an unknown known. Which doesn't make sense to me :-) > ... > >All > > consciousness is consciousness of something other than itself, so all > > consciousness is a point of view. What is an ultimate sense? > .... > S: Seeing consciousness now is not a pov - it's real. So is thinking > consciousness or touching consciousness. I'll have to wait for your reply to my first part of this post, or maybe it was another post. I asked something about seeing / hearing without mention of the object. Seeing - full stop, is not real. Seeing an object is real. > > If there were only pov's without any realities, there'd be no seeing, no > hearing, no tasting, no touching - a big mess and a very hungry big mess > too! If there were seeing, hearing, feeling in general, without corresponding objects, then we could all just keep on living our merry delusion, which is thinking that we are seeing, hearing, feeling in general. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s We had a friend in Thailand who kept talking about 'pov's' - where has > this idea come from? You may have heard of Albert Einstein, and his theories on relativity. Blame him! Kind Regards Herman #68820 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) egberdina Hi Howard, On 22/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 2/21/07 4:58:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > The imagined computer > > depends on mind for it's being as well as it's characteristics. > > > > > ==================== > As does the "real" computer: A multitude of multi-sense-door > impressions are organized by mental operations grasping that fuzzy aggregate as a > unity. The alleged entity, "the computer", has all the interrelated conditions > undelying it as it characteristics. "The computer is hard" due to the presence of > rupas of hardness, and so on. The difference with the imagined computer is > that for it there are no underlying rupas at all - there is just thinking. You do not seem to allow for a world beyond the world of experience. Granted, all (conscious) phenomena are mediated by consciousness. But that there is "something" which I can come to know as a computer and stub my toe against is not mediated by consciousness. Kind Regards Herman #68821 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Mystery of Consciousness egberdina Hi Sarah, On 23/02/07, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Herman (Chris & all), > > I'd like to 'revitalise' these comments of yours and keep them in the > ring: > Good on ya :-) . > ..... > S: I don't pretend to understand your comments, probably because I only > had time for a quick 'skim' of the article when referred to. > > Taking your comments rather literally, lots of 'pure material' (i.e. > rupas) in the teachings as you'll read about in Nina's series on them > which she's posting. > Rupas seem to take on a life of their own, depending on who is talking about them :-) From MN28 "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." Clearly, forms do not depend on consciousness. So, rupas that are known is one kind of rupa, and rupa that are not known, is another kind of rupa. > As for 'disembodied consciousness' having no place - isn't consciousness > always 'disembodied'? There's never any rupa or body of any kind in it? If > you're referring to consciousness arising without any rupas - well, we can > find examples of this in the arupa brahma realm, surely? Sure, consciousness is disembodied in that sense. But is there consciousness without bodies? Is there seeing without eyes? Hearing without ears? And to link it back to the article that Christine linked, is there consciousness without a brain? Can you give me directions to the arupa brahma realm, so we can find some examples? As to arupa jhanas, do you imagine these occur without bodies? > .... > > > > The sutta is MN43, and particularly relevant is the following section: > > > > > > "When this body lacks how many qualities does it lie discarded & > > forsaken, like a senseless log?" > > > > "When this body lacks these three qualities — vitality, heat, & > > consciousness — it lies discarded & forsaken like a senseless log." > ... > S: Yes, when there is no longer vitality (jivitindriya), temperature > (tejo) and consciousness (cittas) arising -- what we have are just rupas, > 'like a senseless log' by way of the body. The cittas of course have > meanwhile continued their 'run' in whatever new life kamma has > conditioned. You make some assumptions. Why have cittas "of course" continued? From MN43 again. "In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, ***his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered***. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling." Kind Regards Herman #68822 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/24/07 3:58:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Good question. I have a shorter and longer answer. The short one > below, the long one interspersed through your post. > > AN IX.34 "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the > complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception, enters &remains in the cessation of perception & > feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental > fermentations are completely ended. ****So by this line of reasoning > it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."***** > > > On 25/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > >Hi all - > > > > I view nibbana as the unique and actual nature of reality. Reality as > >opposed to illusion. Reality as opposed to mere appearance. I believe > nibbana > >to be literally indescribable and incapable of being truly communicated, > >though much of what it is *not* can be communicated, and some of what it > *is* can > >be *suggested*. > > There are a *good* number of Buddhists - not I - who interpret the > >Buddha's statements about nibbana as describing "it" as a zero, an absolute > >nothingness, the absence of all experiencing and all experience in every > possible > >sense, wherein there is no knowing and nothing known, and there are not > only no > >separate dhammas, but nothing at all. Utter oblivion. > > I do not see why a lack of experience would amount to annihilation. In > the absence of the conditions for consciousness, why would you assume > that all conditionality has ceased? The being of all there is doesn't > rely on consciousness (of it ) for it's being. A world of which there > is no consciousness still is. -------------------------------------- Howard: I don't believe so. In any case, such a world is in principle unknowable. ------------------------------------- > > > > The question I raise here is "If that is what nibbana 'is', how did > >the Buddha know it?" Some will say he knew it by means of direct > apprehension of > >nibbana during path consciousness and fruition consciousness. Some will say > >he knew it by means of supermundane wisdom. But magga and phala are > mindstates, > >and when there are mindstates, there is not oblivion. Also, pa~n~na is a > >cetasika, and it only arises concomitant to vi~n~nana, and when there is a > citta > >and cetasikas, there is not oblivion. Some might say that nibbana as > absolute > >absence simply "exists", along with other dhammas. But that is saying that > >complete and utter oblivion coexists with its opposite, a multiplicity of > actually > >existing realities, each with its own nature and being - what some folks > here > >are wont to call "realities". Some might think of countering that the > Buddha > >knew *about* nibbana through wisdom, indirectly, at a distance, but they > will > >quickly draw back from that position, as it gives up far too much. > > I draw back from the position that needs the Buddha to be > transcendental, a superman. The omniscience of the Buddha is a quality > of those who ascribe it to him, not of the Buddha. Other religions too > have taken a man, made of flesh and bones, and turned him into a God. > The need for this transcendental Being lies at the heart of all > consciousness. We do not want to be what we are, we want to be God. ------------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand how this is a reply to the foregoing. -------------------------------------- > > > > And the Buddha never did report to us, nor could he, on "the nibbana" > >beyond the death of the Buddha, for once the Buddha died, he was not around > to > >report on anything. The only people who reported on that were *other* > >(living) people, people who thus had no knowledge of what they were talking > about, > >because they literally could not have that knowledge, not being passed-on > >arahants. > > Quite right. And so the knowledge of God, and how to become God, > becomes vested in the hands of the priesthood, who with the passing of > time have less and less of a clue. But the Buddha appointed anyone as > his successor, rather instructed everyone to find out for themselves. > > > > So, I repeat the subject heading of this post: "If so, how did he know > >it?" > > > > See the short answer :-). "So by this line of reasoning it may be > known how Unbinding is pleasant." The way things are beyond > experience/consciousness is hammered out by reason. > > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ======================= With metta, Howard #68823 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/24/07 4:20:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeis ter@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > On 22/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > >Hi, Herman - > > > >In a message dated 2/21/07 4:58:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >hhofmeister@... writes: > > > >>The imagined computer > >>depends on mind for it's being as well as it's characteristics. > >> > >> > >==================== > > As does the "real" computer: A multitude of multi-sense-door > >impressions are organized by mental operations grasping that fuzzy > aggregate as a > >unity. The alleged entity, "the computer", has all the interrelated > conditions > >undelying it as it characteristics. "The computer is hard" due to the > presence of > >rupas of hardness, and so on. The difference with the imagined computer is > >that for it there are no underlying rupas at all - there is just thinking. > > You do not seem to allow for a world beyond the world of experience. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Oh, I can't rule it out - not by logic or any other way, but there is in principle no way confirming such a world, as all we experience is experience. So, an independent "external" world is untestable as to existence. ------------------------------------------ > Granted, all (conscious) phenomena are mediated by consciousness. But > that there is "something" which I can come to know as a computer and > stub my toe against is not mediated by consciousness. ------------------------------------------ Howard: But that is untestable. If it exists, it exists, and if not, not. But there is NO way of knowing. The toe pain is known however. ----------------------------------------- > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > ==================== With metta, Howard #68824 From: connie Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:53 pm Subject: Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nichiconn Hi Scott, S: I see that ruupa requires conditioning factors and are, hence, not 'independent'. I think I mean to ask whether there are ruupas having a conditioned existence separate from consciousness? C: just butting in with a quote from The All-Embracing Net of Views: << The non-possessor {of the divine eye} adopts the annihilationist position because he does not understand that there is a world beyond this, due either to his nihilistic scepticism or to his stupidity. Or he holds that "the domain of the world extends only as far as the range of the senses" due to his greed for sense pleasures, like the king who took hold of his own daughter's hand [because of his infatuation with sense pleasures]. Or he holds the opinion that "just as a withered leaf separated from its branch cannot be rejoined to it, in the same way all beings undergo death with no further rebirth-linkage, [they do not take rebirth, they are consummated by death, they do not undergo any renewed existence]. For beings are like water bubbles [because they never re-arise]." >> I take that to read "YES, there are." peace, connie #68825 From: han tun Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:07 pm Subject: Daana Corner (06) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, This is taken from “The Practice of Giving” by Susan Elbaum Jootla. Susan wrote the essay in the following sub-headings: * The Factor of Volition * The Recipient of Gifts * The Objects to be Given * The Perfection of Giving * The Ultimate Goal of Giving The following is the continuation of ‘The Factor of Volition.’ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ------------------------------ The Factor of Volition (continuation) The most excellent motive for giving is the intention that it strengthens ones efforts to attain Nibbana. Liberation is achieved by eliminating all the mental defilements (kilesa), which are rooted in the delusion of a controlling and lasting "I." Once this illusion is eradicated, selfish thoughts can no longer arise. If we aspire to ultimate peace and purity by practicing generosity, we will be developing the dana parami, the perfection of giving, building up a store of merit that will bear its full fruit with our attainment of enlightenment. As we progress towards that goal, the volition involved in acts of giving will assist us by contributing towards the pliancy of the mind, an essential asset in developing concentration and wisdom, the prime requisites of liberation. Ariyas — noble ones, those who have attained any of the four stages of holiness — always give with pure volition because their minds function on the basis of wisdom. Those below this level sometimes give carelessly or disrespectfully, with unwholesome states of mind. The Buddha teaches that in the practice of giving, as in all bodily and verbal conduct, it is the volition accompanying the act that determines its moral quality. If one is offering something to a monk, doing so without adopting a respectful manner would not be proper. Throwing a coin to a beggar in order to get rid of him would also be considered a defilement of giving. One should think carefully about the relevance and the timing of a gift for it to bring the best results. ‘The Factor of Volition’ to be continued. Han #68826 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:28 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing sukinderpal Hi Herman (and Phil *), Herman: Yes, when you say "There is no control over what the object will be and what the roots" I read you as saying that everything that arises in the moment is already determined by/in the citta that went before'? Have I misunderstood you? Sukin: I probably should have given more information. But I think that statements made on DSG by students of A. Sujin have been quite clear regarding the complexity of conditions, 24 in all in the Patthana as you know, most of which are 'present' conditions. But of course, it is one thing to read about conditions in the Texts and another to understand and apply this to the present moment. I believe the tendency to think in terms of 'determinism' and controlling/free will/choice is there in all of us, having yet to experience the vipassana nanas. So in fact you may be justified in reading statements by some of us as inclining to determinism, but then again, that may be because on the other hand you are coming from the side of control/free will? Actually both these positions are quite obviously wrong, given just a little reflection. But they arise with "self-view" and therefore logic and reasoning is not enough to be done away with them. So what do I mean when I say, "There is no control .."? This moment of citta with its object, has arisen and fallen away *already*, and what is left is only the nimita. Even the latter is a result of many, many moments of say, 'seeing' and the other cittas in the process, all arisen and fallen away. We can have a sense here, of no possibility of control by force of 'will'. After any particular sense door process, when impulsion arises, the fact that on the one hand ignorance, desire, aversion and so on arises or sila, samatha, satipatthana and so on do, these too do so with the same uncontrollability. The conditions for sense door process are different from those of the impulsion. However, "conditioned" they both are, by impersonal dhammas arising and falling away beyond any possibility of any 'willing' to make a difference. In fact the 'willing' i.e. which is part of the impulsion must be seen as conditioned! For example even this thought about 'guarding the senses' or 'noting' must be seen for what it is and that it has arisen and already fallen away. Without this kind of understanding, the resultant is ignorance and desire which then either accepts or rejects the proposition. One may believe in the thought and follows it or there can be sati and panna arising which 'understands'. The former leads to the 'wrong path' being taken, whereas the latter would be an instance of the 'right path', and both these accumulate, increasing the possibility that such moments will arise again in the future. This is why it is *never* about 'doing' anything no matter how 'noble', but about understanding. The knowledge about conditionality must be applied to this very moment of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. If not, then it shall remain only 'theory' used only when convenient. In other words, it becomes the object of ignorance, craving and wrong view, a manifestation of 'Mara' peculiar to Buddhists. :-) But then I have read you elsewhere as saying that a moment of "mindfulness" is 'being in control' implying that being "unmindful" is 'out of control'. I take it that you refer to mindfulness of conventional reality and any intentions, attachments, feelings etc. that arises in the process..? I think the reason why many don't really appreciate the Abhidhamma perspective is due to taking seriously the above kind of observation and any results that follow. * For example Phil described his 'sitting' experience. He saw that thoughts just kept proliferating, all seemingly in some causal pattern. Having judged the stories as being rooted in desire, he came to the conclusion that such was a glimpse of the kilesas ( I haven't bothered to reread your post Phil, so forgive me if I misinterpret what you said.). But as you can see, these are stories centered on personal experience, and are they reliable? Even when the conclusion is made from present observation, these are not of the 'characteristic' of realities, but only ideas/concepts. The 'insight' (conventionally and relatively speaking), might have been that the 'thinking' was conditioned, perhaps in part by the very idea to seclude oneself in order to observe! 'Thinking' is conditioned *in the moment* by the various conditions there and then. These are paramattha dhammas of which we are not aware. Instead, there is being taken in by the thought and any intentions associated. This is not understanding, but more thinking rooted in ignorance and craving. So what most Buddhists consider mindfulness is in fact only 'thinking'. The concepts being taken as real, gives rise to the illusion of control, hence the justification in 'doing'/'meditating'. The illusion of result comes from comparing what one considers to be 'unmindful' with what is now labeled 'mindful'. However, proliferation/papanca is not so much that thoughts being one moment this and the next that, but is a reference to citta rooted in tanha, mana or ditthi. The very desire to observe/note/guard the sense being tanha, is papanca. The sense of 'self' observing, is mana. The belief that there are 'objects' which a 'I' can give attention to, is ditthi papanca. Being driven by avijja and tanha to act through speech and body, of which there is no so called mindfulness may not be as bad as being driven by ignorance, craving and self-view to "sit still" (cross legged or otherwise) and observe. What kind of sanna is at work when one is conscious of sitting still? Observing the breath or scanning the body, is accumulating atta sanna and an encouragement of tanha, mana and ditthi. The first two is not such a big problem and they can and must be 'known'. Ditthi however, makes it impossible that such an observation will take place, i.e. knowing these and other dhammas as they are, conditioned and anatta. This is why it is so important to listen, consider and straighten one's views at the intellectual level. Because if the understanding is wrong, then wrong practice invariably follows. Herman: > > > There is no control over what the object will be and what the roots. > > > > I do not believe that this is useful to discuss. Because whether it is > > the case or not, it makes no difference to anything. You are basically > > saying that both the arising of the question "What is the reality of > > the present moment?" and whatever the answer of the moment will > be, > > are given. So what? I ask that seriously, not in a dismissive way. Sukin: So no free will/control, does this then mean that discussing, reading, responding or not makes no difference? Obviously every moment is different and difference is made all the time, but not in any particular way that you and I could predict/would like it to be. No 'waiting for conditions' but no 'chasing after illusion' either. I suppose we can continue from here? With metta, Sukin #68827 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "I view nibbana as the unique and actual nature of reality. Reality as opposed to illusion." L: According to the Buddha illusion is part of reality and even with pristine right view conditioned reality is dukkha. Whatever is impermanent is dukkha. H: "There are a *good* number of Buddhists - not I - who interpret the Buddha's statements about nibbana as describing "it" as a zero, an absolute nothingness, the absence of all experiencing and all experience in every possible sense, wherein there is no knowing and nothing known, and there are not only no separate dhammas, but nothing at all. Utter oblivion. The question I raise here is "If that is what nibbana 'is', how did the Buddha know it?" " L: Nothingness was highly praised by the Buddha as a jhana state. As to 'how did he know it', how did he (or we) know anything? Some say it is like a gap between conscious states, or emptiness. Others say it is the nature of awareness itself. These states are obviously part of the manifestation of conditioned arising, so it is difficult to draw a line and say here is conditioned arising and here is nibbana. Nagarjuna said nibbana and conditioned arising are the same in the sense that neither is existent nor nonexistent. Larry ps: I found that sutta about the monks who wanted to die. It is SN 54.9 (also apparently in the Vinaya). It isn't quite what I remembered. The Buddha instructed a group of monks in the meditation on foulness and then said he was going into seclusion for two weeks and didn't want to be disturbed. The monks became so disgusted with their bodies that many of them committed suicide. The Buddha came back from his retreat, asked what happened to the monks, then taught the remaining ones mindfulness of breathing, "an ambrosial pleasant dwelling". L. #68828 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/24/07 11:12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > H: "I view nibbana as the unique and actual nature of reality. Reality > as opposed to illusion." > > L: According to the Buddha illusion is part of reality and even with > pristine right view conditioned reality is dukkha. Whatever is > impermanent is dukkha. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Being deluded really occurs, so delusion is real. By an illusion, however, I mean what seems to be the case under the sway of delusion but actually is not the case. Illusion in that sense is not part of reality. Self is an illusion, and it does not exist. The sense of self and the belief in self do exist. Why, however, are you mentioning dukkha? I agree that all conditions are dukkha, i.e. are not sources of satisfaction. Why do you raise this? -------------------------------------------------- > > H: "There are a *good* number of Buddhists - not I - who interpret the > Buddha's statements about nibbana as describing "it" as a zero, an > absolute nothingness, the absence of all experiencing and all experience > in every possible sense, wherein there is no knowing and nothing known, > and there are not only no separate dhammas, but nothing at all. Utter > oblivion. > The question I raise here is > "If that is what nibbana 'is', how did the Buddha know it?" " > > L: Nothingness was highly praised by the Buddha as a jhana state. As to > 'how did he know it', how did he (or we) know anything? ------------------------------------------- Howard: The jhana of nothingness is a jhana of no-thing-ness, and in it there is yet conciousness. It is not an oblivion. It is a state of consciousness. ------------------------------------------- > > Some say it is like a gap between conscious states, or emptiness. Others > say it is the nature of awareness itself. These states are obviously > part of the manifestation of conditioned arising, so it is difficult to > draw a line and say here is conditioned arising and here is nibbana. > Nagarjuna said nibbana and conditioned arising are the same in the sense > that neither is existent nor nonexistent. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: That certainly is closer to my perspective. ---------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ps: I found that sutta about the monks who wanted to die. It is SN 54.9 > (also apparently in the Vinaya). It isn't quite what I remembered. The > Buddha instructed a group of monks in the meditation on foulness and > then said he was going into seclusion for two weeks and didn't want to > be disturbed. The monks became so disgusted with their bodies that many > of them committed suicide. The Buddha came back from his retreat, asked > what happened to the monks, then taught the remaining ones mindfulness > of breathing, "an ambrosial pleasant dwelling". L. > ===================== With metta, Howard #68829 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) egberdina Hi Howard, On 25/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > > You do not seem to allow for a world beyond the world of experience. > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Oh, I can't rule it out - not by logic or any other way, but there is > in principle no way confirming such a world, as all we experience is > experience. So, an independent "external" world is untestable as to existence. > ------------------------------------------ Recently you did a rather goob job of outlining, phenomenologically, how an illusion may come to be differentiated from reality. You seem to be going back on that here. All of us are testing reality all day long, sorting out what are well grounded concepts from what are not well grounded concepts. > > > Granted, all (conscious) phenomena are mediated by consciousness. But > > that there is "something" which I can come to know as a computer and > > stub my toe against is not mediated by consciousness. > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > But that is untestable. If it exists, it exists, and if not, not. But > there is NO way of knowing. The toe pain is known however. > ----------------------------------------- I accept the difference between knowing as experience, and knowing by reason. Yet both are real enough. The first one is beyond doubt, the latter is subject to doubt. There is no possibility of illusion in the first, there is in the latter. We have no choice, and seemingly little difficulty, but to accept the degrees of uncertaintity that are inherent in knowing by reason. In all our actions, there is expectation of an outcome, which outcome cannot be known beforehand, in the experienced sense. Yet this unknown, uncertain aspect of our actions does not prevent us from acting. In the same way, conditionality cannot be known in the experienced sense. I cannot, for example, experience kamma bringing this or that situation about. Yet we all have theories of how the world works. Kind Regards Herman #68830 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? egberdina Hi Howard, On 25/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > -------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't believe so. In any case, such a world is in principle > unknowable. > ------------------------------------- The same may be said of nibbana, paccaya and paramattha dhammas :-) > > > > I draw back from the position that needs the Buddha to be > > transcendental, a superman. The omniscience of the Buddha is a quality > > of those who ascribe it to him, not of the Buddha. Other religions too > > have taken a man, made of flesh and bones, and turned him into a God. > > The need for this transcendental Being lies at the heart of all > > consciousness. We do not want to be what we are, we want to be God. > > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't understand how this is a reply to the foregoing. > -------------------------------------- I obviously misunderstood you, but what I wrote was a reply to > Some might think of countering that the > > Buddha > > >knew *about* nibbana through wisdom, indirectly, at a distance, but they > > will > > >quickly draw back from that position, as it gives up far too much. I took you to be saying that people are intentional towards the Buddha, they attribute to him all sorts of qualities they want him to have, and then retreat from that when they realise some of the implications of that attribution. Kind Regards Herman #68831 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner egberdina Dear Han, It may be a good idea to get your sword ready :-) On 24/02/07, han tun wrote: > Dear Herman (and Nina), > > > Han: My agreement on this point refers to making > offering to monks. What is better about an offering to a stupid, worthless monk, than to a stupid worthless man in the gutter? Kind Regards Herman #68832 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:00 am Subject: Nibbana is Stilled Peace! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Stilling of all Mental Construction is Nibbâna! The Blessed Buddha once said: Here, Ananda, the Bhikkhu considers it all like this: This is the supreme peace, this is the sublime calm: The standstill of all forming activities, the silencing of all kammic mental construction, the relinquishing of all substrata fuelling existence, the fading away of all craving, detachment, release, ceasing, NibbÄ?na... In this way, Ananda, the Bhikkhu may enter a mental absorption in which there is no notion of I and mine, no attacks of conceiving any internal consciousness or any external objects & wherein he is both mentally released & fully liberated through understanding the all... There is no inclination to I and mine-making, and no more attacks of conceit by latent tendencies to identification, egotism, & narcissism! Knowing both what the inner is and the outer is, one is neither stirred nor troubled any more! When thus stilled and imperturbable, there is neither any attraction, nor any aversion... One has crossed & escaped ageing & death!!! Sutta Nipata 1048 Source: Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikaya AN 3:32 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #68833 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Dear Scott, Apart from the four conditioning factors, we have to remember that rupas always arise in groups, kalapas. Rupa could not arise singly, it has to arise in a group of the four great Elements and at least four other rupas. > ---------- > S: I mean to ask whether there are ruupas having > a conditioned existence separate from consciousness? ----------- N: Yes. Ruupas which are not of the body, rupas outside. This is difficult to swallow for some. These rupas originate solely from temperature, thus, the element of heat. An example: rupas we call plant are conditioned solely by temperature. When I look at a plant after a few days I notice that it has grown. Speech sound is produced by citta, but when we listen to a recorded voice, that sound is conditioned solely by temparature. Nina. Op 24-feb-2007, om 20:52 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I see that ruupa requires conditioning factors and are, hence, not > 'independent'. I think I mean to ask whether there are ruupas having > a conditioned existence separate from consciousness? #68834 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Herman, Herman: What is better about an offering to a stupid, worthless monk, than to a stupid worthless man in the gutter? Han: If one offers to a stupid, worthless monk a ‘sanghika daana’ it will be better than to a stupid, worthless man in the gutter. I am sorry I cannot take my sword out as it got stuck in the scabbard :-) Respectfully, Han --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Dear Han, > > It may be a good idea to get your sword ready :-) > #68835 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:09 am Subject: Re: daana corner philofillet Hello Han and all > I am sorry I cannot take my sword out as it got stuck > in the scabbard :-) A joke, but I believe it's true. The scabbard in question has been sealed shut by diligent practice in light of the Buddha's teaching. This is what is really important about Buddhism for busy householders - - avoiding evil deeds of body, speech and mind. That is enough - more than enough for us. I aspire to be a person who is gentle and harmless in body, speech and mind. I'm not concerned about whether I see deeply into the anattaness of things. That will only come when virtuous habits of body speech and mind have become well-established. The Buddha said that when we die our refuge will be the good deeds we have done and the evil deeds we have not done. "Life is swept away, brief is our span of years, There are no shelters for one who has reached old age. Perceiving the peril that lurks in death, Perform good deeds that entail happiness. When one is restrained in body, Restrained by speech and mind, The deeds of merit one did when alive Bring happiness when one departs." AN III, 51 Metta, Phil #68836 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing philofillet Hi Sukin and all (ps to Jon and Mike) > * For example Phil described his 'sitting' experience. He saw that thoughts > just kept proliferating, all seemingly in some causal pattern. Having judged > the stories as being rooted in desire, he came to the conclusion that such > was a glimpse of the kilesas ( I haven't bothered to reread your post Phil, > so forgive me if I misinterpret what you said.). But as you can see, these > are stories centered on personal experience, and are they reliable? Even > when the conclusion is made from present observation, these are not of the > 'characteristic' of realities, but only ideas/concepts. Sukin, I don't believe the Buddha told people of shallow understanding to strive to understand the characteristic of realities. Not that I have heard from other teachers. That understand will come, or it won't, but first we must guard the sense doors, and develop virtous habits of body, speech and mind. (This is laid out so explicitly in so many suttas that I think one would have to be seriously delusional to try to deny it.) So when guarding the sense doors, yes, there will be sorting out things conceptually. There is no way around that unless we want to believe that we have access to some kind of shortcut to insight. All in due course. I don't want to go through life thinking thinking thinking about "characteristics of realities." I want to follow the humble path the Buddha taught to busy householders. Avoiding evil deeds, doing good ones. Evil deeds are to be understand conceptually, because they involve the harm we due to ourselves and others - not to realities with characteristics. Eventually the conditions come for deeper understanding - or they don't. But they don't come by going around thinking about paramattha dhammas. I haven't come across the pariyatti>patipatti dynamic as taught by Acharn Sujin. Until I do I will remain doubtful that it is an important teaching of the Buddha. (Sorry to be so aggressive sounding, but I am feeling propelled by a lot of saddha these days! Based on dramatically wholesome changes I see happening on my life thanks to a simple, less intellectual approach to Dhamma.) Metta, Phil p.s Jon, still haven't found time to write, thanks for waiting.And thanks mike for your interesting observations on the seclusion thang. #68837 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > What is better about an offering to a stupid, worthless monk, than to > a stupid worthless man in the gutter? > Again, I like your questions! ;-)) What is better about offering to a stupid, worthless monk than to a stupid, worthless man in the gutter is the result of your dana. By offering to a monk, you are helping him to learn and practice the dhamma and hopefully not be so stupid and worthless anymore. ;-)) By offering to a stupid, worthless man in the gutter you are not helping him but probably hurting him- he might use the money to buy drugs or alcohol and will forever stay in the gutter. Metta, James #68838 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: daana corner hantun1 Dear Phil, > > Han: I am sorry I cannot take my sword out as it got stuck in the scabbard :-) > Phil: A joke, but I believe it's true. The scabbard in question has been sealed shut by diligent practice in light of the Buddha's teaching. This is what is really important about Buddhism for busy householders -- avoiding evil deeds of body, speech and mind. That is enough - more than enough for us. I aspire to be a person who is gentle and harmless in body, speech and mind. I'm not concerned about whether I see deeply into the anattaness of things. That will only come when virtuous habits of body speech and mind have become well-established. The Buddha said that when we die our refuge will be the good deeds we have done and the evil deeds we have not done. "Life is swept away, brief is our span of years, There are no shelters for one who has reached old age. Perceiving the peril that lurks in death, Perform good deeds that entail happiness. When one is restrained in body, Restrained by speech and mind, The deeds of merit one did when alive Bring happiness when one departs." AN III, 51 Metta, Phil ---------------------------- Han: Very well said, Phil! Excellent! I always learn a lot from you. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #68839 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:29 am Subject: Re: daana corner buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hello Han and all > > > I am sorry I cannot take my sword out as it got stuck > > in the scabbard :-) > > A joke, but I believe it's true. The scabbard in question has been > sealed shut by diligent practice in light of the Buddha's teaching. > This is what is really important about Buddhism for busy householders - > - avoiding evil deeds of body, speech and mind. That is enough - more > than enough for us. > > I aspire to be a person who is gentle and harmless in body, speech > and mind. I believe there must be balance. Sometimes the sword has to come out of the scabbard. Take for example this teaching from Ajahn Lee, "Even when confronted with frightening intimidation, you should make your heart audacious to the proper degree. Too much audacity can cause harm, and the same holds true for being too timid. For example, if you let yourself become intimidated in your business dealings, your business will suffer. If you're too reckless or audacious, that too can lead to missteps in your work. Thus you should have a sense of moderation and proportion so that your relationships with people and the various objects in the world will run properly. Only then will you count as having human values." http://what-buddha- taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Lee_Handbook_for_the_Relief_of_Suffering.htm#Pa rt%20II Metta, James #68840 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > I don't want to go through life thinking thinking thinking > about "characteristics of realities." I want to follow the humble > path the Buddha taught to busy householders. Avoiding evil deeds, > doing good ones. Evil deeds are to be understand conceptually, > because they involve the harm we due to ourselves and others - not > to realities with characteristics. > Sooooo very well said!! Satipatthana, mindfulness, is what is needed for insight to arise, but the Buddha didn't teach just satipatthana. The Buddha taught a Noble Eightfold Path, not a Noble Onefold Path. Phil, you blame this approach on the `Sexiness of Wisdom Syndrom' (too funny!';-)), but I blame it on the ancient commentaries. KS has this approach because it is spelled out in some ways by over-zealous ancient commentators (who tried to incorporate Abhidhamma with the Suttas). If they had the SOWS or not is hard to say ;-)). But, when one reads the entirety of the suttas, it is obvious that some of these ancient commentaries are wrong about the Buddha's teaching. One shouldn't believe something just because it is written in the ancient texts. Metta, James #68841 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/25/07 12:37:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > On 25/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > >Hi, Herman - > > > >>You do not seem to allow for a world beyond the world of experience. > > > >------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Oh, I can't rule it out - not by logic or any other way, but there is > >in principle no way confirming such a world, as all we experience is > >experience. So, an independent "external" world is untestable as to > existence. > >------------------------------------------ > > Recently you did a rather goob job of outlining, phenomenologically, > how an illusion may come to be differentiated from reality. You seem > to be going back on that here. All of us are testing reality all day > long, sorting out what are well grounded concepts from what are not > well grounded concepts. ------------------------------------------ Howard: In that discussion, I'm not sure I used the term 'realiity'. I do distinguish levels of validity to experiences in terms of predictability of experience. Now, I'm not entirely consistent in my radical phenomenalism. I do, for example, accept the presence of other namarupic streams as reality (a.k.a. "folks" - LOLOL!) with which/whom I interact, based on observed apparent similarities to what I observe in "myself" - I'm not a solipsist, though strict consistency might lend itself to being such. Were I strictly consistent, I would take "other namarupic streams" as simply a conventional conceptual framework useful for experiential prediction, just as I do an "external world". This, in fact, would be the best argument against my radical phenomenalist position, and argument of inconsistency. In any case, I believe in a multitude of namarupic streams, each involving physical experience (of sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and bodily sensations, plus, of course, a variety of namas), all of which are elements of (IMO direct) experience, but I do not presume rupas apart from these. It is these rupic experiences (and, of course, the namas as well) that I take to be the result of kamma - one's own (primarily) and that of others as they interact with one. The acceptance of "other streams" is a weak point, though, from the perspective of direct (noninferential) experience. I admit this. I think, however, that it is not as weak as that of a certainty as to a world of "external rupas". I infer other streams based on the following: Through visual sense I observe sights upon which I construct a body that corresponds to my "internal" experience. And, in the same way I construct bodies other than my own which act like mine, and I thus assume that underlying these constructs are the same sort of "internal" experiences as for me. [Note to those ready to pounce: In the foregoing, and throughout this post, I used 'I' and 'my' as a communication convenience.] The bottom line for me is that my world view is neither objectivist nor solipsist, but one of an intersubjective, integrated mosaic of interacting namarupic streams. Might things be completely different from that? Sure. -------------------------------------------- > > > > >>Granted, all (conscious) phenomena are mediated by consciousness. But > >>that there is "something" which I can come to know as a computer and > >>stub my toe against is not mediated by consciousness. > > > >------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > But that is untestable. If it exists, it exists, and if not, not. But > >there is NO way of knowing. The toe pain is known however. > >----------------------------------------- > > I accept the difference between knowing as experience, and knowing by > reason. Yet both are real enough. The first one is beyond doubt, the > latter is subject to doubt. There is no possibility of illusion in the > first, there is in the latter. We have no choice, and seemingly little > difficulty, but to accept the degrees of uncertaintity that are > inherent in knowing by reason. In all our actions, there is > expectation of an outcome, which outcome cannot be known beforehand, > in the experienced sense. Yet this unknown, uncertain aspect of our > actions does not prevent us from acting. In the same way, > conditionality cannot be known in the experienced sense. I cannot, for > example, experience kamma bringing this or that situation about. > ------------------------------------ Howard: I don't believe in substantive, kammic causality, but just kammic conditionality. That's my perspective on causality in general. So, IMO, there is no such thing as a "kammic force" to be found. In any case, I do think that there are numerous cases in which we see darn close to directly kamma leading really quickly to vipaka, as, for example, when our greed leads almost instantly to resulting harm. (There is a multitude of concrete cases of this, none of which I'm making the effort here to dredge up. ;-) ------------------------------------ Yet> > we all have theories of how the world works. ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. ---------------------------------- > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman > > ===================== With metta, Howard #68842 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nibbana is Stilled Peace! upasaka_howard Dear Bhante - In a message dated 2/25/07 3:37:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, bhikkhu2@... writes: > Friends: > > The Stilling of all Mental Construction is Nibbâna! > > The Blessed Buddha once said: > Here, Ananda, the Bhikkhu considers it all like this: > This is the supreme peace, this is the sublime calm: The standstill of > all forming activities, the silencing of all kammic mental construction, > the relinquishing of all substrata fuelling existence, the fading away > of all craving, detachment, release, ceasing, Nibbana... > In this way, Ananda, the Bhikkhu may enter a mental absorption in > which there is no notion of I and mine, no attacks of conceiving any > internal consciousness or any external objects &wherein he is both > mentally released &fully liberated through understanding the all... > There is no inclination to I and mine-making, and no more attacks of > conceit by latent tendencies to identification, egotism, &narcissism! > > Knowing both what the inner is and the outer is, > one is neither stirred nor troubled any more! > When thus stilled and imperturbable, there is > neither any attraction, nor any aversion... > One has crossed &escaped ageing &death!!! > Sutta Nipata 1048 > > ======================== How, then, does one distinguish nabbana from bodhi? If nibbana literally IS "The standstill of all forming activities, the silencing of all kammic mental construction, the relinquishing of all substrata fuelling existence, the fading away of all craving, detachment, release, ceasing," then it would seem that nibbana is an event that occurs in time. Is that not an incorrect description of nibbana? With metta, Howard #68843 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner upasaka_howard Hi, James and Herman - In a message dated 2/25/07 6:22:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > >What is better about an offering to a stupid, worthless monk, than > to > >a stupid worthless man in the gutter? > > > > Again, I like your questions! ;-)) What is better about offering to a > stupid, worthless monk than to a stupid, worthless man in the gutter > is the result of your dana. By offering to a monk, you are helping > him to learn and practice the dhamma and hopefully not be so stupid > and worthless anymore. ;-)) By offering to a stupid, worthless man in > the gutter you are not helping him but probably hurting him- he might > use the money to buy drugs or alcohol and will forever stay in the > gutter. > > Metta, > James > ======================== I think the real question should be how we can be so sure of who is stupid and worthless, and, for that matter, whether anyone is worthless. It seems to me that if help is truly needed, and we can provide it, then unless we know it will do more harm than good, we should provide the help and, for the most part, leave the judging to others. For many intelligent people of great moral worth, it would take only a few bad turns of events to transform any one of them into an apparently "stupid worthless man in the gutter." But for the grace of something-or-other, there go I. With metta, Howard #68844 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I think the real question should be how we can be so sure of who is > stupid and worthless, and, for that matter, whether anyone is worthless. It > seems to me that if help is truly needed, and we can provide it, then unless we > know it will do more harm than good, we should provide the help and, for the > most part, leave the judging to others. > For many intelligent people of great moral worth, it would take only a > few bad turns of events to transform any one of them into an apparently > "stupid worthless man in the gutter." But for the grace of something-or-other, > there go I. There are many charities, causes, and needy people to donate money, resources, and time to. How is one to choose? The Buddhadhamma is the most important thing in the world, so that makes the decision a lot easier. As in the Dhammapada: The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; The taste of Dhamma excels all tastes; The delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering. Metta, James #68845 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: daana corner nilovg Dear Phil, I like your sutta quote. It is already a degree of understanding to see the value of kusala and the danger of akusala. You may also see that kusala and akusala that arise are conditioned. You studied suttas and this study and also your kusala in the past can condition kusala citta at this moment.You write in this dana corner, you reflect. Is that not kusala? It is also a form of giving, of generosity. You help others to reflect on Dhamma. You quote a sutta, take the trouble to do so. We cannot will kusala at any given moment. When you see that kusala and akusala are conditioned this is already a step into the right direction. Anattaness: who realizes this? The sotaapanna who has eradicated the wrong view of self. How could we expect this to happen soon? Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 11:09 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > This is what is really important about Buddhism for busy > householders - > - avoiding evil deeds of body, speech and mind. That is enough - more > than enough for us. > > I aspire to be a person who is gentle and harmless in body, speech > and mind. I'm not concerned about whether I see deeply into the > anattaness of things. That will only come when virtuous habits of body > speech and mind have become well-established. #68846 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (06) nilovg Dear Han, Susan uses volition and that is right if we remember that kamma is actually volition, cetanaa. But when she writes: , it seems that she uses volition in another way, almost as an effort exerted by a self. She does not say this, but people who read this may have a wrong impression. She writes: it contributes towards the pliancy of the mind, but I would rather emphasize understanding of the goal of dana: having less defilements. I know this is a different outlook. Rather than volition I like to pay attention to the citta that gives, to have more understanding of citta. Then we can give with sincerity. There will be pliancy of citta. I quote from Kh Sujin's Perfections: Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 2:07 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As we progress towards > that goal, the volition involved in acts of giving > will assist us by contributing towards the pliancy of > the mind, an essential asset in developing > concentration and wisdom, the prime requisites of > liberation. #68847 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 2/25/07 9:00:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > There are many charities, causes, and needy people to donate money, > resources, and time to. How is one to choose? The Buddhadhamma is > the most important thing in the world, so that makes the decision a > lot easier. As in the Dhammapada: > > The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; > The taste of Dhamma excels all tastes; > The delight in Dhamma excels all delights. > The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering. > > Metta, > James > > ========================== I agree. Things not being unlimited, we have to prioritize. Supporting Dhamma ranks high for me. With metta, Howard #68848 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:41 am Subject: Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Hi connie, Thanks for the Net. It would seem to me that there are ruupas having independent existence, especially given: C: "...Or he holds that 'the domain of the world extends only as far as the range of the senses' due to his greed for sense pleasures..." c: "I take that to read "YES, there are." Yes, this does support that there is more than meets the eye. And, not that they'd notice, one wouldn't want to suggest to those worthy ones in the Non-percipient realms that they don't exist just because we can't see them. These beings 'arise without mind, their individual forms consist of mere materiality (ruupamattattabhaavaa).' I'm Yertle the Turtle, O Marvelous Me, For I am the King of All-That-I-See. (Suess, The Commentaries On Everything) Sincerely, Scott. #68849 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:00 am Subject: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for your further clarification: N: "Apart from the four conditioning factors, we have to remember that rupas always arise in groups, kalapas. Rupa could not arise singly, it has to arise in a group of the four great Elements and at least four other rupas." Scott: Yes, that's right. That would be the situation I'm looking to clarify. These kalapas - ruupas together, conditioned as they are, can be arising and falling away without me ever having to take notice. N: "Yes. Ruupas which are not of the body, rupas outside. This is difficult to swallow for some. These rupas originate solely from temperature, thus, the element of heat. An example: rupas we call plant are conditioned solely by temperature. When I look at a plant after a few days I notice that it has grown. Speech sound is produced by citta, but when we listen to a recorded voice, that sound is conditioned solely by temparature." It is the 'ruupas outside' to which I refer in the question. Whether or not these ruuupas originated solely from temperature become objects of consciousness, they are actually arising and falling away subject to conditions. The painting of grapes, hanging in an art gallery, had been hanging there prior to my looking at it. My hearing is not creating the music I'm listening to now (Radiohead, OK Computer - for the audiophiles), although the tracks were laid down in the late nineties and enregistered on the compact disc. Thanks, Nina. Sincerely, Scott. #68850 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/25/07 10:00:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Speech sound is produced > by citta, but when we listen to a recorded voice, that sound is > conditioned solely by temparature." ====================== Nina, I am willing to consider that my radical phenomenalism is in error, and that the aggregate of rupas includes far more than just experienced rupas (i.e., physicsl sensations), but that is not the matter I'm addressing now. It is your statement to the effect that the sound of recorded voice is conditioned solely by temperature. I doubt you really mean that, but must be making another point that I'm missing. My questioning of that statement is threefold: 1) No dhamma arises from a sole condition, 2) There are many obvious factors that were conditions for that sound, and 3) If temperature were the sole condition, then the production engineers worked a lot harder than they really needed to! ;-) With metta, Howard #68851 From: "m_nease" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:33 am Subject: Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing m_nease Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > thanks mike for your interesting observations on the seclusion > thang. My pleasure, always good to hear from you. mike #68852 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:32 am Subject: Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > I'm Yertle the Turtle, > O Marvelous Me, > For I am the King of All-That-I-See. > > (Suess, The Commentaries On Everything) (OMG, my respect/admiration for you has just increased one thousand fold!!) What truth you say...to me...and all...in ways and other ways...in seen and not so seen...thanks. Metta, James #68853 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:02 am Subject: So Sorry.... buddhatrue Hi All, I feel as though I must apologize because I think I have been neglecting the group far too much lately. I am sooo sorry for that!! My Chinese lessons have started and I am trying very hard to learn Chinese. But add to that an over-zealous boyfriend who wants to quiz and question me every spare moment and I really have a FULL DECK! ;-)) Honestly, I am so sorry for this because I think that there are really good and worthwhile conversations happening at DSG lately- especially the recent conversations about rupas, which I have a lot of issues with!! (Maybe you all should be happy I am occupied?? ;-)) Anyway, I will try to sneak away when I can, follow the threads back, and then comment when I can get the bigger picture to understand. That is all this silly fool can do. In summary, I don't want my DSG friends to think I have forgotten them because I have to learn Chinese and I have a new obsessive boyfriend. The Dhamma is always most important to me (and I told HIM that but he doesn't seem to care ;-)) LOL!. Metta, James, the pussy-whipped, token homo, DSG addict ;-)) #68854 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:22 am Subject: Rupas, Introduction, 3. nilovg Dear friends, Rebirth-consciousness is the mental result of kamma, but at that moment kamma also produces rúpas and kamma keeps on producing rúpas throughout life; when it stops producing rúpas our life-span has to end. Kamma produces particular kinds of rúpas such as the senses, as we shall see. Citta also produces rúpas. Our different moods become evident by our facial expressions and then it is clear that citta produces rúpas. Temperature, which is actually the element of heat, also produces rúpas. The unborn being in the womb, for example, needs the right temperature in order to grow. Throughout life the element of heat produces rúpas. Nutrition is another factor that produces rúpas. When food has been taken by a living being it is assimilated into the body and then nutrition can produce rúpas. Some of the groups of rúpas of our body are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by temperature and some by nutrition. The four factors which produce the rúpas of our body support and consolidate each other and keep this shortlived body going. If we see the intricate way in which different factors condition the rúpas of our body we shall be less inclined to think that the body belongs to a self. There are not only rúpas of the body, there are also rúpas which are the material phenomena outside the body. What we take for rocks, plants or houses are rúpas and these originate from temperature. We may wonder whether there are no other factors apart from the element of heat that contribute to the growth of plants, such as soil, light and moisture. It is true that these factors are the right conditions that have to be present so that a plant can grow. But what we call soil, light and moisture are, when we are more precise, different combinations of rúpas, none of which can arise without the element of heat or temperature that produces them. Rúpas outside the body are only produced by temperature, not by kamma, citta or nutrition. Rúpas perform their functions, no matter one dresses oneself, eats, digests one’s food, moves about, gesiticulates, talks to others, in short, during all one’s activities. If we do not study rúpas we may not notice their characteristics appearing all the time in daily life. We shall continue to be deluded by the outward appearance of things instead of knowing realities as they are. We should remember that the rúpa which is the “earth-element” or solidity can appear as hardness or softness. Hardness impinges time and again on the bodysense, no matter what we are doing. When hardness appears it can be known as only a kind of rúpa, be it hardness of the body or hardness of an external object. In the ultimate sense it is only a kind of rúpa. The detailed study of nåma and rúpa will help us to see that there isn’t anything that is “mine” or self. The goal of the study of the Abhidhamma is the development of wisdom leading to the eradication of all defilements. ***** Nina. #68855 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:25 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 8, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, Some texts seem to stress the body, other texts emphasize feeling or other realities. Why is that? This is only to remind us not to be forgetful of the realities which appear. When there is mindfulness of hardness which appears through the bodysense one should study it with awareness in order to know that it is only a kind of rúpa, not "my body". There is also the nåma which experiences the hardness, or the nåma which feels. If one applies oneself to the "Application of Mindfulness of the Body" it does not mean that one should be aware only of rúpa. If one neglects nåma which appears one will continue to cling to an idea of self who experiences objects. One should know that it is only an element which experiences, not self. The first stage of insight is knowing the difference between the characteristic of nåma and the characteristic of rúpa. Thus, both nåma and rúpa which appear should be studied with awareness. It depends on conditions whether there is more often awareness of hardness, of visible object, of feeling, or of any other reality. This is different for different people. However, we should not deliberately limit the object of awareness, we should not set any rule, because that is desire and this hinders right awareness. Eventually all objects appearing through the six doors have to be known. Pothila could not have attained arahatship had he been ignorant of particular objects. Some people have the inclination to develop both samatha and vipassanå. In the development of samatha one subdues attachment to sense objects. However, in order to develop insight there must be understanding of all nåmas and rúpas which appear. At the moment of mindfulness of the objects appearing through the six doors there is "restraint of the senses" (indriya samvara síla). At that moment there are no conditions for akusala on account of what appears through the senses. ******** Nina. #68856 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Hi Howard, there is no citta inside a recorder! Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 16:38 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > My questioning of that statement is > threefold: 1) No dhamma arises from a sole condition, 2) There are > many obvious factors > that were conditions for that sound, and 3) If temperature were the > sole > condition, then the production engineers worked a lot harder than > they really > needed to! ;-) #68857 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Dear Scott, Never? No. I just heard in Thailand that at the third stage of tender insight, samasana ~naa.na, it is possible to know kalapas which are separated by very tiny space. I was wondering how that ever would be possible. There are so many things we do not know now. Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 16:00 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > These kalapas - ruupas together, conditioned as they are, > can be arising and falling away without me ever having to take notice. #68858 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Hi Howard, My answer was a bit short. The sound originates from the heat element solely, because it does not originate from kamma, citta or nutrition. We do not talk about many conventional situations, the technicians, the material used. Also that material consists of rupas which are not of the body, thus, originating from heat. That sound arises in a group of rupas, and these other rupas also condition it. It needs solidity, cohesion, etc. Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 16:38 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > My questioning of that statement is > threefold: 1) No dhamma arises from a sole condition, 2) There are > many obvious factors > that were conditions for that sound, and 3) If temperature were the > sole > condition, then the production engineers worked a lot harder than > they really > needed to! ;-) #68859 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:59 am Subject: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Intricate! N: "Never? No. I just heard in Thailand that at the third stage of tender insight, samasana ~naa.na, it is possible to know kalapas which are separated by very tiny space. I was wondering how that ever would be possible. There are so many things we do not know now. I'd guess these wee things exist even now. Sincerely, Scott. #68860 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] So Sorry.... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 2/25/07 2:04:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > James, the pussy-whipped, token homo, DSG addict ;-)) > ======================= LOLOL! Who was it, Socrates(?), who said "Know thyself"? ;-)) With metta, Howard #68861 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/25/07 2:40:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > there is no citta inside a recorder! > Nina. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Uh, yeah, I would guess not, Nina! ;-) I don't get the point, I'm sorry to say. I took exception to recorded sound having nothing but temperature as condition. I do not understand how this constitutes a reply. (Sorry.) > Op 25-feb-2007, om 16:38 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >My questioning of that statement is > >threefold: 1) No dhamma arises from a sole condition, 2) There are > >many obvious factors > >that were conditions for that sound, and 3) If temperature were the > >sole > >condition, then the production engineers worked a lot harder than > >they really > >needed to! ;-) > #68862 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas, Introduction, 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/25/07 2:22:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Rebirth-consciousness is the mental result of kamma, but at that > moment kamma also produces rúpas and kamma keeps on producing rúpas > throughout life; when it stops producing rúpas our life-span has > to end. ==================== Hmm, that is interesting to me: This sounds like there are private "stocks" of rupas, associated with individual mindstreams, starting with rebirth consciousness until the end of that lifespan. But I thought that you good folks believe in external rupas, independent of conciousness, with the same rupa being observable by more than one "person"? This seems to suggest differently. Could you explain this, Nina? With metta, Howard #68863 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/25/07 3:00:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > My answer was a bit short. > The sound originates from the heat element solely, because it does > not originate from kamma, citta or nutrition. We do not talk about > many conventional situations, the technicians, the material used. > Also that material consists of rupas which are not of the body, thus, > originating from heat. > That sound arises in a group of rupas, and these other rupas also > condition it. It needs solidity, cohesion, etc. > > Nina. > =========================== Nina, you are depending on an ancient, primitive chemistry, and it just makes no sense. Among the conditions for the recorded sound were billions of moments of consciousness on the part of those people who thought up and created recorders, took all the actions leading up to the making of the recording, and so on and so forth, not to mention the rebirth consciousnesses of all the many people involved. There are so many namic and rupic conditions for that recorded sound, it would boggle the greatest minds in the universe. And kamma is chief among the conditions involved - obviously. With metta, Howard #68864 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XVII,136 egberdina Hi All, On 24/02/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII > > 136. [From happy to unhappy destiny.] For example, firstly in the case > of a person in the happy destinies of the sense-sphere who is an > evil-doer, when he is lying on his death-bed, his evil kamma according > as it has been stored up, or its sign, comes into focus in the mind > door. For it is said, 'Then [the evil deeds that he did in the past] ... > cover him [and overspread him and envelop him]' (M.iii,164), and so on. > Then next to the cognitive series of impulsions ending in registration22 > that arose contingent upon that [kamma or its sign], death consciousness > arises making the life-continuum's objective field its object. When it > has ceased, rebirth-linking consciousness arises contingent upon that > same kamma or kamma sign that had come into focus, and it does so > located in the unhappy destiny, being driven there by the force of > defilements that have not been cut off. This is the kind of > rebirth-linking that has a 'past' object and comes next to death > consciousness with a 'past object'. From the video of Saddam's hanging, it would seem this "evil-doer" had no particular demons to face on his brutal death. I think the "science" of rebirth is perpetrated on the ignorant by the reprehensible. Kind Regards Herman #68865 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XVII,136 upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/25/07 4:10:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi All, > > On 24/02/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > >"The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII > > > >136. [From happy to unhappy destiny.] For example, firstly in the case > >of a person in the happy destinies of the sense-sphere who is an > >evil-doer, when he is lying on his death-bed, his evil kamma according > >as it has been stored up, or its sign, comes into focus in the mind > >door. For it is said, 'Then [the evil deeds that he did in the past] ... > >cover him [and overspread him and envelop him]' (M.iii,164), and so on. > >Then next to the cognitive series of impulsions ending in registration22 > >that arose contingent upon that [kamma or its sign], death consciousness > >arises making the life-continuum's objective field its object. When it > >has ceased, rebirth-linking consciousness arises contingent upon that > >same kamma or kamma sign that had come into focus, and it does so > >located in the unhappy destiny, being driven there by the force of > >defilements that have not been cut off. This is the kind of > >rebirth-linking that has a 'past' object and comes next to death > >consciousness with a 'past object'. > > From the video of Saddam's hanging, it would seem this "evil-doer" had > no particular > demons to face on his brutal death. > > I think the "science" of rebirth is perpetrated on the ignorant by the > reprehensible. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > ========================== What Budhaghosa said there notwithstanding, it has been my understanding of the Buddha's teaching that it isn't easily predictable what particular kamma vipaka will come to the fore at the end of one's life. Under the assumption of there possibly being a huge "store" of kamma awaiting fruition, a person who has acted monstrously in a given lifetime might nevertheless go on to a heaven realm or to a pleasant human birth at the end of that life due to auspicious vipaka coming to the fore. From what I've read of the Buddha's indicating the near-impossibility of attempting to figure out the complexities of kamma, there really is no "science of rebirth" at all. With metta, Howard #68866 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:01 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views., only a few mins. dacostacharles Dear Colette, You asked, "What is consciousness?" when I made the following statement: "Without mind ... your eye can not have consciousness." To answer this question, "Consciousness is an aggregate of the mind (not the eye)." However, I realize that this is not what you are looking to read. ... You stated, "... each perception arises and perishes momentarily; their causal continuity can be explained only if a third party exists." This is true if "each perception arises and perishes momentarily;" and you mean "something else" for your term (i.e., "third party"). Charles DaCosta _____ > > 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. <....> #68867 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:34 pm Subject: Re: daana corner ken_aitch Hi all (including busy Phil), Phil wrote to Han: ----------- > . . . I aspire to be a person who is gentle and harmless in body, speech and mind. I'm not concerned about whether I see deeply into the anattaness of things. ----------- I am sure there are many Tipitaka quotes to counter this line of reasoning, but one from the New Testament comes to mind: "The poor will always be with us." The various ways of attachment to being `this or that' kind of person will always be with us. Very, very rarely, we also have an opportunity to learn the way of non-attachment and the way of right understanding. How many people are there on earth now - seven billion? And how many of those seven billion are aware of the "anattaness of things?" In other words, how many of them are aware of the momentary nature of the ultimately real world? Even at DSG there are only a handful of people who "get it." Phil and others say they understand the momentariness perspective, but I feel sure they do not. The momentariness perspective is about the dhammas that are conditioned to arise in the present moment. It is not about "you" or "me." We all say things like, "I aspire to be," but how many of us understand that as mere thinking? There is no "I" that aspires! There is no "I" that knows what is being aspired to and what is not being aspired to. The usual arguments here are, "But there is a *stream of dhammas* that aspires," or, "But there is a reality in which people aspire, even though *underlying that reality* there is also another reality (of paramattha dhammas)." Wrong! Those are ways of talking around the "anattaness of things." Those are ways of making non-attachment and right understanding (of anatta) seem less than paramount. Ken H #68868 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (06) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind comments. Nina: Susan uses volition and that is right if we remember that kamma is actually volition, cetanaa. But when she writes: , it seems that she uses volition in another way, almost as an effort exerted by a self. She does not say this, but people who read this may have a wrong impression. She writes: it contributes towards the pliancy of the mind, but I would rather emphasize understanding of the goal of dana: having less defilements. I know this is a different outlook. Rather than volition I like to pay attention to the citta that gives, to have more understanding of citta. Then we can give with sincerity. There will be pliancy of citta. I quote from Kh Sujin's Perfections: Han: I cannot agree with you more on the importance of citta. I cannot defend for another person, but I think Susan did not mean to use ‘volition’ as an effort exerted by a self. She must know that cetana is a cetasika and cannot arise by itself. It must accompany a citta, and citta is the chief (mano pubbangamaa dhammaa) as mentioned in Dhammapada verses 1 and 2. And one cannot command a particular citta to arise. It will arise only when there are appropriate conditions. In this respect, I would like to quote your own article which we will read later: “The Buddha taught that there is no self that can exert power over the different types of consciousness that arise; they arise because of their appropriate conditions. Through his teachings we can learn about the different types of consciousness and about our accumulated tendencies.” I also like your statement that one should understand the goal of dana, which is having less defilements. We will see what Susan has to say when we read the sub-chapter on The Ultimate Goal of Giving in her article. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > But when she writes: of giving > will assist us>, it seems that she uses volition in > another way, > almost as an effort exerted by a self. #68869 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner antony272b2 Dear Group, I have an important point about dana I'd like to discuss. Ven Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda (1919-2006) wrote: "A distinction can be made between giving as a normal act of generosity and dana. In the normal act of generosity a person gives out of compassion and kindness when he realizes that someone else is in need of help, and he is in the position to offer the help. When a person performs dana, he gives as a means of cultivating charity as a virtue and of reducing his own selfishness and craving. He exercises wisdom when he recalls that dana is a very important quality to be practised by every Buddhist, and is the first perfection (paramita) practised by the Buddha in many of His previous births in search for Enlightenment. A person performs dana in appreciation of the great qualities and virtues of the Triple Gem." http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/168.htm Antony: The "normal" act of generosity described sounds great to me. Selfless. What more could you ask for? Surely it is the best motive for giving, rather than thinking about "dana" as my virtue, my wisdom, my paramita. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dana-giving/message/99 With metta / Antony. #68870 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner antony272b2 Dear Group, On second thought the best motive for giving is Visakha's profound dana wisdom (see Great Disciples of the Buddha pp254-255), where instead of seeking praise and gratitude for giving, she just feels glad when she sees the evidence of her gifts benefiting others which leads to a concentrated mind and development of the factors of enlightenment. I specially got permission from Wisdom Publications to post the Visakha story to my Yahoo Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dana-giving/message/136 with metta / Antony. #68871 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "Why, however, are you mentioning dukkha? I agree that all conditions are dukkha, i.e. are not sources of satisfaction. Why do you raise this?" L: You said reality is nibbana. The Buddha said most of reality is dukkha. Do you think the same reality can be both dukkha and the cessation of dukkha? H: "The jhana of nothingness is a jhana of no-thing-ness, and in it there is yet consciousness. It is not an oblivion. It is a state of consciousness." L: It doesn't matter how you spell it, the logic of jhana is that less is better. It is a graduated path to zero. In other words, nibbana. That is what the Buddha valued. That you or I don't value it is no great surprise. Larry #68872 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:11 pm Subject: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, I was looking into 'sound' after this: N: "Apart from the four conditioning factors, we have to remember that rupas always arise in groups, kalapas. Rupa could not arise singly, it has to arise in a group of the four great Elements and at least four other rupas...Ruupas which are not of the body, rupas outside. This is difficult to swallow for some. These rupas originate solely from temperature, thus, the element of heat. An example: rupas we call plant are conditioned solely by temperature. When I look at a plant after a few days I notice that it has grown. Speech sound is produced by citta, but when we listen to a recorded voice, that sound is conditioned solely by temparature." Scott: Although one can consider the process whereby, say, music was digitally recorded onto compact disc, and although such sounds which left their mark on the disc were real and actual at the time, upon listening to them now - that is, upon hearing 'now' - I can see where it is only temperature that conditions the sound from the cd now. I found the following: Dhammasa"nga.ni: "[621] What is that [material] form which is the sphere of sound? "That sound which is derived from the Four Great Phenomena, is invisible and reacting, such as the sound of drums, of tabors, of chank-shells, of tom-toms, of singing, of music, clashing sounds, manual sounds, the noise of people, the sound of the concussion of substances, of wind, of water, sounds human and other than human, or whatever other sound there is derived from the Great Phenomena, invisible and reacting - such a sound, invisible and reacting, as, by the ear, invisible and reacting, one has heard, hears, will, or may hear... "[622] ...which sound, invisible and reacting has impinged, impinges, will or may impinge on the ear that is invisible and reacting..." Atthasaaliini (p.417): "In the exposition of sound, 'sound of drum' is the sound of big drums. The other three terms denote sounds of tabors, conches, and tom-toms. 'Song-sound' is sound of singing. 'Musical sound' includes all other sounds of stringed instruments, such as the lute, etc. 'Sound of cymbals' is the sound of copper and wooden clappers. 'Manual sound' is the sound of clapping hands. 'Noise of people' is the sound of the incoherent articulations of an assembled multitude. "Sound of concussion of things' is the sound of trees rubbing against each other; of bells and gongs. Wind-sound is that of blowing wind; water-sound is that of water flowing or driven by wind; 'human sound' is that of men talking, etc.; and all such sound except this is 'non-human sound'...all sounds have the characteristic of striking the ear, the function-and-property of being the object of auditory cognition, the manifestation of being the field of auditory cognition." Can you say a bit about 'inarticulate' versus 'articulate' sound? Is the sound arising out of the activity known as 'the making of music' to be considered conditioned by both temperature and consciousness? Sincerely, Scott. #68873 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Nina In a message dated 2/25/2007 1:28:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Hi Howard, > My answer was a bit short. > The sound originates from the heat element solely, because it does > not originate from kamma, citta or nutrition. We do not talk about > many conventional situations, the technicians, the material used. > Also that material consists of rupas which are not of the body, thus, > originating from heat. > That sound arises in a group of rupas, and these other rupas also > condition it. It needs solidity, cohesion, etc. > > Nina. > =========================== Nina, you are depending on an ancient, primitive chemistry, and it just makes no sense. Among the conditions for the recorded sound were billions of moments of consciousness on the part of those people who thought up and created recorders, took all the actions leading up to the making of the recording, and so on and so forth, not to mention the rebirth consciousnesses of all the many people involved. There are so many namic and rupic conditions for that recorded sound, it would boggle the greatest minds in the universe. And kamma is chief among the conditions involved - obviously. With metta, Howard TG: IMO, all the 4 Great Elements are structuring all conditions at all times. To isolate Heat seems silly to me. But, in the case of recorded sound, we might think of "electricity" as the "Heat" that generates the sound. But as Howard shows, uncountable conditions have gone into the support of that recorded sound. Personally I don't use "heat," I use "friction." It works out much better when considering the dynamics of systems. Howard, please read Part II. ;-) LOL TG #68874 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XVII,136 TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/25/2007 2:31:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: From what I've read of the Buddha's indicating the near-impossibility of attempting to figure out the complexities of kamma, there really is no "science of rebirth" at all. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I was counting on a mathematical formulation from you. Now where am I going to look for a hero? I'll let you off the hook though if you come up with a formula to explain all of conditionality except rebirth. I'll even finance the chalk for your blackboard! TG #68875 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: daana corner egberdina Hi KenH, On 26/02/07, ken_aitch wrote: > Hi all (including busy Phil), > > How many people are there on earth now - seven billion? And how many > of those seven billion are aware of the "anattaness of things?" In > other words, how many of them are aware of the momentary nature of > the ultimately real world? What a curious perversion of the meaning of anatta :-). Anatta is well understood by millions and millions of people, mostly those who have attended university, and are not of a creationist or intelligent design bent. Anyone who understands and accepts the theory of evolution understands anatta, the principle of which is that nothing is it's own cause, but everything comes to be in interdependence on factors which are themselves also evolving interdependently On the other hand, the number of people who understand your version of the momentary nature of the ultimately real world is probably not even one :-) Kind Regards Herman #68876 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/25/07 8:05:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "Why, however, are you mentioning dukkha? I agree that all conditions > are dukkha, i.e. are not sources of satisfaction. Why do you raise > this?" > > L: You said reality is nibbana. The Buddha said most of reality is > dukkha. Do you think the same reality can be both dukkha and the > cessation of dukkha? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: As far as I'm concerned, reality is unique, singular, and perfect, and it is nibbana. The realm of apparently separate, impermanent, unsatisfactory and imperfect entities, is reality misperceived and is samsara: the deluded state from which there must be escape. And, BTW, since there is no arising of nibbana - it neither arises nor ceases, it cannot *be* the cessation of dukkha, for that would make nibbana an event. It's realization - awakening, bodhi: THAT is the cessation of dukkha. ----------------------------------------------- > > H: "The jhana of nothingness is a jhana of no-thing-ness, and in it > there is yet consciousness. It is not an oblivion. It is a state of > consciousness." > > L: It doesn't matter how you spell it, the logic of jhana is that less > is better. It is a graduated path to zero. In other words, nibbana. That > is what the Buddha valued. That you or I don't value it is no great > surprise. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I love the jhanas, and I value them enormously. It is simply untrue that the jhana of nothingness is an oblivion. ----------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ======================= With metta, Howard #68877 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Sukin, Thank you for your very extensive reply. If you don't mind, I will address some of what are to me the major points, and snip the others. On 26/02/07, sukinder wrote: > Hi Herman (and Phil *), > > > I believe the tendency to think in terms of 'determinism' and > controlling/free will/choice is there in all of us, having yet to experience > the vipassana nanas. So in fact you may be justified in reading statements > by some of us as inclining to determinism, but then again, that may be > because on the other hand you are coming from the side of control/free will? > Actually both these positions are quite obviously wrong, given just a little > reflection. But they arise with "self-view" and therefore logic and > reasoning is not enough to be done away with them. Self-view, like anything else, is conditioned. So is the view that self-view should be eradicated. All conditioned phenomena are conditioned. But what does this mean? To one who has evolved a deterministic outlook like you, conditionality implies that all events are caused, and that technically it would be possible to come to know these causes. To one who has evolved a freewill perspective like me, conditionality does not imply that all events are caused, it implies that caused events are caused, but there are also uncaused, spontaneous events. Needless to say, this means that it is not possible to be certain about the past, present or future. > > So what do I mean when I say, "There is no control .."? > You have here proceeded to give me your theory of mental causation, which I thank you for. The main feature as I see it is that it is a deterministic theory, all events are explainable. Not only that, all events should be seen in the light of an overriding view or purpose, which you call understanding. But surely this theory of yours, and the overriding purpose in having it, is also conditioned? And in it's absence, it cannot be made to appear, can it? > > Without this kind of understanding, the resultant is ignorance and desire > which then either accepts or rejects the proposition. One may believe in the > thought and follows it or there can be sati and panna arising which > 'understands'. The former leads to the 'wrong path' being taken, whereas the > latter would be an instance of the 'right path', and both these accumulate, > increasing the possibility that such moments will arise again in the future. > > > This is why it is *never* about 'doing' anything no matter how 'noble', but > about understanding. The knowledge about conditionality must be applied to > this very moment of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. If not, then it > shall remain only 'theory' used only when convenient. Surely, whether knowledge of conditionality is applied or not, is itself conditioned? > In other words, it > becomes the object of ignorance, craving and wrong view, a manifestation of > 'Mara' peculiar to Buddhists. :-) > > But then I have read you elsewhere as saying that a moment of "mindfulness" > is 'being in control' implying that being "unmindful" is 'out of control'. I > take it that you refer to mindfulness of conventional reality and any > intentions, attachments, feelings etc. that arises in the process..? > > For me the critical thing that defines a moment of mindfulness is the realisation that whatever is happening or not happening, does not have to be / is not causally determined. A mindful moment is a free moment, in which current action can be halted, or new action initiated. Needless to say, it is not an agent, a self, that suspends or initiates action, but whatever path is taken, the taking of that path is not causally determined. It is free. > > So what most Buddhists consider mindfulness is in fact only 'thinking'. The > concepts being taken as real, gives rise to the illusion of control, hence > the justification in 'doing'/'meditating'. > > > The illusion of result comes from comparing what one considers to be > 'unmindful' with what is now labeled 'mindful'. However, > proliferation/papanca is not so much that thoughts being one moment this and > the next that, but is a reference to citta rooted in tanha, mana or ditthi. > > There is no option to become mindful when unmindful, but when mindfulness arises, one of the more frequent responses is unmindfulness, even though a continuation of mindfulness is in that state a possibility. Mindfulness clearly is not an especially desirable state. > > The very desire to observe/note/guard the sense being tanha, is papanca. The > sense of 'self' observing, is mana. The belief that there are 'objects' > which a 'I' can give attention to, is ditthi papanca. Being driven by avijja > and tanha to act through speech and body, of which there is no so called > mindfulness may not be as bad as being driven by ignorance, craving and > self-view to "sit still" (cross legged or otherwise) and observe. What kind > of sanna is at work when one is conscious of sitting still? > When one is mindful of sitting still, or doing anything else for that matter, there is the option of then doing or not doing whatever comes to mind. When one is not mindful of sitting still, or anything else, whatever happens happens. > > Observing the breath or scanning the body, is accumulating atta sanna and an > encouragement of tanha, mana and ditthi. The first two is not such a big > problem and they can and must be 'known'. Ditthi however, makes it > impossible that such an observation will take place, i.e. knowing these and > other dhammas as they are, conditioned and anatta. > > > > This is why it is so important to listen, consider and straighten one's > views at the intellectual level. Because if the understanding is wrong, then > wrong practice invariably follows. > Listen to what, might I ask? Surely whatever is listened to is conditioned? Surely, there can be no selecting of what or whom one listens to? > So no free will/control, does this then mean that discussing, reading, > responding or not makes no difference? Obviously every moment is different > and difference is made all the time, but not in any particular way that you > and I could predict/would like it to be. No 'waiting for conditions' but no > 'chasing after illusion' either. > > I suppose we can continue from here? > Sure. I'd like to ask you the following. Notions of wrong understanding and right understanding are conditioned. And they are evaluated in terms of goals that are also conceived through conditions. But what do you imagine to be the consequences of right understanding should this happen to evolve? Kind Regards Herman #68878 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/25/07 9:22:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Howard, please read Part II. ;-) LOL > ==================== Will do! :-) With metta, Howard #68879 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Could I ask you for clarification? .... Anytime! Pls allow me to continue with the numbered format. .... > > S: Exactly so! Understanding of dhammas such as seeing and hearing > leads > > to less thought and concern for oneself, not more. When there's less > > concern for oneself, there is more kindness to others. As Ken H said, > an > > appreciation of anatta leads to more compassion, not less. > > ... > > You say here that seeing and hearing are dhammas. Perhaps I am only > being nitpicky, which I am happy for you to tell me if you think it is > the case, but isn't it seeing this visible object, or hearing that > audible object that is a dhamma. .... S: 1. Without a visible object to be seen, seeing cannot arise. The same, of course, applies to hearing. No sound impacting on the ear-sense means no hearing. 2. So yes, seeing always sees visible object, but they have distinct characteristics. Seeing is a dhamma, a nama. Visible object is another dhamma, a rupa. 3. When awareness arises, it can only ever be aware of one object, i.e one characteristic, at a time. 4. So, in the sense-door process in which seeing saw visible object, awareness can arise (with the javana cittas) and be aware of that same visible object. 5. Or, in the immediately following mind-door process, awareness can arise (again with the javana cittas) and be aware of either the visible object (just fallen away) or the seeing (also just fallen away). Similarly, it can be aware (and understanding can understand) sound or hearing or any other dhamma *appearing*. .... >There is never just hearing, or just > seeing, no hearing in general, or seeing in general, it is always > seeing or hearing something specific. .... S: 1. Yes! It is always seeing of a particular visible object or hearing of a particular sound. 2. In the same way, it is never just being aware or understanding in general, but being aware or understanding a specific characteristic. 3. So all cittas experience an object. When the cittas accompanied by awareness and understanding (and other sobhana cetasikas) arise, they experience a dhamma. Such a dhamma may be seeing, hearing or any other presently appearing dhamma. ***** Pls ask for further clarifications. If it's nitpicky, it's important nitpicky! Just like in computer programming, I'm sure -- if one line is missing, the rest becomes meaningless. Metta, Sarah ========== #68881 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Antony, Thank you very much for your kind interest in our Daana Corner and your valuable contributions. It was also so kind of you to post the references: ‘Real Charity’ from ‘What Buddhists Believe’ by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera, and Visakha’s profound dana wisdom. The Perfections such as Daana Paarami, Siila Paarami, practiced by Bodhisattas in their quest for enlightenment, are very interesting to note. In this respect, I would also like to post two references for your perusal. I am sure you will find them interesting. The Perfections Leading To Enlightenment, by Nina van Gorkom http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm The Ten Perfections: A Study Guide prepared by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/perfections.html With metta and respect, Han --- Antony Woods wrote: > Dear Group, > > On second thought the best motive for giving is > Visakha's profound > dana wisdom (see Great Disciples of the Buddha > pp254-255) #68882 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:18 pm Subject: Happy Magha Puja Day! christine_fo... Hello all, Happy Magha Puja Day! :-) Here is an article which may be of interest. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dhamma for Everyone October 5, 1960 by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo(Phra Suddhidhammaransi Gambhiramedhacariya) Translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Now I'm going to remind you of some of the Buddha's teachings as a way of encouraging you to be intent on practicing correctly in line with the Buddha's instructions. These teachings are called Dhamma. The Dhamma is an ornament for the mind. It's also a means for developing the faculties of the mind. The teachings I'm about to discuss come in the Ovada-Patimokkha, the Patimokkha Exhortation. This is a talk that deals with the duties of those who have ordained in line with the Buddha's instructions, but these practices also apply to lay people as well. Lay people can take these practices and train themselves to be good people, so that they can be eyes and ears, legs, feet, and hands, to help look after the work of the religion and to help it prosper. These guidelines, which apply to all of us, fall under six headings: anupavado not disparaging anupaghato not injuring patimokkhe ca samvaro restraint in line with the Patimokkha mattaññuta ca bhattasmim moderation in food pantañca sayanasanam dwelling in seclusion adhicitte ca ayogo: etam buddhana-sasanam. commitment to the heightened mind: this is the Buddhas' instruction. The first guideline: anupavado. Don't go finding fault with one another. In other words, don't say evil things about one another, don't misrepresent one another, don't say anything that will cause people to fall apart from one another. Don't start false reports about one another, and don't encourage them. Don't curse or yell at one another. Instead of finding fault with one another, each of us should look at his or her own faults. This is what's meant by anupavado. You can use this principle anywhere, whether you're ordained or not. Anupaghato: Don't allow yourself to hate one another. It's only normal that when people live together, their behavior isn't going to be on an equal level. Some people have good manners, some people have coarse manners — not evil, mind you, just that their manners are coarse. Physically, some people are energetic, industrious, and strong; others are weak and sickly. Verbally, some people are skilled at speaking, others are not. Some people talk a lot, some people hardly talk at all; some people like to talk about worldly things, some people like to talk about the Dhamma; some people speak wrong, some people speak right. This is called inequality. When this is the case, there are bound to be conflicts and clashes, at least to some extent. When these things arise among us while we live together within the boundaries of the same Dhamma, we shouldn't hold grudges. We should forgive one another and wash away that stain from our hearts. Why? Because otherwise it turns into animosity and enmity. The act of forgiving is called the gift of forgiveness. It turns you into the sort of person who doesn't hold onto things, doesn't carry things around, doesn't get caught up on things — the sort of person who doesn't bear grudges. Even when there are missteps or mistakes from time to time, we should forgive one another. We should have a sense of love, affection, and kindness for everyone around us, as much as we can. This is called anupaghato. It's a part of our training as Buddhists, both for householders and for contemplatives. Patimokkhe ca samvaro: Act in a way that keeps you near the entrance to nibbana. What's the entrance to nibbana? The Patimokkha. Mukha means mouth or entrance. Mokkha means liberation. Sit close to your food so that your mouth is near liberation. Don't sit far away, or you'll have trouble eating. Sit close enough so that liberation is within reach and you can stick it right in your mouth. In other words, whatever behavior is near the ways of the religion, that's the behavior you should follow. To be near the religion means following the holy life. Lay people have their holy life, too, you know, just as monks have theirs. Lay people follow the holy life in two ways. The first is observing the first five of the eight precepts: no killing; no stealing; no sex — this is what makes it the holy life; no telling lies; and no intoxicants. This is one form of holy life, near the entrance to nibbana. The second way for lay people to follow the holy life is by observing all eight precepts. As for novices and monks, they should maintain restraint in line with the ten or 227 precepts. At the same time, they shouldn't omit any of the good types of behavior that they should follow. This is called acara-gocara-sampanno. Don't go wandering around in areas that are out of bounds and can harm you. In other words, don't let your body go there, don't let your speech dwell on those places, and don't let your mind go there, either. Don't associate with immoral people who are coarse in their habits. Don't ask advice from unvirtuous people. Don't let your mind get entangled with them. Try to keep in mind people who are good, together with the goodness that you yourself are trying to develop. This is called the holy life. Whoever behaves in this way is said to be restrained in line with the Patimokkha, right next to nibbana. Mattaññuta ca bhattasmim: Have a sense of moderation in the food you eat. Here I'll talk about physical food. People eat in three ways, and the first is eating greedily. Even though the stomach is full, the mind isn't full. The mouth is full, you can't swallow what you've got, the stomach is full, and yet the mind still wants to eat more. This is called eating greedily. Don't let this greed take charge of the heart. The second type is eating contentedly. You're content with what you have in your alms bowl, and don't eat anything outside your bowl. Or you're content with the food within reach. You don't ask for anything out of reach. You don't give any sign with your hand, your eyes, or your expression that you'd like more to eat. You eat only what's on your plate, what's in your bowl. This is called eating contentedly. The third type is eating modestly. This type of eating is very good, both in terms of the world and of the Dhamma. Take Ven. Sivali as an example. He ate modestly. How did he eat modestly? All that most of us know about Ven. Sivali is that he was wealthy in terms of the donations he received. But where did that wealth come from? It comes from eating modestly. Eating modestly is the source that gives rise to wealth. What Ven. Sivali did was this: whenever he received cloth, if he didn't then give a gift of cloth, he wouldn't wear what he had received. When he received food in his bowl, he wouldn't eat until he had given some of it as a gift to someone else. No matter which of the four requisites he received — food, clothing, shelter, or medicine, no matter how much or how little — once it was in his possession, he wouldn't use it until he had shared some of it with those around him. When he received a lot, he would make a large gift to benefit many people. When he received just a little, he'd still try to benefit others. This gave rise to all sorts of good things. His friends loved him, his community loved him, and they were kind to him. This is why being generous is said to tie the knot of friendship and to wipe out your enemies. So that's what Ven. Sivali did. When he passed away from that lifetime and was reborn in his last lifetime, he gained all kinds of wealth and never had to go hungry. Even when he went to live in places where food should have been scarce, he never suffered from scarcity, never had to do without... What this means for us is that, whatever we get, we eat only a third and give the other two thirds away. The parts appropriate for animals, we give to animals. The parts appropriate for human beings, we give to human beings. The parts we should share with our fellows in the holy life, we give with a clear heart. This is what it means to be modest in our consumption. We feel ease of heart and ease of body. When we die, we won't be poor. This principle is something very good not only in terms of the religion, but also in terms of the modern world at large. It's a great means for subduing terrorism. How does it subdue terrorism? When people aren't poor, they don't get stirred up. Where does terrorism come from? It comes from people having nowhere to live, nothing to eat, no one to look after them. When they're poor and starving like this, they think, "As long as I'm suffering, let's have everyone else suffer all the same. Don't let there be any private property. Let everything be owned in common." This kind of thinking comes from poverty and deprivation. And why is there poverty? Because some people eat all alone. They don't share with people at large. Then when people at large suffer and feel revenge, they turn into communists and terrorists. So terrorism comes from greed and selfishness, from not sharing what we've got. If we get ten baht, we can give away nine and eat what we can get for the one baht remaining. That way we'll have lots of friends. There will be love and affection, peace and prosperity. How can that come about? When people have places to live and food to eat, when they can eat their fill and can sleep when they lie down, why would they want to bother their heads with the confusion of politics? This is why the Buddha taught us that modesty in our consumption is something good, something noble and outstanding. When we practice in this way, we're in line with the phrase, mattaññuta ca bhattasmim. We'll be practicing right, practicing properly, for the benefit of ourselves and others. Pantañca sayanasanam: Don't be a busy-body. Wherever you live, try to be quiet and at peace. Don't get entangled or "play the gongs" with the other members of the group. Don't get involved in issues unless it really can't be helped. When you've studied and understand your duties, look for quiet, solitary places to live and to meditate. When you live with others, look for quiet groups to live with. When you live alone, in physical seclusion, be a quiet person. Even when you live with the group, be a secluded person. Take only the good, peaceful things the group has to offer. When you live alone, don't get involved in a lot of activity. Be quiet in your actions, quiet in your speech, quiet in your mind. When you live in a group — either two or three people — don't get involved in quarrels, for when there's quarreling there's no peace. Your actions aren't peaceful, for you have to get up and storm around. Your words aren't peaceful. Your mind — with its thoughts of anger, revenge, and ill will — isn't peaceful. And this gives rise to all sorts of bad karma. When you live in a community — anywhere from four on up to 99 — you have to make sure that the community is at peace, that there's no conflict, no quarreling, no hurting one another's feelings or doing one another harm. The community should be a cooperative for training peacefully in virtue and the Dhamma. That's when it's a good community, orderly and civilized, fostering progress for all its members. This is one of our duties as part of the Buddha's following, in line with the Buddha's instructions. It's called patañca sayanasanam: creating a quiet place to live, at your ease in both body and mind. Adhicitte ca ayogo: Don't be complacent. Be diligent in practicing concentration to the level of adhicitta, or the heightened mind. Practice concentration frequently, sit in concentration frequently as an example to the rest of the community. When you talk, seek advice in how to develop your meditation theme. Discuss the rewards of concentration. Practice ridding the heart of its hindrances. When you do this, you're acting in line with the principle of heightened mind. Another level of heightened mind is when the mind has been freed from its hindrances and has entered concentration, without any ups or downs. It's solid, stalwart, and strong, with nothing defiling it. This is called adhicitte ca ayogo, commitment to the heightened mind. So don't be complacent. Keep working at this always. Etam buddhanasasanam: When you do this, you're acting in line with the Buddhas' instructions. These are the Buddha's words, straight from his mouth. So we should all work at giving rise to these principles within ourselves. If you establish yourself in these teachings, in all honesty and integrity, then even if you can't liberate your mind totally from suffering, at the very least you'll be developing yourself in the right direction. Your bad habits will disappear day by day, and the good habits you've never had before will arise in their place. As for the good habits you already have, they'll prosper and flourish. So now that you've listened to this, take it and put it into practice. Train yourself to behave in line with the Buddha's exhortation. When you do that, you'll meet with happiness and prosperity as you flourish in line with his instructions. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/everyone.html #68883 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Acceptance speech sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your clarification. ... S: Thanks for your request for further precision and kind regards! .... > > 8. When we say that there can be sati (of satipatthana) at any time, > it > > means that even whilst conceiving a woman, conceiving rules, seeing, > > hearing and so on, there are realities which can instantly be the > object > > of awareness, slipping in immediately and taking the conceiving, > seeing, > > hearing or other reality as object - i.e any nama or rupa. .... H:> If I can just paraphrase that, and ask you a question about that. > When seeing a woman, there is seeing a woman. .... S: 1. When we think we are 'seeing a woman', actually there are many processes of cittas involved. 2. In fact, seeing only ever sees visible object. That's all! 3. Because sanna (perception/memory) recalls that such and such a visible object + sound + movement etc is called 'woman', we have an idea os 'seeing a woman'. In fact, this is thinking, not seeing, of a woman. .... >When reflecting on > (seeing a woman), there is reflecting on (seeing a woman). .... S: True! ... >In the > first instance, the woman is the object, in the second, seeing her is > the object. .... S: 1. In your example (which are not a correct paraphrase of what I said), in the first instance, visible object is what is seen. 2. In the second example, concept is the object. .... >Just to make sure I understand you correctly, could you > tell me which instance is sati by your reckoning? .... S: 1. As I said before, sati arises with all sobhana cittas. 2. If we are talking about sati (of satipatthana or vipassana development), then the object must be a nama or a rupa. 3. This means that visible object can be the object of such sati, but the concept/ idea of woman cannot be. To look at what I said again in the point you picked up: > >S: 8. When we say that there can be sati (of satipatthana) at any time, > it > > means that even whilst conceiving a woman, conceiving rules, seeing, > > hearing and so on, there are realities which can instantly be the > object > > of awareness, slipping in immediately and taking the conceiving, > seeing, > > hearing or other reality as object - i.e any nama or rupa. ... S: To clarify: 1.The objects of sati here (in the development of satipatthana) can be any dhammas, any namas or rupas. 2. Concepts of woman, rules and other ideas cannot be objects of satipatthana. 3. When involved in any conventional *situation* at all, even conceiving of a woman or rules, there are many realities or dhammas appearing in between the concepts. Any of these can be the object of awareness. 4. The same is true even for an arahant without kilesa. When we (or the suttas) refer to mindfulness all day or continuously, it doesn't literally mean with every citta. At moments of actual seeing, actual hearing or whenever concept is an object, for example, there cannot be satipatthana arising. ***** Bottom line - the more we appreciate what paramattha dhammas are, the less confusion there is when (as a necessity) the texts, including the Abhidhamma, flit between conventional and ultimate language. Pls ask for any further clarifications. Metta, Sarah ======= #68884 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "As far as I'm concerned," L: Already a mistake! H: "reality is unique, singular, and perfect, and it is nibbana. The realm of apparently separate, impermanent, unsatisfactory and imperfect entities, is reality misperceived and is samsara: the deluded state from which there must be escape. And, BTW, since there is no arising of nibbana - it neither arises nor ceases, it cannot *be* the cessation of dukkha, for that would make nibbana an event. It's realization - awakening, bodhi: THAT is the cessation of dukkha." L: So reality is awakening but not awakening to anything? Awareness without any real characteristic, content, or object? Sounds like zero to me. Or is nibbana just right view? That seems like a reasonable and practical approach. But it ignores part of the Buddha's teaching. In particular the logic of jhana: less experience is better. If less is better none must be best. Larry #68885 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A final venting from phil, probably. sarahprocter... Hi Mike (Jiw & Phil), I'd like to start with an apology: when I last wrote to you and others(#68778), I hadn't read your further elaborations and nice post to Phil(#68699). (Nice setting, btw!) Thx for your further response (#68789). --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Sarah, Robert and Phil, >>S:It's fine if one likes to do so and > doesn't > > have an illusion about such seclusion in itself being better for the > > development of satipatthana. > > Well, of course that IS why I went to Thailand and Burma--at the time I > thought the proper approach was to ordain, get the bhikkhu's rules down > pat > and cultivate jhaana as a base for (or in tandem with) insight. Of > course > now I don't see it that way. .... S: Yes, I know you appreciate how most of what we take for being samma-samadhi is actually miccha.... and it's very important to understand the difference. ... > > S: Exactly so. I would just say the same kind of dhammas - seeing, > visible > > object, attachment, thinking.....still just 6 doorways! > > Yes, I think that's a better way of putting it. When i wrote 'same' I > meant > the same elements, factors and so on and by 'different' I just meant > that > each occurence is new and unique. .... S: Quite so, regardless of whether we're playing cribbage by the esturary on in a temple setting as you've explained. ***** Btw, just to butt in briefly on your good discussion with Jiw: Atta sa~n~na is not the same as atta di.t.thi, simply because it refers to sa~n~na, not to di.t.thi. Different cetasikas with different functions. As you all know well, sa~n~na marks and remembers, so in this case it's marking and remembering what is experienced as 'atta'. Jiw had mentioned that on a trip there'd been a lot of worry about past and future akusala kamma and that A.Sujin had mentioned it was 'caused from attasa~n~na, the memory of me-mine over and over.' In other words, because of remembrance, sa~n~na of atta (accompanying the di.t.thi), there's dwelling on and on about the story of *me* and *my kilesa* - wanting *me* and *my kilesa* to be another way and taking them for *mine*. That's why the 'microscope' approach is simply more of the 'all about me' to use your expression Phil liked from a tape. It's all about *me* that is so important, rather than conditioned dhammas to be known with detachment, regardless of what they are. I know Phil doesn't agree, but I think we can all appreciate it is the detachment, rather than the attachment, which leads to less kilesa. I'll also look forward to any further comments Jiw hears from the Pali scholars she's in touch with. Metta, Sarah ======== #68886 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: daana corner ken_aitch Hi Herman, Thanks for your reply – I'm glad I stirred someone up! ---------- KH: > > are aware of the "anattaness of things?" In > other words, how many of them are aware of the momentary nature of > the ultimately real world? H: > What a curious perversion of the meaning of anatta :-). ---------- That "perversion" is called insight. :-) In other words, it is called right understanding of the meaning of anatta. The momentary nature of the world is known at all levels of mundane insight (the meaning of anicca, dukkha and anicca, of rise-and-fall, of nama and rupa – you name it, insight knows it as momentary). ---------------- H: > Anatta is well understood by millions and millions of people, mostly those who have attended university, and are not of a creationist or intelligent design bent. Anyone who understands and accepts the theory of evolution understands anatta, the principle of which is that nothing is it's own cause, but everything comes to be in interdependence on factors which are themselves also evolving interdependently ---------------- What are these `things' that are widely known to be `not their own causes?' Are they houses, people, subatomic particles, or something else? --------------------- H: > On the other hand, the number of people who understand your version of the momentary nature of the ultimately real world is probably not even one :-) ---------------------- Very funny! :-) But in what way does my version differ from the version found in the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries? Ken H #68887 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Some more replies to this post. ... S: ...and I'm still getting up-to-date with them:-). ... H:> The elements of Buddhism are always elements of consciousness, are > they not? .... S: The elements of Buddhism can be cittas, cetasikas, rupa or nibbana. .... H: >All elements are/have a known quality. ... S: Yes.....certainly all known by the Buddha. ... H:>It is this knowing > which is the point of view. All consciousness is consciousness of an > object, and therefore all consciousness is a point of view. .... S: The way I understand pov is that it is conceptual - an idea about something. ... >An unknown > element would be like an unknown known. Which doesn't make sense to me > :-) .... S: That's why the path is about the understanding of the 'All' which can be directly known now - i.e what is appearing now and can be the object of understanding. Unknown rupas on the moon may be of interest but talking about them won't help us develop any wisdom. .... > > S: Seeing consciousness now is not a pov - it's real. So is thinking > > consciousness or touching consciousness. > > I'll have to wait for your reply to my first part of this post, or > maybe it was another post. I asked something about seeing / hearing > without mention of the object. Seeing - full stop, is not real. Seeing > an object is real. .... S: I've replied to this now. ... > > If there were only pov's without any realities, there'd be no seeing, > no > > hearing, no tasting, no touching - a big mess and a very hungry big > mess > > too! > > If there were seeing, hearing, feeling in general, without > corresponding objects, then we could all just keep on living our merry > delusion, which is thinking that we are seeing, hearing, feeling in > general. ... S: Yes, no suggestion of this. ... > > p.s We had a friend in Thailand who kept talking about 'pov's' - where > has > > this idea come from? > > You may have heard of Albert Einstein, and his theories on relativity. > Blame him! .... S: I'm not sure why it is suddenly popping up everywhere in dhamma discussions though? Metta, Sarah ======= #68888 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Mystery of Consciousness sarahprocter... Hi Herman, Last one for now... --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Rupas seem to take on a life of their own, depending on who is talking > about them :-) > > From MN28 > > "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." > > Clearly, forms do not depend on consciousness. So, rupas that are > known is one kind of rupa, and rupa that are not known, is another > kind of rupa. .... S: The rupas are just as they are regardless. Sound is sound, hardness is hardness. The only difference is whether or not they are experienced and how they are experienced. .... > > > As for 'disembodied consciousness' having no place - isn't > consciousness > > always 'disembodied'? There's never any rupa or body of any kind in > it? If > > you're referring to consciousness arising without any rupas - well, we > can > > find examples of this in the arupa brahma realm, surely? > > Sure, consciousness is disembodied in that sense. But is there > consciousness without bodies? ... S: Not in the sense-realm, but in the arupa brahma realm as I mentioned. ... >Is there seeing without eyes? Hearing > without ears? ... S: Never ... >And to link it back to the article that Christine > linked, is there consciousness without a brain? ... S: Let's just say that in the kamavacara bhumi (sense-realm), there are no cittas without rupas as base/support. ... > > Can you give me directions to the arupa brahma realm, so we can find > some examples? ... S: Do you have CMA, I forget? Ch1, Guide to #22-24 Also, ch3, #21: "The immaterial-sphere resultants ae independent of the heart-base." (There may be other better references, this is just a quick look.) ... >As to arupa jhanas, do you imagine these occur without > bodies? ... S: Not quite. In the kamavacara bhumi, such as the human realm, arupa jhanas depend on the heart-base and cannot arise without this. From the commentary to A.S.: "...consciousness that occurs in sense-sphere existence is [considered as] belonging to sense-sphere activity (kaamaavacara.m)" and therefore needs support. .... > > > The sutta is MN43, and particularly relevant is the following > section: > > > > > > > > > "When this body lacks how many qualities does it lie discarded & > > > forsaken, like a senseless log?" > > > > > > "When this body lacks these three qualities — vitality, heat, & > > > consciousness — it lies discarded & forsaken like a senseless log." > > ... > > S: Yes, when there is no longer vitality (jivitindriya), temperature > > (tejo) and consciousness (cittas) arising -- what we have are just > rupas, > > 'like a senseless log' by way of the body. The cittas of course have > > meanwhile continued their 'run' in whatever new life kamma has > > conditioned. > > You make some assumptions. Why have cittas "of course" continued? .... S: I just checked the text. It refers in the next line to comparing 'one who is dead' (like this) to one 'who has entered upon cessation of perception and feeling.' Of course, in the case of an arahant, no more cittas, but I understood it here to be referring to common death. I see BB's note suggests the same: 'That is, dead'. ... > > From MN43 again. > > "In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, > ***his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal > fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his > vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are > scattered***. .... S: Yes, for that life. Again, BB's note: "That is, dead. The departure of consciousness from the body is not sufficient to constitute death; vitality and the vital heat must also perish." ... >But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation > of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & > subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have > ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not > subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the > difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a > monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling." .... S: This is referring to nirodha samapatti, only obtainable by anagamis and arahants with full mastery of all jhanas. Metta, Sarah ======= #68889 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner egberdina Hi Han, On 25/02/07, han tun wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Herman: What is better about an offering to a stupid, > worthless monk, than to a stupid worthless man in the > gutter? > > Han: If one offers to a stupid, worthless monk a > 'sanghika daana' it will be better than to a stupid, > worthless man in the gutter. > The question then becomes "Who is a member of the sangha?". If wearing an ochre robe and having head shaved makes one a monk, then being a monk is no different to being a member of a club or streetgang. In the Brahmajala Sutta, which you will know far better than I, there is this. "If others disparage me, the Dhamma or the Sangha, then you must explain what is incorrect as being incorrect", saying: 'That is incorrect, that is false, that is not our way,[that is not in us] that is not found among us.' This is then followed by very extensive lists of what is not to be found "in us", the things that the Buddha or his followers would not do. It seems to me that making an offering to someone with shaved head and wearing a robe is not necessarily 'sanghika daana'. > I am sorry I cannot take my sword out as it got stuck > in the scabbard :-) > I breathe a sigh of relief :-) Kind Regards Herman #68890 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: daana corner egberdina Hi KenH On 26/02/07, ken_aitch wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Thanks for your reply – I'm glad I stirred someone up! > You got me so worked up, I'm still not sure whether I've stopped beating my wife :-) > ---------- > KH: > > are aware of the "anattaness of things?" In > > other words, how many of them are aware of the momentary nature of > > the ultimately real world? > > H: > What a curious perversion of the meaning of anatta :-). > ---------- > > That "perversion" is called insight. :-) In other words, it is called > right understanding of the meaning of anatta. The momentary nature of > the world is known at all levels of mundane insight (the meaning of > anicca, dukkha and anicca, of rise-and-fall, of nama and rupa – you > name it, insight knows it as momentary). What do you imagine to be the consequences of this "insight"? > > ---------------- > H: > Anatta is > well understood by millions and millions of people, mostly those who > have attended university, and are not of a creationist or intelligent > design bent. Anyone who understands and accepts the theory of > evolution understands anatta, the principle of which is that nothing > is it's own cause, but everything comes to be in interdependence on > factors which are themselves also evolving interdependently > ---------------- > > What are these `things' that are widely known to be `not their own > causes?' Are they houses, people, subatomic particles, or something > else? It is well known to all regular university trained, non-creationist, non-intelligent-design type dudes who understand and accept evolution theory, that any 'thing" is not it's own cause. That includes any of the "things" you named above, or care to name at any time or place. > > --------------------- > H: > On the other hand, the number of people who understand your > version of the momentary nature of the ultimately real world is > probably not even one :-) > ---------------------- > > Very funny! :-) But in what way does my version differ from the > version found in the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries? > The Tipitaka and the canonical commentaries are books. You are not. You are intentional. Books are not. There is nothing in a book, meaningwise, that you do not put there yourself. It is no surprise to me that your version does not differ from your version :-) Kind Regards Herman #68891 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Hi Howard (and TG), thank you for your feedback. It makes me consider more. Of course many other conditioning factors have to be taken into account. But the four factors are the direct originators. Expositor, Derived `Rupas, p. 443, states: <...the word origin has different implications. In the Table of Contents (Matika) we have matter (1) born of kamma, (2) caused by kamma, (3) originating in the caloric order caused by kamma, (4) originating in nutriment, (5) caused by nutriment, ...> etc. etc. It is a long list. This shows the intricacy of this subject. Let us return to Vis. Ch XIV (the khandhas), and Tiika: 75-79, Tiika 79 : “Born from one”, means: only born from one cause. Is it not so that there is no arising of what is conditioned by only one cause? True, this does not exist, but here born of one means born by (one of) the conditions that generate materiality. ---------- N: Note: not only one cause but here we deal with the factors that directly generate rupa, four factors. ----------- my Tiika study: N: It means materiality originated solely by kamma or by any one of the other three factors. The way different conditions operate is very intricate. For instance, kamma produces at the time of birth three decads of rupas, and heat is among these. This heat, when the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, produces in its turn other rupas. However, when it is said, born solely from kamma, other conditions are not taken into account. Text: He does not consider (here) another condition for the arising of materiality apart from the condition that generates materiality. N: Thus, only kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition that originates materiality is taken into account here. As to born of two etc. this is according to the same method. As to the expression, because of these (it is of five kinds), this means, according to the classification of these. As to the expression kamma-born only, this means born solely from kamma. As to the expression consciousness-born only has here the same meaning. As to the expression born from consciousness and from temperature, this should be understood as sometimes born from consciousness and sometimes born from temperature. N: Sound that originates from temperature is, for example, the sound of wind or of a waterfall. Sound that originates from consciousness is speech sound. We read in the “Manual of Abhidhamma” (Abhidhammattha Sangaha), in the notes of Ven Narada: ------------ As you say, Howard, many factors are involved. The Abhidhamma with these four factors reduces the causes to the bare essentials. Primitive chemistry? No, we have to consider the purpose: the development of insight leading to detachment from nama and rupa. Thus, not a scientifique, complete treatise. This will not lead to detachment. No matter how many conditioning factors there are in our life, how many actions leading up to making this or that material thing, when a rupa apppears now, what produces it at this very moment? That is what matters. One of the four factors mentioned above operates at this very moment. We have to relate all these texts to this very moment: just now kamma produces such or such rupas, just now, citta, nutrition, heat produces such or such rupas. It helps us to see that whatever rupa appears now is conditioned, it is originated by one of these factors. It is really essential to pay attention to this moment now, it is the only way to develop insight which does not think but experiences directly nama and rupa. Insight can realize without thinking that rupas are conditioned realities. For insight, all these situations, conventional ideas or science are not necessary, insight is different from thinking. Therefore the manyfold phenomena are reduced to just nama and rupa. The difference between their characteristics has to be realized. This is an approach different from what you are used to, I understand that. Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 21:21 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina, you are depending on an ancient, primitive chemistry, and it > just makes no sense. Among the conditions for the recorded sound > were billions of > moments of consciousness on the part of those people who thought up > and > created recorders, took all the actions leading up to the making of > the recording, > and so on and so forth, not to mention the rebirth consciousnesses > of all the > many people involved. There are so many namic and rupic conditions > for that > recorded sound, it would boggle the greatest minds in the universe. > And kamma is > chief among the conditions involved - obviously. #68892 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 136 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 136. Intro: In this section the Visuddhimagga deals with someone who is in a happy plane of existence and will be reborn in an unhappy plane. Akusala kamma performed in the past has fallen away, but it can produce a result later on. It conditions the last javanacittas in a lifespan. When kamma will produce an unhappy rebirth, these last javanacittas are akusala cittas and when kamma will produce a happy rebirth these last javanacittas are kusala cittas. Nobody can control these javanacittas, they are dependent on conditions. ----------- Text Vis.136: [From happy to unhappy destiny.] For example, firstly in the case of a person in the happy destinies of the sense-sphere who is an evil-doer, when he is lying on his death-bed, his evil kamma according as it has been stored up, or its sign, comes into focus in the mind door. ------- N: the Pali ’yathuupacita’, is translated ‘as it has been stored up’, but upacita means: accumulated. Kamma that has been performed in the past is accumulated from one moment to the next moment, even from one life to the next life and thus, it can produce a result later on. -------- Text Vis.: For it is said, 'Then [the evil deeds that he did in the past] ... cover him [and overspread him and envelop him]' (M.iii,164), and so on. --------- N: The Tiika quotes from the Sutta text the Vis. alludes to: M. III, 164: --------- Text Vis.Then next to the cognitive series of impulsions ending in registration that arose contingent upon that [kamma or its sign], death consciousness arises making the life-continuum's objective field its object. ---------- N: The cuti-citta has the same object as the bhavanga-cittas of the life that is just ending. --------- Text Vis.: When it has ceased, rebirth-linking consciousness arises contingent upon that same kamma or kamma sign that had come into focus, --------- N: The Tiika adds: as soon as the death-consciousness has ceased, it (the rebirth-consciousness) follows just without any interval. It explains that it has as object the object of the series of javana as mentioned. These are the javanacittas arising shortly before dying. --------- Text Vis.: and it does so located in the unhappy destiny, being driven there by the force of defilements that have not been cut off. ------- N: The Tiika elaborates on the expression ‘ being driven there by the force of defilements that have not been cut off.’ These are the defilements such as ignorance and craving (tanhaa), as the Tiika explains. It states that these are the ‘attendants’ (upa.t.thaana) of kamma and hence there is the inclining to the succession of cittas in a following life. The pa.tisandhi-citta is driven towards one location. It is explained that when the javanacittas before the cuti-citta are akusala cittas, the pa.tisandhicitta is driven towards an unhappy plane. The Tiika refers to a sutta text of the Samyutta Nikaya (IV) : ‘When he, bhikkhus, takes delight in and is enslaved by the image (the outer appearance) of something, and his consciousness is fixed on this and when he takes delight in and is enslaved by the details, at the time when he is about to die, then it happens that he will go to one of two destinies: he will be reborn in hell or in the womb of an animal.’ Therefore, the Tiika states, akusala is the decisive support (upanissayo) for rebirth in an unhappy plane and kusala is the decisive support for rebirth in a happy plane. However, for the arahat, since he has completely eradicated defilements, and since he has relinquished longing for any kind of rebirth, there is no ‘attendant’ who ministers to kamma and rebirth- consciousness is not produced. --------- Text Vis. : This is the kind of rebirth-linking that has a 'past' object and comes next to death consciousness with a 'past object'. ------------------------- N: In this case the javanacittas just before dying had a past object, namely evil kamma that was performed or a symbol or sign of it. The rebirth-consciousness that has the same object has therefore a past object. It succeeds the dying-consciousness that had a past object. -------------- Conclusion: When someone is about to die the deeds he performed overspread him and envelop him just as at eventide the shadows of the great mountain peaks rest, lie and settle on the earth. This simile makes it clear that one cannot escape kamma that has been performed and that will produce its result in the form of rebirth-consciousness. As we read, so long as defilements such as ignorance and craving have not been eradicated, they render service to the kamma that will produce rebirth. The defilements are a support for rebirth. They drive, as it were, the rebirth-consciousness towards one location, an unhappy plane or a happy plane, and thus the succession of cittas continues. This does not happen to the arahat who has eradicated all defilements and who has no more longing for rebirth. We are reminded of the power of defilements, such as ignorance and craving which keep us in the cycle. When we see the danger of defilements that minister to the kamma that will produce rebirth, we can be motivated to develop the Path leading to the end of the cycle. ********** Nina. #68893 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Magha Puja Day! nilovg Dear Christine, thank you for the article, indeed very good for laypeople as well. This made me think of the text and commentary as rendered by Kh sujin in her Perfections. It may be of interest to read this as well: The Ovåda-påìimokkha, the exhortation to the Påìimokkha, is an important principle of teaching or instruction. The Åùå-påìimokkha are the rules of the Vinaya which are an important foundation to be applied by the monks in their conduct. In the Ovåda-påìimokkha the Buddha taught the significance of the perfection of patience in three stanzas and in addition two more verses. We read in the “Sublime Story” (Mahåpadåna Sutta, Dialogues of the Buddha II, no. XIV): “Stanza 1: khantí paramaÿ tapo titikkhå 25: forbearing patience is the highest ascetism. nibbånaÿ paramaÿ vadanti Buddhå: nibbåna is supreme, the Buddhas say. na hi pabbajito parúpaghåti: he, verily, is not a recluse who harms another. samaùo hoti paraÿ viheìhayanto : nor is he an ascetic who oppresses others. Stanza 2: sabba-påpasså akaranaÿ: not performing evil kusalassa upasampadå: accomplishing what is wholesome, doing all kinds of kusala. sacitta-pariyodapanaÿ: purification of one’s citta. etaÿ Buddhånasåsanaÿ: this is the teaching of the Buddhas. Stanza 3: anupavådo anupaghåto: not insulting, not harming. påìimokkhe saÿvaro: restraint according to the påìimokkha mattaññutå ca bhattasmiÿ: knowing moderation in food. pantañca sayan’ åsanaÿ : a secluded dwelling adhicitte ca åyogo: endeavour as to higher consciousness (development of calm of citta) etaÿ Buddhånasåsanaÿ: this is the teaching of the Buddhas.” The Commentary to this Sutta, the “Sumaògalavilåsiní” explains as to the First Stanza, the first verse: “khantí paramaÿ tapo titikkhå, patience, restraint, is the highest ascetism”, that khanti is adhivåsana-khanti. Khanti is a condition for the development of all kusala, whereas impatience conditions the arising of all kinds of evil through citta and then through the body and through speech. Adhivåsana-khanti is endurance with regard to all situations in daily life, to our environment, and this is the highest ascetism. The Commentary explains: “The words ‘nibbånaÿ paramaÿ vadanti Buddhå, nibbåna is supreme, the Buddhas say’, mean that all Buddhas say that nibbåna is the supreme dhamma in all respects.” There is no other dhamma which is superior to nibbåna, because the other dhammas arise because of conditions, they are present for just a very short moment and then they fall away completely. Nåma dhamma and rúpa dhamma arise because of the appropriate conditions just for a moment and then fall away. How then can conditioned dhammas be a refuge? The Buddha said that nibbåna is the supreme dhamma, it is the dhamma through which defilements are eradicated completely, so that they never arise again. We read: “As to the words, ‘na hi pabbajito parúpaghåti, he, verily, is not a recluse who harms another’, this means that a person who harms, afflicts and injures someone else because he lacks adhivåsana khanti, endurance, cannot be called a recluse. As to the word ‘pårúpaghåti, he harms’, this means that he violates síla, because síla is called paramaÿ, meaning, supreme. It is explained that an ascetic who is vexing another being, who is someone who harms another, ruins his own síla. This means that he cannot be called a recluse.” When a monk who has to observe síla transgresses síla, when he ruins his own síla, he cannot be considered a monk. As regards a lay person, if he applies the teachings, his defilements can be eradicated. He should consider precisely, in all details, his action and speech, he should know whether they affect or harm someone else. Even if he does not utter harsh speech he should know whether he hurts someone else’s feelings. He should have a refined knowledge of his cittas. We read further on in the Commentary: “A person harms someone else because he has no endurance, adhivåsana khanti. If he kills other beings, even gadflies and mosquitos, he cannot be considered a recluse. What is the reason? Because he cannot get rid of impurity. Someone is considered a recluse (pabbajita) because he has got rid of impurities in himself. This is the characteristic of a recluse.” We read in the Commentary: “The Second Stanza: the words ‘sabba-påpassa’ (of all evil) mean: of all kinds of akusala.” If we know that something is akusala, no matter how slight, we should abstain from it if we are able to do so. We read: “The word ‘akaraùaÿ’ means, not causing to arise. The word ‘kusalassa’ (of kusala) means, of the kusala of the four planes 27 . The word ‘upasampadå’ means attainment (paìilåbho), specific acquisition. The words ‘sacitta-pariyodapanaÿ’ mean, purification of one’s citta, and this is through arahatship. Thus, when recluses have eliminated all evil by the restraint of síla and brought kusala to fulfilment by samatha and vipassanå, the citta is purified by the fruition of arahatship (arahatta phala). This is the teaching, the exhortation, the admonition of the Buddhas.” All this begins with patience, khanti, which is the highest ascetism. We read futher on: “The Third Stanza: The word ‘anupavådo’(not insulting) means, not insulting anyone by speech. The word ‘anupaghåto’ (not harming) means, not harming through the body. The word ‘påìimokkhe’(according to the påìimokkha) means, it liberates completely, that is, the highest síla; it guards in a supreme way, namely, it guards happy states; it liberates from danger, the danger of an unhappy destination. Or it guards happy states and liberates from unhappy states. Therefore, this síla is called påìimokkha 28.” If someone observes the síla of påìimokkha, he will be liberated from unhappy planes and he can go to happy planes. We read: “The word ‘mattaññutå’, knowing moderation, means, knowing moderation in receiving and eating. The words ‘pantañca sayan’ åsanaÿ’, a secluded bed and seat, mean, a bed and seat free from the crowds. It is explained by means of these two requisites 29 that he is contented with the four requisites.” The four requisites are dwelling, clothing, food and medicine. We read: “The words ‘etaÿ Buddhånasåsanaÿ’, this is the teaching of the Buddhas, mean, not harming another, restraint according to the Påìimokkha, knowing moderation in receiving and eating, living in a secluded place, because he is a person who is skilfull in the eight attainments 30. This is the teaching, the exhortation, the admonition of the Buddhas.” ---------- Nina. Op 26-feb-2007, om 7:18 heeft Christine Forsyth het volgende geschreven: > Happy Magha Puja Day! :-) > #68894 From: han tun Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Herman, Herman: The question then becomes "Who is a member of the sangha?". If wearing an ochre robe and having head shaved makes one a monk, then being a monk is no different to being a member of a club or streetgang. Herman: It seems to me that making an offering to someone with shaved head and wearing a robe is not necessarily 'sanghika daana'. Han: Since you have quoted one sutta, please allow me to quote another sutta. It is MN 142 Dakkhinaavibhanga Sutta. On page 1105 (translated by Bhikkhu Naanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 8. “In future times, Aananda, there will be members of the clan who are ‘yellow-necks,’ immoral, evil character. People will give gifts to those immoral persons for the sake of the Sangha. Even then, I say, an offering made to the Sangha is incalculable, immeasurable. I say that in no way does a gift to a person individually ever have greater fruit than an offering made to the Sangha.” End quote. Both are the Buddha’s words, your quote and my quote. Please take whichever you prefer. Respectfully, Han --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Han, > > On 25/02/07, han tun wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > > > Herman: What is better about an offering to a > stupid, > > worthless monk, than to a stupid worthless man in > the > > gutter? #68895 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner antony272b2 Dear Herman and Han, Check out this link: Should One Worship Shameless and Immoral Monks? By Ledi Sayadaw http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Ledi/Dhamma/Worship/worship.html with metta / Antony #68896 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:49 am Subject: The 9 Corpse Meditations! bhikkhu5 Friends: Awareness of Body as a live Corpse & Skeleton! The Blessed Buddha said: If a monk sees a corpse 1, 2, 3 days dead; swollen, blue & festering, thrown in cemetery, he then utilizes this experience on his own body: Verily, exactly so is also my own body; it is of the very same nature; so disgusting will it inevitably become and it cannot ever escape it... If a monk sees a body thrown in the cemetery, being eaten by crows, hawks, vultures, dogs, jackals or by different worms and maggots... If a monk sees a corpse reduced to a skeleton with some flesh and blood still attached to it, and held together by the sinews... If a monk sees a cadaver; a blood-besmeared skeleton, but without any flesh, held together by the tendons as a chain of bones... If a monk sees a carcass; just a skeleton without any flesh or blood, yet still held together by the tendons... If a monk sees a skeleton of separated bones, scattered in a mess, here a hand bone, there a foot bone, the pelvis, spine & the skull... If a monk sees a skeleton simply as bleached white shell-like bones... If a monk sees bare bones thrown in the cemetery lying heaped up... If a monk sees a stack of bones now gone rotten & turning into dust, he then applies this experience to his own body: Verily, exactly so is also my own body; it is of the very same nature; so fragile & feeble is it, it will inevitably turn into dust and it cannot ever escape it... Then he lives fearless, detached, and clings to nothing in this world!!! Clever Disgust cools all obsessive greed and addictive lust: 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 Source Text: Majjhima Nikaya 119: Kayagata-Sati Sutta http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm Just a painted puppet! A chain of bones plastered by skin with 9 oozing holes! A heap of sores & rotten excrement with many evil intentions! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68897 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:15 am Subject: Re: The 9 Corpse Meditations! antony272b2 Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Here is a teaching which explains the benefits of asubha meditation: 10 Asubhas (Objects of Impurity): The ten objects of impurity are various sorts of corpses. Meditating on corpses is useful in reducing lust. This practice should only be followed under the guidance of a master. Below is a list of the asubhas and who will find them useful. * Swollen Corpse: Those who lust after beauty of form. * Discolored Corpse: Those who lust after beauty of the skin and complexion. * Festering Corpse: Those who lust after a sweet-smelling body, using perfumes. * Fissured Corpse: Those who lust after the firmness and solidity of the body. * Mangled Corpse: Those who lust after fullness of the flesh, such as the breasts. * Dismembered Corpse: Those who lust after graceful movements of the body. * Cut & Dismembered Corpse: Those who lust after perfection of the joints of the body. * Blood-stained Corpse: Those who lust after beauty produced by adornments. * Worm-infested Corpse: Those who are attached to the idea that the body is "me" or "mine." * Skeleton: Those who lust after perfection of the teeth and nails. http://www.answers.com/topic/forty-objects-of-meditation From: Forty Meditations: Who Should Use Which? by Karen M. Andrews 1992 with metta / Antony. #68898 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - I will put forward a few stray thoughts below with respect to a few things you write. It's in the way of "thinking out loud", and not so much of expressing decided-upon opinion, whether pro or con, on your various points. In a message dated 2/26/07 1:08:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Herman, > > --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > >Hi Sarah, > > > >Could I ask you for clarification? > .... > Anytime! Pls allow me to continue with the numbered format. > .... > >>S: Exactly so! Understanding of dhammas such as seeing and hearing > >leads > >>to less thought and concern for oneself, not more. When there's less > >>concern for oneself, there is more kindness to others. As Ken H said, > >an > >>appreciation of anatta leads to more compassion, not less. > >>... > > > >You say here that seeing and hearing are dhammas. Perhaps I am only > >being nitpicky, which I am happy for you to tell me if you think it is > >the case, but isn't it seeing this visible object, or hearing that > >audible object that is a dhamma. > .... > S: > 1. Without a visible object to be seen, seeing cannot arise. The same, of > course, applies to hearing. No sound impacting on the ear-sense means no > hearing. -------------------------------------------- Howard: The notion of ear sense as a rupa is very, very close to a conventional one, it seems to me. It seems to be described as a very tiny bit of matter (in the physicist's or chemist's sense) that is located in the interior of the very-conventional ear organ. (Actually, it's not supposed to be a single bit of matter, but a series of arising and ceasing bits, perhaps molecular-sized or far smaller-sized particles of material substance, to be fair.) ---------------------------------------------- > > 2. So yes, seeing always sees visible object, but they have distinct > characteristics. Seeing is a dhamma, a nama. Visible object is another > dhamma, a rupa. > > 3. When awareness arises, it can only ever be aware of one object, i.e one > characteristic, at a time. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Interesting that here you refer to an object as a characteristic. Now, *that* usage appeals to me, as I identify dhammas with characteristics, not distinguishing between a dhamma and "it's" characteristic. I also note that the usage of "characteristic", e,g, the characteristic of (a specific) hardness or heat, or sound or sight, etc, rather pleasantly blurs the distinction between "external" and "internal". It doesn't obliterate it, but it does blur it. It tends to lessen the disparity between Buddhist phenomenalism/experientialism and Buddhist "objectivism". BTW, I raised an issue in a recent post that no one has responded to. It is the matter of whether different "people" are ever aware of the literally same rupa. I don't mean that they have the identically same experience - of course they cannot, but whether thay ever make contact with the very same rupa. If not, if they never do, then there is a separate realm of rupas for each namarupic flow, and the distinction between the radical phenomenalist position and the objectivist position loses its significance. ------------------------------------------ > > 4. So, in the sense-door process in which seeing saw visible object, > awareness can arise (with the javana cittas) and be aware of that same > visible object. > > 5. Or, in the immediately following mind-door process, awareness can arise > (again with the javana cittas) and be aware of either the visible object > (just fallen away) or the seeing (also just fallen away). Similarly, it > can be aware (and understanding can understand) sound or hearing or any > other dhamma *appearing*. ----------------------------------------- Howard: This "just fallen away" usage to me is an "eel wriggling" term. If a phenomenon is "fallen away", whether that "just" happened or it happened a long time ago, it is *gone* - it no longer exists, and it cannot be and is not present to be an object. Gone is gone. That makes it an "object of consciousness" only in a loose manner of speaking. There may be a recollection process going on that we can refer to as recalling or noting the just-passed phenomenon, but that phenomenon is not there - it does not exist. As Ken is fond of reminding us, there is only the present moment. ---------------------------------------- > .... > > >There is never just hearing, or just > >seeing, no hearing in general, or seeing in general, it is always > >seeing or hearing something specific. > .... > S: > 1. Yes! It is always seeing of a particular visible object or hearing of a > particular sound. > > 2. In the same way, it is never just being aware or understanding in > general, but being aware or understanding a specific characteristic. > > 3. So all cittas experience an object. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: So to speak. --------------------------------------- When the cittas accompanied by> > awareness and understanding (and other sobhana cetasikas) arise, they > experience a dhamma. Such a dhamma may be seeing, hearing or any other > presently appearing dhamma. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Sarah, don't you mean here "a sight, sound, or any other presently appearing dhamma" instead? ----------------------------------------- > ***** > > Pls ask for further clarifications. If it's nitpicky, it's important > nitpicky! Just like in computer programming, I'm sure -- if one line is > missing, the rest becomes meaningless. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========================== With metta, Howard #68899 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/26/07 1:41:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "As far as I'm concerned," > > L: Already a mistake! --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I'm saying straight out that what I express is my view. Is it the case that you do not, but convey reality? ;-) --------------------------------------- > > H: "reality is unique, singular, and perfect, and it is nibbana. The > realm of apparently separate, impermanent, unsatisfactory and imperfect > entities, is reality misperceived and is samsara: the deluded state from > which there must be escape. And, BTW, since there is no arising of > nibbana - it neither arises nor ceases, it cannot *be* the cessation of > dukkha, for that would make nibbana an event. It's realization - > awakening, bodhi: THAT is the cessation of dukkha." > > L: So reality is awakening but not awakening to anything? Awareness > without any real characteristic, content, or object? Sounds like zero to > me. -------------------------------------- Howard: I said quite the opposite. Reality is not awakening but what is awakened *to*. That reality is unlike anything we know, but that does not make it a zero. A fish is unfamiliar with absence of water, but that doesn't make dry land a zero. The far shore is radically other for us, but that doesn't make it a zero. We see everything baclwards. It is this familiar realm of samsara that is the zero. ---------------------------------------- > > Or is nibbana just right view? That seems like a reasonable and > practical approach. But it ignores part of the Buddha's teaching. In > particular the logic of jhana: less experience is better. If less is > better none must be best. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Have you experienced jhana, Larry? It is SO far from less in important ways! It is extraordinary. What there is less and less of is attachment and separateness. ---------------------------------------- > > Larry > ==================== With metta, Howard #68900 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! nilovg Hi Howard, just this point. No, not possible. The experience of a rupa by this 'person' is produced by the kamma he has done, and as to another person: it also is depending on his kamma. It is very individual. Nina. Op 26-feb-2007, om 14:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > BTW, I raised an issue in a recent post that no one has responded to. > It is the matter of whether different "people" are ever aware of > the literally > same rupa. I don't mean that they have the identically same > experience - of > course they cannot, but whether thay ever make contact with the > very same rupa. > If not, if they never do, then there is a separate realm of rupas > for each > namarupic flow, and the distinction between the radical > phenomenalist position > and the objectivist position loses its significance. #68901 From: han tun Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Antony, Thank you very much for your post and the useful link for the Manual of Dhamma, by Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, answering the thirteen questions regarding the problems of monkhood and its relationship with the laity. Respectfully, Han --- Antony Woods wrote: > Dear Herman and Han, > > Check out this link: > Should One Worship Shameless and Immoral Monks? By > Ledi Sayadaw > http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Ledi/Dhamma/Worship/worship.html > > with metta / Antony > > #68902 From: "kanchaa" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:24 am Subject: Re: Where does Anger start from? kanchuu2003 Dear All, Hello! Had spent a very scary weekend. I lost my anger... It was very scary... I knew the anger coming and I even knew it was impermanent but could not control it... I was fully unconscious... I could have harmed anyone and done anything... It was scary! please help me! how to control your anger and how do I look the above situation? Sincerely, Nitesh #68903 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/26/07 9:57:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > just this point. No, not possible. The experience of a rupa by this > 'person' is produced by the kamma he has done, and as to another > person: it also is depending on his kamma. It is very individual. > Nina. > ====================== But what about the other "cosmic principles"? Temperature, nutriment, and so on? Not everything arises due to one's past kamma the Buddha has said, has he not? Actually, I find your reply "interesting" in another way. You are saying that no two people ever make contact with the same rupa - they cannot - it is impossible, and you also maintain, I know, that rupas are mind-independent, self-existing realities, and not mere content of consciousness. On the basis of what you say, it seems to me to make little difference whether one adopts a phenomenalist or objectivist position. It would seem that the position to be adopted needs to effectively be one of solipsism. Each "person", according to your reply, lives in his/her own world and no other, for the rupas that *experientially* arise for him/her, are, you assert, objective, self-existent realities, and not mere contents of consciousness, and they are all his/her "private stock" of realities arising, as you assert, solely from his/her own kamma, and there is, thus, no interaction among beings possible at all. But, clearly that can't be the case unless I am merely dreaming of interacting with you, Nina. If you do believe that there is interaction, I'd like to know what you think is the basis for it. My perspective is different. I view the totality of "existence" as being constituted of a multitude of interacting, mutually reflecting, mindstreams, each a flow of experience, mental and physical, consisting of the knowing of content in a variety of ways, with all that arises in these mindstreams being ultimately due primarily to ones own kamma (volitional & intentional action) and secondarily to that of others. As I see it, what is arising in your mind, Nina, as you read this post, is conditioned not only by your own kamma, but obviously by my actions as well, most specifically those involved in my writing of this post. The mindstates arising for you in reading this post would not exist without my kamma. What could be clearer? Certainly, the content of my consciousness is not identical with that of yours, and given that there is no rupa that we both make contact with, and given your perspective that rupas are self-existent realities, what, then, from your vantage point, can be the basis of our interaction? With metta, Howard. #68906 From: "matheesha" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am Subject: Meditation matheesha333 Hello everyone, I recently came across what some consider the best meditation instructions on the internet. It is by a man called Upasaka Culladasa who has many decades of experience on the matter. It is a staggering account of the mastery of anapanasathi. I have gained a lot from these, so for those in DSG who are so inclined - I have inculded his instructions in a folder in the Files sections. It is called 'Meditation instructions in Plain English'. with metta Matheesha #68907 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:50 am Subject: Rupas, Ch 1, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 1 The Four Great Elements Rúpas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. Each of these groups is composed of different kinds of rúpa. There are four kinds of rúpa, the four “Great Elements” (Mahå-bhúta rúpas), which have to arise together with each and every group of rúpas, no matter whether these are of rúpas of the body or rúpas outside the body. The types of rúpa other than the four Great Elements depend on these four rúpas and cannot arise without them. They are the following rúpas: the Element of Earth or solidity the Element of Water or cohesion the Element of Fire or heat the Element of Wind (air) or motion Earth, Water, Fire and Wind do not in this context have the same meaning as in conventional language, neither do they represent conceptual ideas as we find them in different philosophical systems. In the Abhidhamma they represent ultimate realities, specific rúpas each with their own characteristic. The Element of Earth, in Påli: paìhaví dhåtu, translated into English as “solidity” or “extension”, has the characteristic of hardness or softness. It can be directly experienced when we touch something hard or soft. We do not have to name the rúpa designated by “Element of Earth” in order to experience it. It is an element that arises and falls away; it has no abiding substance, it is devoid of a “self”. It may seem that hardness can last for some time, but in reality it falls away immediately. Rúpas are replaced so long as there are conditions for them to be produced by one of the four factors of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition 1. The hardness that is experienced now is already different from the hardness that arose a moment ago. We used to think that a cushion or a chair could be experienced through touch. When we are more precise, it is hardness or softness that can be experienced through touch. Because of association and remembrance of former experiences we can think of a cushion or chair and we know that they are named “cushion” or “chair”. This example can remind us that there is a difference between ultimate realities and concepts we can think of but which are not real in the ultimate sense. ***** Nina. #68908 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:53 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 8, no 9. nilovg Dear friends, We may think that some suttas stress only one object as object of awareness, but it is important to read all texts. We read, for example, in the "Kindred Sayings" (V, Mahå-vagga, Kindred Sayings on the Way, Ch III, Par. 9, Feeling) that the Buddha, while he was at Såvatthí, said to the monks: There are these three feelings, monks. What three? Feeling that is pleasant, feeling that is painful, feeling that is neither pleasant nor painful. These are the three feelings. In order to comprehend these three feelings, monks, the ariyan eightfold way must be cultivated.... It is difficult to know the true characteristic of feeling, to know it as nåma, different from rúpa. Don't we confuse bodily feeling and rúpa such as hardness which impinges on the bodysense? There is feeling all the time but we neglect awareness of it, we cling to feeling and take it for self. This sutta can remind us to be mindful of feeling. The following sutta (par. 10) reminds us to be aware of the sense objects. We read that the Buddha explained to Uttiya about the "five sensual elements". The Buddha said: There are objects cognizable by the eye, objects desirable, pleasant, delightful and dear, passion-fraught, inciting to lust. There are sounds cognizable by the ear, objects desirable... there are scents cognizable by the nose... savours cognizable by the tongue... tangibles cognizable by the body, objects desirable, pleasant, delightful and dear, passion fraught, inciting to lust. These, Uttiya, are the five sensual elements of which I spoke. Now, Uttiya, in order to abandon these five sensual elements the ariyan eightfold way must be cultivated It is not possible to try to achieve straight away detachment from the five sense objects. Detachment can only be achieved by right understanding which realizes these objects as they are. One has to begin to be mindful of whatever object appears through one of the six doors so that understanding can gradually develop. First the clinging to self has to be eradicated and it is only at the third stage of enlightenment that attachment to sense objects is eradicated. ***** Nina. #68909 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where does Anger start from? m_nease Hi Nitesh, Please excuse the delay-- > I was curious today about Anger.... Can anyone explain where does > anger start and where does it end?? What is its role in a life? I don't think I can answer your questions as asked, but I had a couple of thoughts. I think two things are usually involved, the (mistaken) perception of self, and expectations, as in Aaghaata Sutta, AN 10.80. There's a translation at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.080.than.html . I hope this is of some use. mike #68910 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:11 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (35) nichiconn Dear Friends, part one: Selaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa /The commentary on the verses of Therii Selaa [RD: *174 Meaning 'Alpina' (selo = rock, or crag).] Natthi nissara.na.m loketi-aadikaa selaaya theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii ha.msavatiinagare kulagehe nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m pattaa maataapituuhi samaanajaatikassa kulaputtassa dinnaa, tena saddhi.m bahuuni vassasataani sukhasa.mvaasa.m vasitvaa tasmi.m kaala"nkate sayampi addhagataa vayo-anuppattaa sa.mvegajaataa ki.mkusalagavesinii kaalena kaala.m aaraamena aaraama.m vihaarena vihaara.m anuvicarati "sama.nabraahma.naana.m santike dhamma.m sossaamii"ti. The verses beginning There is no escape in the world are Therii Selaa's. She too performed meritorious deed under previous Buddhas and accumulated good [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. She was born in the home of a [good] family in the town of Ha.msavatii. When she came of age, her parents gave her to the son of a good family who was of equal birth. She lived together with him for many hundreds of years, living in happiness. When he died, she herself when on through her life, reached old age, and a profound stirring arose [in her]. Searching for the good, from time to time she wandered from park to park, from monastery to monastery, thinking, "I shall listen to the Doctrine in the presence of recluses and brahmans." Saa ekadivasa.m satthu bodhirukkha.m upasa"nkamitvaa "yadi buddho bhagavaa asamo asamasamo appa.tipuggalo, dassetu me aya.m bodhi paa.tihaariyan"ti nisiidi. Tassaa tathaa cittuppaadasamanantarameva bodhi pajjali, sabbasova.n.namayaa saakhaa u.t.thahi.msu, sabbaa disaa viroci.msu. Saa ta.m paa.tihaariya.m disvaa pasannamaanasaa garucittiikaara.m upa.t.thapetvaa sirasi a~njali.m paggayha sattarattindiva.m tattheva nisiidi. Sattame divase u.laara.m puujaasakkaara.m akaasi. One day, after she came up to the tree of awakening of the Teacher and sat down, she thought, "If the Buddha, the Blessed One, is incomparable, without equal, unrivalled, then may this [tree] of awakening show me a marvel." Then simultaneous with the arising of her thought, the [tree] of awakening blazed forth, its branches appeared to be all made of gold, shining out in all directions. When she saw the marvel, with her mind favourably disposed, she showed great respect, paid respects with her hands raised together to her head, and she sat down in that very place for seven days and nights. On the seventh day, she paid respects and did great honour [to the Buddha]. Saa tena pu~n~nakammena devamanussesu sa.msarantii imasmi.m buddhuppaade aa.laviira.t.the aa.lavikassa ra~n~no dhiitaa hutvaa nibbatti. Selaatissaa naama.m ahosi. Aa.lavikassa pana ra~n~no dhiitaati katvaa aa.lavikaatipi na.m voharanti. Saa vi~n~nuta.m pattaa satthari aa.lavaka.m dametvaa tassa hatthe pattaciivara.m datvaa tena saddhi.m aa.laviinagara.m upagate daarikaa hutvaa ra~n~naa saddhi.m satthu santika.m upagantvaa dhamma.m sutvaa pa.tiladdhasaddhaa upaasikaa ahosi. Saa aparabhaage sa~njaatasa.mvegaa bhikkhuniisu pabbajitvaa katapubbakiccaa vipassana.m pa.t.thapetvaa sa"nkhaare sammasantii upanissayasampannattaa paripakka~naa.naa nacirasseva arahatta.m paapu.ni. Through that meritorious deed, she journeyed on among devas and men, and in this Buddha era, she was born in the kingdom of AA.lavi as the daughter of King Aa.lavika. Her name was Selaa. But thinking, "She is the daughter of King Aa.lavika, they also named her Aa.lavikaa. When she came of age, the Teacher brought [the yakkha] Aa.lavika under his control and put his robe and bowl in his hand and went with him to the town of Aa.lavii. When she was still a young girl, she came into the presence of the Teacher together with the king. She heard the Doctrine, gained faith, and became a lay follower. Afterwards, a profound stirring arose and she went forth with the bhikkhuniis. She fulfilled the preliminary duties, established insight, and mastering the formations, possessing the prerequisites, and being of matured knowledge, after a very short time she attained Arahatship. Tena vutta.m apadaane (apa. therii 2.2.61-85)- "Nagare ha.msavatiyaa, caarikii aasaha.m tadaa; aaraamena ca aaraama.m, caraami kusalatthikaa. "Kaa.lapakkhamhi divase, addasa.m bodhimuttama.m; tattha citta.m pasaadetvaa, bodhimuule nisiidaha.m. "Garucitta.m upa.t.thetvaa, sire katvaana a~njali.m; somanassa.m pavedetvaa, eva.m cintesi taavade. "Yadi buddho amitagu.no, asamappa.tipuggalo; dassetu paa.tihiira.m me, bodhi obhaasatu aya.m. "Saha aavajjite mayha.m, bodhi pajjali taavade; sabbaso.n.namayaa aasi, disaa sabbaa virocati. As it is said in the Apadaana: I was a wanderer at that time in the town of Ha.msavati. I moved from park to park, searching for the good. One day, during the fortnight of the waning moon, I saw the excellent [tree of] awakening. My mind was gladdened and I sat down at the foot of the [tree] of awakening. I set up a serious frame of mind and paid respects with joined hands raised to my head. Experiencing gladness, I thought as follows to myself: "If the Buddha is of infinite virtue, without equal among individuals, let a marvel be shown to me. May the [tree of] awakening shine." Straight away, as I reflected thus, the [tree of] awakening blazed forth, shining in all directions as if made entirely of gold. "Sattarattindiva.m tattha, bodhimuule nisiidaha.m; sattame divase patte, diipapuuja.m akaasaha.m. "Aasana.m parivaaretvaa, pa~ncadiipaani pajjalu.m; yaava udeti suuriyo, diipaa me pajjalu.m tadaa. "Tena kammena sukatena, cetanaapa.nidhiihi ca; jahitvaa maanusa.m deha.m, taavati.msamagacchaha.m. "Tattha me sukata.m byamha.m, pa~ncadiipaati vuccati; sa.t.thiyojanamubbedha.m, ti.msayojanavitthata.m. "Asa"nkhiyaani diipaani, parivaare jali.msu me; yaavataa devabhavana.m, diipaalokena jotati. I sat there at the foot of the [tree of] awakening for seven days and nights. When the seventh day arrived, I made an offering of lamps. I surrounded my seat with five lamps that blazed forth, and my lamps blazed forth until the sun rose. As a result of that virtuous deed and of my resolve and purpose, when I abandoned my human body, I went to the Taavati.msa realm. There, because of my good deed, [I had] a celestial mansion called Pa~ncadiipaa ["Five Lamps"] that was sixty leagues high and thirty leagues wide. Innumerable lamps shone on my entourage while the dwelling place of the devas shown forth wth the light of the lamps. "Parammukhaa nisiiditvaa, yadi icchaami passitu.m; uddha.m adho ca tiriya.m, sabba.m passaami cakkhunaa. "Yaavataa abhika"nkhaami, da.t.thu.m sugataduggate; tattha aavara.na.m natthi, rukkhesu pabbatesu vaa. "Asiitidevaraajuuna.m, mahesittamakaarayi.m; sataana.m cakkavattiina.m, mahesittamakaarayi.m. "Ya.m ya.m yonupapajjaami, devatta.m atha maanusa.m; diipasatasahassaani, parivaare jalanti me. "Devalokaa cavitvaana, uppajji.m maatukucchiya.m; maatukucchigataa santii, akkhi me na nimiilati. When seated with my face turned away, if I wish to see above, below, and around, I see everything with my eye. As long as I wanted to see those who were happy or unhappy, there was no hindrance because of trees or mountains. I ruled as the chief queen of eighty deva kings and as the chief queen of one hundred wheel-turning monarchs. Whatever womb I was born in, whether as a deva or a human being, a hundred thousand lamps shone in my surroundings. When I passed away from the deva world and was born in a mother's womb, having gone into a mother's womb, I did not close my eyes. "Diipasatasahassaani, pu~n~nakammasama"ngitaa; jalanti suutikaagehe, pa~ncadiipaanida.m phala.m. "Pacchime bhave sampatte, maanasa.m vinivattayi.m; ajaraamata.m siitibhaava.m, nibbaana.m phassayi.m aha.m. "Jaatiyaa sattavassaaha.m, arahattamapaapu.ni.m; upasampaadayii buddho, gu.nama~n~naaya gotamo. "Ma.n.dape rukkhamuule vaa, su~n~naagaare vasantiyaa; tadaa pajjalate diipa.m, pa~ncadiipaanida.m phala.m. "Dibbacakkhuvisuddha.m me, samaadhikusalaa aha.m; abhi~n~naapaaramippattaa, pa~ncadiipaanida.m phala.m. A hundred thousand lamps resulting from my meritorious deed shone in the birth chamber. This was the result of [the gift of] those five lamps. When I arrived in my last life, I turned my mind away [from mundane things]. Becoming cool, I attained quenching, which is not subject ot old age and death. At the age of seven, I attained Arahatship, and Buddha Gotama, recognizing my merity, had me given full ordination. While I was living in a pavilion or in solitude at the foot of a tree, a lamp always blazed forth. This was the result of [the gift of] those five lamps. I have purified my divine eye. I am skilled in concentration and have attained perfection in direct knowledge. This was the result of [the gift of] those five lamps. === to be continued, connie #68911 From: connie Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:12 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (35) nichiconn Dear Friends, the second half of Selaa's story & verses: "Sabbavositavosaanaa, katakiccaa anaasavaa; pa~ncadiipaa mahaaviira, paade vandaami cakkhuma. "Satasahassito kappe, ya.m diipamadadi.m tadaa; duggati.m naabhijaanaami, pa~ncadiipaanida.m phala.m. "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. [Thanks to the gift of] five lamps, I have achieved all attainments, I have done what is to be done, I am without taints. I pay homage to your feet, O Great Hero, O One with Vision. In the one hundred thousand aeons since I gave the lamp[s], I am not aware of [birth in] any realm of misery. This was the result of [the gift of] those five lamps. 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 therii saavatthiya.m viharantii ekadivasa.m pacchaabhatta.m saavatthito nikkhamitvaa divaavihaaratthaaya andhavana.m pavisitvaa a~n~natarasmi.m rukkhamuule nisiidi; atha na.m maaro vivekato vicchedetukaamo a~n~naatakaruupena upagantvaa- 57. "natthi nissara.na.m loke, ki.m vivekena kaahasi; bhu~njaahi kaamaratiyo, maahu pacchaanutaapinii"ti.- Gaathamaaha. Then after attaining Arahatship the therii lived in Saavatthi. One day, after her meal, she went out of Saavatthi, entered the Andha Grove for her daytime rest, and sat down at the foot of a certain tree. Then Maara, in the form of a stranger, went up to her and said [this] verse [trying] to destroy her desire for seclusion: 57. There is no escape in the world. What will you do with seclusion? Enjoy the delights of sensual pleasures. Do not repent afterwards. RD: Ne'er shalt thou find escape while in the world! What profiteth thee then thy loneliness? Take the good things of life while yet thou mayst. Repentance else too late awaiteth thee. (57) Tassattho- imasmi.m loke sabbasamayesupi upaparikkhiiyamaanesu nissara.na.m nibbaana.m naama natthi tesa.m tesa.m sama.nabraahma.naana.m chandaso pa.ti~n~naayamaana.m vohaaramattameveta.m, tasmaa ki.m vivekena kaahasi evaruupe sampannapa.thamavaye .thitaa iminaa kaayavivekena ki.m karissasi? Atha kho bhu~njaahi kaamaratiyo vatthukaamakilesakaamasannissitaa khi.d.daaratiyo paccanubhohi. Kasmaa? Maahu pacchaanutaapinii "yadattha.m brahmacariya.m caraami, tadeva nibbaana.m natthi, teneveta.m naadhigata.m, kaamabhogaa ca parihiinaa, anattho vata mayhan"ti pacchaa vippa.tisaarinii maa ahosiiti adhippaayo. 57. The meaning of this is: in this world, even though every doctrine be examined, there is no escape (nissara.na.m), quenching (nibbaana.m). Various recluses and brahmans make claims as they wish that are mere designations; therefore, what will you do with seclusion? You're established in youth with such beauty. What will you do with this physical seclusion? Now then, enjoy the delights of sensual pleasures (bhu~njaahi kaama-ratiyo), experience the enjoyment of pleasure (khiddaa-ratiyo paccanubhohi)connected with material and immaterial sensual pleasure (batthu-kaama-kisesa-kaama-sannissitaa). Therefore, do not repend afterwards [thinking,] "The goad for which I lead the holy life, that very thing, quenching, does not exist. Therefore, this has not been attained indeed, and the enjoyment of sensual pleasures are lost. Indeed, there is no profit for me." Do not be remorseful afterwards. This is the meaning. Ta.m sutvaa therii "baalo vataaya.m maaro, yo mama paccakkhabhuuta.m nibbaana.m pa.tikkhipati. Kaamesu ca ma.m pavaareti, mama khii.naasavabhaava.m na jaanaati. Handa na.m ta.m jaanaapetvaa tajjessaamii"ti cintetvaa- 58. "Sattisuuluupamaa kaamaa, khandhaasa.m adhiku.t.tanaa; ya.m tva.m kaamarati.m bruusi, aratii daani saa mama. 59. "Sabbattha vihataa nandii, tamokkhandho padaalito; eva.m jaanaahi paapima, nihato tvamasi antakaa"ti.- Ima.m gaathaadvayamaaha. Havig heard this, the therii thought, "Maara is indeed a fool. He rejects quenching, which I have seen with my own eyes. And he offers me sensual pleasures. He does not know my state of one who has destroyed the taints. Come! I will make him understand this. I will frighten him." And she spoke this pair of verses: 58. Sensual pleasures are like swords and stakes. The aggregates are a chopping block for them. What you call "delight in sensual pleasures" is now "non-delight" for me. 59. Everywhere, enjoyment of pleasure is defeated. The mass of darkness [of ignorance] is torn asunder. In this way, know, evil one, you are defeated, death. RD: Then the Sister - thinking: 'Verily, 'tis that foolish Maara who would deny me the Nibbana that is revealed to me, and bids me choose the sensuous life. He knows not that I am an Arahant. Now will I tell him and confound him' - recited the following: *177 Like spears and javelins are the joys of sense That pierce and rend the mortal frames of us. These that thou callest 'the good things of life' - Good of that ilk to me is nothing worth. (58) On every hand the love of pleasure yields, And the thick gloom of ignorance is rent In twain. Know this, O Evil One, avaunt! Here, O Destroyer, shalt thou not prevail. (59) *177 Cf. the reply of AA.laviikaa in Appendix, commencing with a direct contradiction omitted in this psalm. {see below} Tattha sattisuuluupamaa kaamaati kaamaa naama yena adhi.t.thitaa, tassa sattassa vinivijjhanato nisitasatti viya suula.m viya ca da.t.thabbaa. Khandhaati upaadaanakkhandhaa. Aasanti tesa.m. Adhiku.t.tanaati chindanaadhi.t.thaanaa, accaadaana.t.thaananti attho. Yato khandhe accaadaaya sattaa kaamehi chejjabhejja.m paapu.nanti. Ya.m tva.m kaamarati.m bruusi, arati daani saa mamaati, paapima, tva.m ya.m kaamarati.m ramitabba.m sevitabba.m katvaa vadasi, saa daani mama niratijaatikattaa mii.lhasadisaa, na taaya mama koci attho atthiiti. 58. There, sensual pleasures are like swords and stakes (satti-suuluu-pamaa) means: indeed, sensual pleasures, for whoever adheres to them, are to be regarded as being like a sharp sword (nissita-satti viya) or a stake (suula.m viya) piercing a living being. The aggregates (khandhaa) means: the aggregates of clinging (upaadaana-kkhandhaa). For them (aasan) means: for them (tea.m). A chopping block (adhiku.t.tana) means: a support for cutting (chindanaadhi.thaanaa), a place to put things on (accaadhaana-.t.thaana.m). This is the meaning. Because, having place all the aggregates [on the chopping block], living beings arrive at torture and punishment due to sensual pleasures. What you call (bruusi) "delight in sensual pleasures" (kaama-rati.m) is now "non-delight" for me means: O evil one, what you speak of (vadasii) as delight in sensual pleasures to be enjoyed and embraced, I have no use for that now because of its nature of attachment and because it is like excrement. That is the meaning. Tattha kaara.namaaha "sabbattha vihataa nandii"ti-aadinaa. Tattha eva.m jaanaahiiti "sabbaso pahiinata.nhaavijjaa"ti ma.m jaanaahi, tato eva balavidhamanavisayaatikkamanehi antaka laamakaacaara, maara, tva.m mayaa nihato baadhito asi, na panaaha.m tayaa baadhitabbaati attho. Eva.m theriyaa maaro santajjito tatthevantaradhaayi. Theriipi phalasamaapattisukhena andhavane divasabhaaga.m viitinaametvaa saayanhe vasana.t.thaanameva gataa. Selaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 59. There, she gives the reason with the words beginning everywhere, enjoyment of pleasure is defeated. There, in this way, know means: know me with this thought, "All craving and ignorance are abandoned." Furthermore, you (tva.m) are constrained (baadhito), defeated (nihato), by me, O Maara, of evil conduct, O death (antaka), by [my] overcoming sensual pleasures that destroy one's strenght. On the other hand, I am not to be constrained by you. That is the meaning. Being frightened in this way by the therii, Maara disappeared from there. And the therii remained in the Andha Grove during the daytime in the happiness of the acquisition of the fruition state, and in the evening, she went to her dwelling place. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Selaa. {From the appendix of RD's Psalms / http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/davids/psalms/psalms.html 9. Selaa. *476 . . . . . Now, Bhikkhunii Selaa . . . . . sat down at the root of a certain tree for siesta. Then Maara . . . . . went up to her, and addressed her with a verse: 'Who was't that made this human puppet's form? Where, tell me, is the human doll's artificer? Whence hath the human puppet come to be? Where, tell me, shall it cease and pass away?' Then Bhikkhunii Selaa thought . . . . . ' Sure 'tis Maara!' . . . . . and . . . . . replied with verses: 'Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other is this evil fashione'd. By reason of a cause it came to be; By rupture of a cause, it dies away. Like to a given seed sown in the field, Which, when it lighteth on the taste of earth And moisture likewise - by these twain doth grow, So the five aggregates, the elements, And the six spheres of sense - even all these - By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away.' Then Maara, thinking, 'Bhikkhunii Selaa knows me!' vanished thence, sad and dejected. ***** *476 The Psalm ascribed to Selaa (xxxv., p. 144) is, in this Appendix, put into the mouth of AA.lavikaa, which, in the Commentary, is Selaa's patronymic. } ===== peace, connie #68912 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A final venting from phil, probably. m_nease Hi Sarah, > I'd like to start with an apology: when I last wrote to you and > others(#68778), I hadn't read your further elaborations and nice post to > Phil(#68699). No apology necessary! ... > Btw, just to butt in briefly on your good discussion with Jiw: Please do-- > Atta sa~n~na is not the same as atta di.t.thi, simply because it refers to > sa~n~na, not to di.t.thi. Different cetasikas with different functions. As > you all know well, sa~n~na marks and remembers, so in this case it's > marking and remembering what is experienced as 'atta'. OK--but you wouldn't say that it's marking and remembering the perception of self (i.e. a concept rather than a dhamma?) > Jiw had mentioned that on a trip there'd been a lot of worry about past > and future akusala kamma and that A.Sujin had mentioned it was 'caused > from attasa~n~na, the memory of me-mine over and over.' Yes, a very apt comment, I thought. I've been preoccupied with it ever since (thanks again, Khun Siw). > In other words, because of remembrance, sa~n~na of atta (accompanying the > di.t.thi), there's dwelling on and on about the story of *me* and *my > kilesa* - wanting *me* and *my kilesa* to be another way and taking them > for *mine*. Sure. > That's why the 'microscope' approach is simply more of the 'all about me' > to use your expression Phil liked from a tape. (Sorry, I don't remember this!) > It's all about *me* that is > so important, rather than conditioned dhammas to be known with detachment, > regardless of what they are. It can be and usually is I think--but not necessarily. As I recall, in a moment of kusala (in terms of conditioned origination) the 'tanha' link is replaced by adhimokkha (sorry I can't cite the source of this offhand). So I don't think the intention to observe is inherently unwholesome. Of course, wholesome moments are extremely rare, as I see it. > I know Phil doesn't agree, but I think we can all appreciate it is the > detachment, rather than the attachment, which leads to less kilesa. I can't speak for Phil, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone disagreeing with this. > I'll also look forward to any further comments Jiw hears from the Pali > scholars she's in touch with. So will I--it's really great to have her contributions here. mike #68913 From: melek cilingir Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Where does Anger start from? melekcilingir hi nitesh, here is something you are familiar with. http://www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9704.html hope everything is going well with your meditation with metta melek #68914 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Magha Puja Day! christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Christine, > thank you for the article, indeed very good for laypeople as well. > This made me think of the text and commentary as rendered by Kh sujin > in her Perfections. It may be of interest to read this as well: > The Ovåda-påìimokkha, the exhortation to the Påìimokkha, is an > important principle of teaching or instruction. The Åùå-påìimokkha > are the rules of the Vinaya which are an important foundation to be > applied by the monks in their conduct. In the Ovåda-påìimokkha the > Buddha taught the significance of the perfection of patience in three > stanzas and in addition two more verses. > We read in the "Sublime Story" (Mahåpadåna Sutta, Dialogues of the > Buddha II, no. XIV): Hello Nina, Thank you for your post ~ I enjoyed it! But I've just found out my post was a a little premature ~ Magha Puja Day isn't until next week ~ should've checked more closely. :-) However, this gives us plenty of time for contemplation! :-) (Maybe my signature line is getting to me.:-) ) metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #68915 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas egberdina Hi all, On 25/02/07, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Scott, > > N: Yes. Ruupas which are not of the body, rupas outside. This is > difficult to swallow for some. These rupas originate solely from > temperature, thus, the element of heat. An example: rupas we call > plant are conditioned solely by temperature. When I look at a plant > after a few days I notice that it has grown. > Speech sound is produced by citta, but when we listen to a recorded > voice, that sound is conditioned solely by temparature. It is hardly controversial to say that all life on Earth depends on the Sun. What would be controversial, and reductionism of the worst kind, would be to suggest that all the amazing different individual life forms that have ever been on Earth are explainable in terms of the Sun only. Reductionism is a belief that complex things can be explained in terms of simple things. Needless to say, reductionism flies completely in the face of the principles of dependent origination. Kind Regards Herman #68916 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Acceptance speech egberdina Hi Sarah, I have interspersed below some ruminations on what you have written. On 26/02/07, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Herman, > > S: > 1. When we think we are 'seeing a woman', actually there are many > processes of cittas involved. > > 2. In fact, seeing only ever sees visible object. That's all! > > 3. Because sanna (perception/memory) recalls that such and such a visible > object + sound + movement etc is called 'woman', we have an idea os > 'seeing a woman'. In fact, this is thinking, not seeing, of a woman. > .... If I am not mistaken, you are here explaining what takes place in the process that results in the experience "seeing a woman". I don't doubt some of what you say, such as the difference between seeing a form, and naming a form, and I don't doubt that there are lots and lots of differentiable things happening. But these differentiations are a product of analysis, not of experience. The experience of seeing a woman is one thing, the experience of explaining seeing a woman is another thing. Explaining seeing a woman is also thinking. > >When reflecting on > > (seeing a woman), there is reflecting on (seeing a woman). > .... > S: True! > ... > >In the > > first instance, the woman is the object, in the second, seeing her is > > the object. > .... > S: > 1. In your example (which are not a correct paraphrase of what I said), in > the first instance, visible object is what is seen. > Thanks for correcting the paraphrase. Unless there is an experience of seeing an as yet unnamed form, allusions to such an event occuring are, in my mind, examples of thinking. What happens is not what a particular theory says happens, but what is experienced to be happening. So, unless a seeing visible object event registers as such, it is also a concept. > 2. In the second example, concept is the object. > .... > >Just to make sure I understand you correctly, could you > > tell me which instance is sati by your reckoning? > .... > S: > 1. As I said before, sati arises with all sobhana cittas. > This is a definition, is it not? Which means it could be said totally independently of anything that happens ie is experienced. I'll put it to you that there is no experience of sobhana-ness. > 2. If we are talking about sati (of satipatthana or vipassana > development), then the object must be a nama or a rupa. > This is so by definition also. Again, unless it is experienced, it is concept. > 3. This means that visible object can be the object of such sati, but the > concept/ idea of woman cannot be. This is an outcome of the definitions only, and has no necessary connection to the world of experience. > S: To clarify: > > 1.The objects of sati here (in the development of satipatthana) can be any > dhammas, any namas or rupas. > > 2. Concepts of woman, rules and other ideas cannot be objects of > satipatthana. > > 3. When involved in any conventional *situation* at all, even conceiving > of a woman or rules, there are many realities or dhammas appearing in > between the concepts. Any of these can be the object of awareness. > Unless something is known by experience, it is concept. One cannot talk about many realities if these are things necessiated by the theory, but are not experienced. > 4. The same is true even for an arahant without kilesa. When we (or the > suttas) refer to mindfulness all day or continuously, it doesn't literally > mean with every citta. At moments of actual seeing, actual hearing or > whenever concept is an object, for example, there cannot be satipatthana > arising. > ***** > Bottom line - the more we appreciate what paramattha dhammas are, the less > confusion there is when (as a necessity) the texts, including the > Abhidhamma, flit between conventional and ultimate language. > If paramattha dhamma are to be taken as what you say they are, then, of course, they are being experienced, they are all of experience. But it is no good having a word for something that is inseperable and indistinguishable from everything else around it. Unless there is an experience of this paramattha dhamma or that paramattha dhamma, they are nothing but theoretical devices. Any appreciation of paramattha dhammas that is not the experience of them is no different to seeing a woman. Kind Regards Herman #68917 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:59 pm Subject: Who knows anatta? /was Re: daana corner ken_aitch Hi Herman, ------------- <. . .> H: > You got me so worked up, I'm still not sure whether I've stopped beating my wife :-) ------------- And I am still waiting for that `yes or no' answer. :-) In the meantime, if I can get you to learn just one little bit of Abhidhamma, my work will be done. I live in hope. ------------ <. . .> H: > What do you imagine to be the consequences of this "insight"? ------------ Good question! What about the scientists and the non-religious university graduates that have always existed throughout the ages and who (according to you) have all known anatta? What have been the consequences for them? If they have not attained enlightenment and permanently destroyed their capacity for evil, perhaps theirs is not the same anatta that the Buddha taught. ----------------------- H: > It is well known to all regular university trained, non- creationist, non-intelligent-design type dudes who understand and accept evolution theory, that any 'thing" is not it's own cause. That includes any of the "things" you named above, or care to name at any time or place. ----------------------- Discussions with you can be very helpful to Abhidhamma students. You ask questions and we hone our right-understanding by answering them in accordance with the texts. But what are they doing for you? The things I named – houses, people, subatomic particles – are imaginary. They are what the Buddha called conventional designations. Therefore, to say that they bear the characteristic, anatta, is ultimately no more meaningful than to say that they bear the characteristic, flying purple elephant. It is only when we see conditionality (ultimate reality: nama and rupa) in conventional designations that we can begin to see them as anatta. ------------------------ <. . .> KH: > > in what way does my version differ from the > version found in the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries? > H: > The Tipitaka and the canonical commentaries are books. You are not. You are intentional. Books are not. There is nothing in a book, meaningwise, that you do not put there yourself. It is no surprise to me that your version does not differ from your version :-) ------------------------ If I had said black was black you would have argued it was white, wouldn't you? :-) Ken H #68918 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/26/07 3:58:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi all, > > On 25/02/07, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >Dear Scott, > > > >N: Yes. Ruupas which are not of the body, rupas outside. This is > >difficult to swallow for some. These rupas originate solely from > >temperature, thus, the element of heat. An example: rupas we call > >plant are conditioned solely by temperature. When I look at a plant > >after a few days I notice that it has grown. > >Speech sound is produced by citta, but when we listen to a recorded > >voice, that sound is conditioned solely by temparature. > > It is hardly controversial to say that all life on Earth depends on > the Sun. What would be controversial, and reductionism of the worst > kind, would be to suggest that all the amazing different individual > life forms that have ever been on Earth are explainable in terms of > the Sun only. > > Reductionism is a belief that complex things can be explained in terms > of simple things. Needless to say, reductionism flies completely in > the face of the principles of dependent origination. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ======================== Herman, I pretty much agree with your general intent on this. However, matters may not be quite the way common sense would indicate. Imagine the situation of just 4 types of physical phenomena (e.g., so called earth, air, fire, and water) each of which can have variants, at least in terms of degree (for example, "fire" as temperature ranging from extreme cold to the most intense heat). Even without degree being considered and other variants, non-empty combinations of these four are 16 in number. With, say, only four degrees of each considered, the combinations would be 2 to the 16th power in number, which is already 65,536. And this doesn't even take into consideration *order* of combination. Plus, if one adds in "space" in addition to these 4, well, I suppose you may get the idea. The number of derivative combinations, especially if one considers variants besides varying degrees, can, under quite reasonable circumstances, become quite staggering. So, sometimes enormous complexity *can* be explained in terms of a few simple things. A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that all possible information (in the information-theoretic sense) can be encoded using just two symbols, zero and one! Limiting oneself to just strings of zeroes and ones of length up to 12, the total number is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 512 + 1024 + 2048 + 4096 = 8190. And going a bit further in length, there are over a million bit strings of length 20 alone. With metta, Howard #68919 From: "colette" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Where does Anger start from? ksheri3 Good Day Nitesh, > I knew the anger coming and I > > even knew it was impermanent colette: that's great that you knew it was coming, nothing is permanent so that has no effect on this message. You COGNIZED that it, anger, had a presence and was developing, growing, or as you put it "...anger coming". So you have the state of consciousness to know in what situations anger comes. Ah, but isn't anger another way of saying DOSA? In the Abhidhamma you will find that Lobha, Mosa, and Dosa are ALWAYS PRESENT when negaitivity happens. Dosa or anger, is very subtle and tricky. At least you have the presence of mind to know it exists. I suggest that you familiarize yourself better with the doctrine of Sunyata, emptiness, or in a more Western verbalage we can call it Valuelessness, the condition of having no value, such as the Bush Admin. but I digress. Best of luck in meditations. There really isn't anything to fear in meditations but sometimes they can grow into THINGS, concepts, that distract from your real intentions. toodles, colette #68920 From: "colette" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views., only a few mins. ksheri3 Good Day Charles, We have problems from your reply: "Now all the schools of Brahmanic philosophy have posited some permanent entity, i.e. soul as the cogniser to which cognition is variously related. The Buddhist have, however, denied the existence of any such permanent entity. The aggregates of rupa, somja, samskara, vedana and vijana, - the first corresponding to what we call material elements and all the rest to mental elements -- are the stuff of which an individual is made. Cognition which is not subservient to any intelligent being, is referred to the samjna skandha or the vijnana skandha coording as it is determinate (savikalpa) or indeterminate (nirvikalpa). (1) The place of the transcendental atman is taken by vijnana. It is the continuity of cognition (santana) which holds together, unifes and synthesizes the fleeting moments of cognition and seems to give us the notion, though erroneous, of a subject or a knower acquiring knowledge both presentative (nirviklpa or svalaksana) and representative (savikalpa or samanyalaksana). This is in general the Buddhist view of the nature of the pramatr or the subject. (2) But there are some notable points of difference among the various schools. It would therfore be better if we siduss the problem of cognition with reference to each of the four different schools of later Buddhism, which was responsible for the growth and development of Buddhist logic." What is it you are cognizing, per se, through the supposed eye you say suggest sees? Where does the cognition take place? Why can a practioner of the Martial Arts perform their art without causing any damage to a hallucination, which is where I'm getting at: where does the cognition take place, what is actually cognized? More importantly, how can an illusion be cognized as having substance since it is a known fact that in a capitalistic society the participants in a transaction must see that which is bought, sold, and that which is used as compenation in kind, "show me the money", etc.? Where does a hallucination exist? <....> Try that answer again going deeper into the irrationality of substance and the rationality of sunyata. toodles, colette > You asked, "What is consciousness?" when I made the following statement: > "Without mind ... your eye can not have consciousness." > > > > To answer this question, "Consciousness is an aggregate of the mind (not the > eye)." <....> #68921 From: han tun Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: Daana Corner (07) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, This is taken from “The Practice of Giving” by Susan Elbaum Jootla. Susan wrote the essay in the following sub-headings: * The Factor of Volition * The Recipient of Gifts * The Objects to be Given * The Perfection of Giving * The Ultimate Goal of Giving The following is the end-part of ‘The Factor of Volition.’ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ------------------------------ The Factor of Volition (the end-part) A gift given through an intermediary — for example, having a servant give food to a monk rather than giving it by one's own hand — also detracts from the value of the gift. When one gives without realizing that one must experience the results of one's deeds, an act of giving again diminishes in meritorious potency. If one only plans on giving a donation but does not fulfill one's plan, the merit earned will be very slight. Thus we should always follow up our intentions of generosity expeditiously, unless something intervenes to prevent our doing so. If, after having given a gift, we should subsequently regret our action, much of the merit of the deed will be lost. A moral person gives politely and respectfully. Whether the gift is spontaneous or planned, he or she will make sure that the timing and contents of the gift are appropriate for the receiver. Many housewives in Buddhist countries regularly invite a few monks to their homes to receive almsfood early in the day. Before feeding the family, these women always offer the food to the bhikkhus with their own hands. One might contribute to a certain cause from fear that friends would disapprove if one did not give. Giving in response to such social pressures will have weak, though still beneficial, results. Charitable actions undertaken to gain a good reputation are also selfish and hence not a very valuable kind of giving. Nor can it be praiseworthy when one gives merely to return a favor or in expectation of a reward. The former is like repaying a debt, the latter analogous to offering a bribe. [The End of ‘The Factor of Volition’] ‘The Recipient of Gifts’ will start in the next post. Han #68922 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "Well, I'm saying straight out that what I express is my view. Is it the case that you do not, but convey reality? ;-)" L: My view has changed so often that it would be foolish of me to claim anything as my view. But just the sense of owning a view does make me wonder if that is recognized as a fault, or if "my view" is purely a figure of speech. H: "Reality is not awakening but what is awakened *to*. That reality is unlike anything we know, but that does not make it a zero." L: Are we still talking about nibbana as the only reality? Here is what you said, H: "As far as I'm concerned, reality is unique, singular, and perfect, and it is nibbana. The realm of apparently separate, impermanent, unsatisfactory and imperfect entities, is reality misperceived and is samsara: the deluded state from which there must be escape. And, BTW, since there is no arising of nibbana - it neither arises nor ceases, it cannot *be* the cessation of dukkha, for that would make nibbana an event. It's realization - awakening, bodhi: THAT is the cessation of dukkha." L: I think you are talking about the 5 khandhas from the awakened point of view but you are also rejecting the reality of impermanence and dukkha. If that is what you are doing then I agree that this is a good way to look at things, or aspire to look at things, but I don't really think that is what the Buddha taught. If the Buddha experienced the world in that way then there would be no motivation to teach because everything is perfect already. Even misperception is perfect. H: "Have you experienced jhana, Larry? It is SO far from less in important ways! It is extraordinary. What there is less and less of is attachment and separateness." L: Surely you would agree it is at least less physical. If there is attachment how can there be even a beginning of jhana? I don't think separation from the object of jhana is an issue. The intention is to attain greater and greater depths of tranquility. Perhaps nonseparation can be perceived as a means to that end. I agree that each level of jhana is a sphere, a totality, really big, "boundless". But it seems to me that experience is deliberately let go of in the quest for greater tranquility. Less and less agitation of even the most subtle kind. This seems to me to be a giant arrow pointing at nibbana. Where jhana is less and less agitation but still with a great sense of fullness, nibbana is beyond even that. No agitation and no fullness. And, as you say, no impermanence. Larry #68923 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/26/2007 3:22:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: The number of derivative combinations, especially if one considers variants besides varying degrees, can, under quite reasonable circumstances, become quite staggering. So, sometimes enormous complexity *can* be explained in terms of a few simple things. A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that all possible information (in the information-all possible information (in the using just two symbols, zero and one! Limiting oneself to just strings of zeroes and ones of length up to 12, the total number is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 512 + 1024 + 2048 + 4096 = 8190. And going a bit further in length, there are over a million bit strings of length 20 alone. With metta, Howard Yea Herman! Get with the program! LOL Back to the plant thing though... Although heat may be primarily responsible for the mutating/growth of the plant; without water, soil, and air, it would be totally incapable of growth anyway. All living things are systems that require the appropriate balance of the Four Great Elements in order to function. Take one away and the system dies/stops working. TG #68924 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/26/07 8:51:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "Well, I'm saying straight out that what I express is my view. Is it > the case that you do not, but convey reality? ;-)" > > L: My view has changed so often that it would be foolish of me to claim > anything as my view. But just the sense of owning a view does make me > wonder if that is recognized as a fault, or if "my view" is purely a > figure of speech. > > H: "Reality is not awakening but what is awakened *to*. That reality is > unlike anything we know, but that does not make it a zero." > > L: Are we still talking about nibbana as the only reality? Here is what > you said, > > H: "As far as I'm concerned, reality is unique, singular, and perfect, > and it is nibbana. The realm of apparently separate, impermanent, > unsatisfactory and imperfect entities, is reality misperceived and is > samsara: the deluded state from which there must be escape. And, BTW, > since there is no arising of nibbana - it neither arises nor ceases, it > cannot *be* the cessation of dukkha, for that would make nibbana an > event. It's realization - awakening, bodhi: THAT is the cessation of > dukkha." > > L: I think you are talking about the 5 khandhas from the awakened point > of view but you are also rejecting the reality of impermanence and > dukkha. If that is what you are doing then I agree that this is a good > way to look at things, or aspire to look at things, but I don't really > think that is what the Buddha taught. If the Buddha experienced the > world in that way then there would be no motivation to teach because > everything is perfect already. Even misperception is perfect. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: It's perfect misperception! ;-)) Yes, I do think that everything is perfect, but is not seen to be so. As for dukkha, it is true that satisfaction is not to be found in any conditioned dhamma, but that is not a problem - just do not look for it there. As for impermanence, there is no separate self-existing thing that ever arises or ceases. But there are impermanent aspects of reality, and there is no problem with that. As for dukkha in the sense of suffering, that is due to misperception. Letting that go, and the consequential attachment, there is no suffering. --------------------- > > H: "Have you experienced jhana, Larry? It is SO far from less in > important ways! It is extraordinary. What there is less and less of is > attachment and separateness." > > L: Surely you would agree it is at least less physical. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the lower jhanas are quite physical. -------------------------------------- If there is> > attachment how can there be even a beginning of jhana? > ------------------------------------ Howard: Was I recommending attachment? Jhanas are, amomg other things, a matter of relinquishment, specifically of attachment. Doing what needs to be done leads one into jhana. It is exceedingly pleasant. It was also highly recommended by the Buddha. ----------------------------------- I don't think> > separation from the object of jhana is an issue. > --------------------------------- Howard: I don't follow what you are talking about here, Larry. I didn't talk about separation from the meditation object. What I said was that in jhana it is not that there is less and less experience but less and less of attachment and separateness. ------------------------------ The intention is to > attain greater and greater depths of tranquility. > Perhaps nonseparation > can be perceived as a means to that end. I agree that each level of > jhana is a sphere, a totality, really big, "boundless". But it seems to > me that experience is deliberately let go of in the quest for greater > tranquility. Less and less agitation of even the most subtle kind. This > seems to me to be a giant arrow pointing at nibbana. Where jhana is less > and less agitation but still with a great sense of fullness, nibbana is > beyond even that. No agitation and no fullness. And, as you say, no > impermanence. -------------------------------------- Howard: The jhanas are preparation for the realization of nibbana, and somewhat of a foreshadowing of it. ------------------------------------- > > Larry > > =================== With metta, Howard #68925 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 2/26/07 9:43:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > > In a message dated 2/26/2007 3:22:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > The number of derivative > combinations, especially if one considers variants besides varying degrees, > can, under quite reasonable circumstances, become quite staggering. > So, sometimes enormous complexity *can* be explained in terms of a few > simple things. A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that > > all possible information (in the information-all possible information (in > the > using just two symbols, zero and one! > -------------------------------------- Howard: My preceding sentence came out as utter gobbledygook! It was supposed to be as follows: "A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that all possible information (in the information-theoretic sense) can be encoded using just two symbols, zero and one!" I haven't a clue as to how it came out so badly! ;-) ---------------------------------------- Limiting oneself to just strings of > > zeroes and ones of length up to 12, the total number is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + > ... + 512 > + 1024 + 2048 + 4096 = 8190. And going a bit further in length, there are > over a million bit strings of length 20 alone. > > With metta, > Howard > > > > Yea Herman! Get with the program! LOL > > Back to the plant thing though... Although heat may be primarily > responsible > for the mutating/growth of the plant; without water, soil, and air, it > would > be totally incapable of growth anyway. All living things are systems that > require the appropriate balance of the Four Great Elements in order to > function. Take one away and the system dies/stops working. > > TG > ====================== With metta, Howard #68926 From: "kanchaa" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Where does Anger start from? kanchuu2003 Hello All, Thanks for your reply... I am meditating an hour a day... I am still not feeling very good... Maybe I have to ignore the situation for a while... I realized that there is a difference between What you think or know and what you are??? I still know its impermanent but am not able to cope with it.. Its creating Sanskara, full of anger and hatred.... I am trying my best to cope with it... I will try for sure and will not give up so easily.. Sincerely, Nitesh #68927 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Where does Anger start from? upasaka_howard Hi, Nitesh - In a message dated 2/26/07 10:39:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, kanchuu2003@... writes: > Hello All, > > Thanks for your reply... > > I am meditating an hour a day... I am still not feeling very good... > Maybe I have to ignore the situation for a while... > > I realized that there is a difference between What you think or know > and what you are??? I still know its impermanent but am not able to > cope with it.. Its creating Sanskara, full of anger and hatred.... > > I am trying my best to cope with it... I will try for sure and will > not give up so easily.. > > Sincerely, > > Nitesh > ====================== You might want to consider metta meditation. Though it is not my personal "cup of tea", it does come highly recommended in many quarters. Ven. Vimalaramsi values that practice highly. You might look at his email list, dhammasukha, among the Yahoo groups. With metta, Howard #68928 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "Yes, I do think that everything is perfect, but is not seen to be so." L: That's fine, but I don't think the Buddha taught that. H: "I don't follow what you are talking about here, Larry. I didn't talk about separation from the meditation object. What I said was that in jhana it is not that there is less and less experience but less and less of attachment and separateness." L: My point was that there is no attachment in jhana so there can't be less and less attachment in jhana. What does "less separateness" mean? Less separate from what? How is there less separateness in the second jhana than the first jhana? Larry #68929 From: "colette" Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: u ksheri3 Hi Nitesh, Now I'll work on the original question, without having to go through a fence, a middle-manager, mr & mrs. in-between, etc. > I was curious today about Anger colette: Anger is Dosa. Recall that all emotions are illusory since they are stimulated by illusions. they cause Dosa to rise and take Form, see Name & Form. > Can anyone explain where does > anger start and where does it end?? colette: it starts and ends in the same place: in your own mind. You have the ability to start anger and once you initiate the negative force it goes around the globe and returns to it point of origination, which is you. It has to do with the laws of Physics but thats another story. when you issue anger outward you are trying to hit a target as though you were using a hand gun like a gang member that goes to church every sunday and colludes with other gang members as to how they can best earn higher revenue and decrease the revenue a rival gang at a rival congregation, church, etc, gains. Issueing the anger to another person is not always the best way to go about things, esspecially if you've signed a 30 year promise to pay, a mortgage, at a prison, commonly reffered to as Home. You are all there is honey. We are nothing more than illusions that have no ability to aide you in your personal existance. > What is its role in a life? colette: <....> RECOGNIZE ANGER whenever and where ever it rears it's head. Cognize it. Attempt to reach out and touch it. It is an illusion anyway so you have nothing to worry about. Once you have learned it's guises then you can begin negotiating with it to find it's weaknesses, it's fallibilities, etc. Then you can laugh at Dosa. Maybe even go to the monestary of the Cappucin monks in Italy that bury themselves by choosing where on the wall they want their body hung and those bodies are still hanging there since I have no clue when they died. It's a long time. Relax, enjoy your fleeting moments on this small spaceship called The Earth and continue with your buddhist studies. toodles, colette #68930 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas TGrand458@... Hi Howard (and Herman) In a message dated 2/26/2007 8:38:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 2/26/07 9:43:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > > In a message dated 2/26/2007 3:22:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > _upasaka@..._ (mailto:upasaka@...) writes: > > The number of derivative > combinations, especially if one considers variants besides varying degrees, > can, under quite reasonable circumstances, become quite staggering. > So, sometimes enormous complexity *can* be explained in terms of a few > simple things. A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that > > all possible information (in the information- all possible information (in the > the > using just two symbols, zero and one! > -------------------------------------- Howard: My preceding sentence came out as utter gobbledygook! It was supposed to be as follows: "A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that all possible information (in the information-that all possible inform encoded using just two symbols, zero and one!" I haven't a clue as to how it came out so badly! ;-) ------------------------------------------ TG: I like the first one better. Sure, I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds great! Limiting oneself to just strings of > > zeroes and ones of length up to 12, the total number is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + > ... + 512 > + 1024 + 2048 + 4096 = 8190. And going a bit further in length, there are > over a million bit strings of length 20 alone. > > With metta, > Howard TG #68931 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas egberdina Hi Howard and TG, On 27/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman (and Nina) - > > So, sometimes enormous complexity *can* be explained in terms of a few > simple things. A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact that > all possible information (in the information-theoretic sense) can be encoded > using just two symbols, zero and one! Limiting oneself to just strings of zeroes > and ones of length up to 12, the total number is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 512 > + 1024 + 2048 + 4096 = 8190. And going a bit further in length, there are over > a million bit strings of length 20 alone. > > I am writing the following for the fun of the discussion only , and certainly not to dissent or anything sinister like that :-). I thought your points about degrees were very good, Howard. But I think that degrees of difference in a Great Element sense, and degrees of difference in a numeric sense must be carefully distinguished. Because while a degree of hardness/pressure and a small increase to that can still be considered to be in the same continuum, 0 and 1 have very little in common. Neither does 10 and 11, 100, or 101. In the Dhammasangani of modern chemistry, the periodic table of elements, each element differs from the previous one by only one additional proton. Yet this numeric difference constitutes an element unrecognisable in character from it's lighter counterpart. Kind Regards Herman #68932 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) egberdina Hi Sarah, > H:>It is this knowing > > which is the point of view. All consciousness is consciousness of an > > object, and therefore all consciousness is a point of view. > .... > S: The way I understand pov is that it is conceptual - an idea about > something. > ... I can only come up with two characteristics of consciousness, any consciousness. One characteristic is that consciousness is consciousness of an object, and the other is that consciousness is other than it's object, it is not that object. Consciousness and object are separate, which makes consciousness the point of view on the object. All consciousness is an idea of something. Consciousness itself, is nothing. > ... > > > p.s We had a friend in Thailand who kept talking about 'pov's' - where > > has > > > this idea come from? > > > > You may have heard of Albert Einstein, and his theories on relativity. > > Blame him! > .... > S: I'm not sure why it is suddenly popping up everywhere in dhamma > discussions though? > Perhaps some of your dhamma buddies are waking up to the fact that the notion of knowing an absolute (like a paramattha dhamma) is absurd. :-) Kind Regards Herman #68933 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:53 am Subject: Immediate and Inviting! bhikkhu5 Friends: Realizable here & now in each & every Moment! The Blessed Buddha once said: Through greed, hate, and confusion, overwhelmed and obsessed by greed, hate, & confusion, one aims at one's own ruin, others' ruin, at the ruin of both, & one suffers much mental pain & frustration... If, however, greed, hate, & confusion are eliminated, then one aims neither at one's own ruin, nor at others' ruin, nor at ruining both, and one suffers neither any mental pain nor any frustration at all! Hence is NibbÄ?na realizable right here & now in this very lifetime, immediate, inviting, interesting, & intelligible to each intelligent one. Exactly in so far as anyone has made real the complete ceasing of all greed, hate, and confusion, just in so far is NibbÄ?na realizable right here & now in this very life, immediate, inviting, interesting, & intelligible to each and every intelligent being... Source: Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikaya AN 3:55 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #68934 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Dear Scott, As you quoted: Sound that originates from temperature is, for example, the sound of wind or of a waterfall. Sound that originates from consciousness is speech sound. We read in the “Manual of Abhidhamma” (Abhidhammattha Sangaha), in the notes of Ven Narada: The friction of hardness against hardness, concussion, causes sound. Perhaps we can consider this as the operation of temperature. We can also read about this in Survey, p. 450: < Sound (sadda ruupa) can originate from two factors, namely, some kalapas originate from citta and some from temperature.> I think that we cannot pinpoint this exactly. Different originations occur closely one after the other. Nina. Op 26-feb-2007, om 2:11 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Can you say a bit about 'inarticulate' versus 'articulate' sound? Is > the sound arising out of the activity known as 'the making of music' > to be considered conditioned by both temperature and consciousness? #68935 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Hi TG, I understand your point, it must look like a laundry list. I used the Tiika text to indicate that four factors are called originators of rupa, but that these operations are far more intricate. Therefore details can be useful. You find more inspiration in the suttas, but I know that you also appreciate the Abhidhamma. When we begin to develop understanding of nama and rupa, paramattha dhammas, we can realize that the Abhidhamma is an important support. We can learn that Abhidhamma and Vipassana go together. When we learn that the realities we experience all the time are conditioned elements, does that not lead to detachment? The sense objects we experience are ruupas arising because of conditions. Eyesense, we cling so much to it. It is rupa, produced by kamma. Nina. Op 26-feb-2007, om 18:54 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Anyway, it just sounds like a long laundry list of > stuff copied from texts that were compiled with a lot of guesswork. > And as > far as it generating detachment of anything, it doesn't do it for > me...whereas > almost every line of the Suttas does generate detachment for me. #68936 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas nilovg Hi Herman and Howard, Herman was concerned about reductionism. Howard explained the merit of reducing what is complex. My addition: all the different, various phenomena of our life are actually nama and rupa. We create many, many stories about them, but what is really there: nama and rupa. Understanding of them can be developed when their characteristics appear. This must lead to detachment from all the stories we create. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 4:36 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > "A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact > that all possible information (in the information-theoretic sense) > can be > encoded using just two symbols, zero and one!" #68937 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:51 am Subject: a cremation just like now nilovg Hi Howard, -------- But what about the other "cosmic principles"? Temperature, nutriment, and so on? Not everything arises due to one's past kamma the Buddha has said, has he not? Actually, I find your reply "interesting" in another way. You are saying that no two people ever make contact with the same rupa - they cannot - it is impossible, -------- N: Vipaakacitta such as seeing or bodyconsciousness experiences a rupa and this experience, this citta is the result of kamma. In conventional sense one can see that two people look at the same thing, but in reality there are different vipaakacittas seeing different objects, and this is conditioned by different kammas. Even it seems the same thing that is seen, the colour experienced by vipaakacitta may be undesirable in the case of one person and desirable in the case of the other person. It all depends on kamma. --------- H: and you also maintain, I know, that rupas are mind-independent, self-existing realities, and not mere content of consciousness. On the basis of what you say, it seems to me to make little difference whether one adopts a phenomenalist or objectivist position. It would seem that the position to be adopted needs to effectively be one of solipsism. Each "person", according to your reply, lives in his/her own world and no other, for the rupas that *experientially* arise for him/her, are, you assert, objective, self- existent realities, and not mere contents of consciousness, and they are all his/her "private stock" of realities arising, as you assert, solely from his/her own kamma, and there is, thus, no interaction among beings possible at all. ------- N: In a way everybody lives in his own world of thinking. On account of what is experienced different types of thinking arises, kusala or akusala. But nevertheless there is interaction. We need to meet the right person who explains Dhamma to us, right friendship. Interaction is most of the time akusala, but through vipassana interaction can be with more understanding both of oneself and of others. -------- H: But, clearly that can't be the case unless I am merely dreaming of interacting with you, Nina. If you do believe that there is interaction, I'd like to know what you think is the basis for it. My perspective is different. I view the totality of "existence" as being constituted of a multitude of interacting, mutually reflecting, mindstreams, each a flow of experience, mental and physical, consisting of the knowing of content in a variety of ways, with all that arises in these mindstreams being ultimately due primarily to ones own kamma (volitional & intentional action) and secondarily to that of others. ------- N: It is due to one's accumulated kusala and akusala, not just kamma. We have to be precise: seeing and the other sense impressions are vipaakacitta, produced by kamma, and one's reactions are due to accumulated akusala and kusala. -------- H: As I see it, what is arising in your mind, Nina, as you read this post, is conditioned not only by your own kamma, but obviously by my actions as well, most specifically those involved in my writing of this post. The mindstates arising for you in reading this post would not exist without my kamma. What could be clearer? ------ N: Reading is not vipaaka produced by kamma, it is thinking about what is seen. It can be done with kusala citta or akusala citta. We cannot say that your kamma has anything to do with this. Your kamma does not produce my seeing or my reactions. There are circumstances, situations, involvements with others, and they can influence one's behaviour. But the real cause is internal. -------- H: Certainly, the content of my consciousness is not identical with that of yours, and given that there is no rupa that we both make contact with, and given your perspective that rupas are self-existent realities, what, then, from your vantage point, can be the basis of our interaction? ---------- N: It is due to kamma that one is born in this world, into such family, that one meets such or such persons. We can say this in a wider sense, but when we are precise we have to analyse the different moments of citta and understand the real cause for such or such effect. If we omit this we may become very confused about our life and also about our relationship with others. It is good you brought up this point of interaction, it is also Lodewijk's dilemma. I have a feeling that so long as the wrong view of self has not been eradicated, doubts will arise: is it really true that there are no people in the ultimate sense, that they exist only in my thinking? I can say: in the ultimate sense, but in fact I know so little about reality. But this is an exhortation for me to develop understanding of nama and rupa. Then I can see the truth for myself. Nina. #68938 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas, Introduction, 3. nilovg Hi Howard, We cannot call this private stocks of rupas. From the first moment of life kamma produces bodysense, arising in a group of ten rupas. This rupa arises and falls away, it is not a stock. So long as there are condiitons kamma produces this. The rupa that falls away is replaced by a new rupa. There are also rupas that are not of the body, but these are only produced by temperature. When someone has died, a corpse is left, and then temperature produces the rupas we call a corpse. The conditions of kamma, citta and nutrition do not operate anymore. For your other remark see my other post. Nina. Op 25-feb-2007, om 21:10 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Rebirth-consciousness is the mental result of kamma, but at that > > moment kamma also produces rúpas and kamma keeps on producing rúpas > > throughout life; when it stops producing rúpas our life-span has > > to end. > ==================== > Hmm, that is interesting to me: This sounds like there are private > "stocks" of rupas, associated with individual mindstreams, starting > with rebirth > consciousness until the end of that lifespan. But I thought that > you good > folks believe in external rupas, independent of conciousness, with > the same rupa > being observable by more than one "person"? This seems to suggest > differently. #68939 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Mystery of Consciousness egberdina dHi Sarah, Thanks for all your replies. I sincerely appreciate them. We seem to agree on many things, and I have just left those items where we seem to differ. On 26/02/07, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Herman, > > > > > Clearly, forms do not depend on consciousness. So, rupas that are > > known is one kind of rupa, and rupa that are not known, is another > > kind of rupa. > .... > S: The rupas are just as they are regardless. Sound is sound, hardness is > hardness. The only difference is whether or not they are experienced and > how they are experienced. > There is no such thing as unheard sound, or unfelt hardness. Sound is sound to consciousness (pov thing again), and hardness is hardness to consciousness. Unexperienced rupas ARE, that's for sure and for certain, but they lack any characteristics, because all characteristics are relative to consciousness. > > > > Can you give me directions to the arupa brahma realm, so we can find > > some examples? > ... > S: Do you have CMA, I forget? Ch1, Guide to #22-24 > Also, ch3, #21: "The immaterial-sphere resultants ae independent of the > heart-base." > (There may be other better references, this is just a quick look.) > ... I've always had reservations about the 31 or whatever numbers of realms and spheres there are said to be. From the Hemavata Sutta 168. The demon Hemavata asked: How has the world arisen and how are acquaintances made, On what is the world supported, and how does it get destroyed." 169. The Blessed One said; Hemavata, the world arises in the six, and acquaintances are on the six Supported on these same six, the world gets destroyed in the six". The six, of course, being the six senses. Mediated by a brain. > > > > You make some assumptions. Why have cittas "of course" continued? > .... > S: I just checked the text. It refers in the next line to comparing 'one > who is dead' (like this) to one 'who has entered upon cessation of > perception and feeling.' Of course, in the case of an arahant, no more > cittas, but I understood it here to be referring to common death. I see > BB's note suggests the same: 'That is, dead'. > ... How can one tell if a corpse "belonged" to an arahant? How can one tell, for that matter, if a living being is an arahant? Thank you for discussing. Kind Regards Herman #68940 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner egberdina Hi Han (and thanks Antony for the link), Yes, it is a real problem, making sense out of conflicting instructions. > > Both are the Buddha's words, your quote and my quote. > Please take whichever you prefer. > My tendency would be to take the instruction that could be applied to the most cases. Which is why I would prefer neither sutta. Instead I would prefer the instructions on the brahmaviharas, because these gifts are absolutely not selective. I will continue to read your series with interest. I am secretly hoping that there will be a section on situations where the sangha is instructed by the Buddha to politely insist that the giver of a gift should instead give it to people who need it more, or are better served by it. Kind Regards Herman #68941 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:44 am Subject: New Group buddhatrue Hi All, In the past, I had a Yahoo group that was dedicated to my decision to become a Buddhist monk. I posted many small articles related to Buddhism and which revolved around my life and that decision. Many people enjoyed my writing style and some publishing companies wanted to publish a book of my writings, including the Buddhist Publication Society. However, after going to Thailand to Wat Pah Nanachat, I decided that that temple wasn't for me. My parents didn't want me to try any other temples, so that was the end of that (as one must have one's parent's permission to ordain). I dissolved the group since I wasn't going to be becoming a monk anytime soon. However, recently I have been watching the past seasons of the TV show "Sex and the City" where the writer Carrie Bradshaw writes a newspaper article about her romantic relationships, and it occurred to me that I am very much like that character. I also like to write about my life, but I like to relate my life to my passion- Buddhism. So, I have decided to open another Internet group and post articles about my life which detail my efforts to follow the Buddha's path. However, rather than as a monk, I will be following the Buddha's path as a householder. In short, I have a lot I want to say and I would like to share it with others. I am not a teacher of Buddhism; actually, I am quite the opposite. But if you are willing to share the journey with me, perhaps we can all learn something along the way. You can join the group if you wish at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddhatrue Metta, James PS. I won't be posting the articles to DSG as they will be controversial in nature (homosexuality, sexual activities, substance abuse, etc.). I don't want to get off-list warnings from Jon and Sarah, as I have occasionally in the past about personal posts. #68942 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/26/07 11:00:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "Yes, I do think that everything is perfect, but is not seen to be > so." > > L: That's fine, but I don't think the Buddha taught that. -------------------------------------------- Howard: He taught that the mind is luminous but beset by adventitous defilements. He taught that with the complete uprooting of those defilements, fundamentally the ignorance, craving, and aversion, nibbana is realized, and nibbana is perfect peace. That's close enough for me. Our defilements are not only blinders, but distorters. ------------------------------------------- > > H: "I don't follow what you are talking about here, Larry. I didn't talk > about separation from the meditation object. What I said was that in > jhana it is not that there is less and less experience but less and less > of attachment and separateness." > > L: My point was that there is no attachment in jhana so there can't be > less and less attachment in jhana. What does "less separateness" mean? > Less separate from what? How is there less separateness in the second > jhana than the first jhana? -------------------------------- Howard: The lower jhanas, especially the first, involve more delight, and attachment (after the fact) is a greater possibility. There is increasing equanimity as one proceeds from 1st through 4th among the jhanas. In the non-jhanic consciousness of wordlings, there is a multiplicity of observed phenomena, and they seem separate and self-sufficient. The jhanas are simpler, and there is less sense of the phenomena observed being separate and self-sufficient. ======================= With metta, Howard #68943 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:56 am Subject: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply: N:"We read in the 'Manual of Abhidhamma' (Abhidhammattha Sangaha), in the notes of Ven Narada: The friction of hardness against hardness, concussion, causes sound. Perhaps we can consider this as the operation of temperature. We can also read about this in Survey, p. 450: < Sound (sadda ruupa) can originate from two factors, namely, some kalapas originate from citta and some from temperature." This is what is taught, from the Abhidhamma perspective, to be either accepted (which I do) or not, I suppose. As you say below, the origins of the sound, whether citta-ja citta-samutthaana-ruupa or by utu, can alternate when considering 'music'. And here we are discussing the origin of sound and the possibility of there being sounds (ruupa) which arise independent of consciousness. N: "I think that we cannot pinpoint this exactly. Different originations occur closely one after the other." I was listening to Kh. Sujin, from October 2001, (2001-10-27-a, the last 10 minutes or so) where she was talking with you about having an understanding of ruupa as ruupa through vipassanaa-~naana at the mind-door. I've likely gotten some of this wrong in the transcription. She discusses the growth of sati and how at the beginning the awareness is not well-enough developed to be able to make distinctions which can differentiate what is given theoretically. She says, in discussing sense-door and mind-door, that to separate the sense-door and the mind-door that follows after bhavanga in between is not possible when development is tender, The distinction was made that at the sense-door pa~n~na can only understand ruupa, not naama but that at the mind-door vipassanaa-~naana can be more distinguishing of both ruupa and naama and can know this. Kusala with pa~n~na can arise at six doorways. By reason, she says, there must be ruupa at the sense-door before it appears at the mind-door in order for ruupa to be known at the mind-door. Now, she points out, without well-developed pa~n~na, the sense-door process 'covers up' mind-door process. When its a moment of vipassanaa-~naana, this can show that this is the world of mind-door process. The sense-door process lasts only seven javana moments. She notes that given how fast and how short a moment it is, its through sense-door that the mind door can understand ruupa. She also notes that it is at the different sense-doors that nothing can hide the mind-door process when its vipassanaa-~naana and that this can understand the ruupa at the sense-door. Now, at this moment, she says, its the kusala with panna at the sense-door process. There are alternating moments of sense door and mind door with bhavanga in between. Citta at the mind-door understands naama and ruupa. It is vipassaana-~naana which understands. Satipa.t.thaana can arise in the sense-door at the moment of vipassaana-~naana and at that moment there is no doubt as to what is sense-door and what is mind-door. Perhaps, if you recall some of this discussion, you might be able to set straight what I have mixed up, and consider this in light of this aspect of ruupa we are discussing. Thanks, Nina. Sincerely, Scott. #68944 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/27/07 12:55:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard (and Herman) > > >_upasaka@..._ (mailto:upasaka@...) writes: > > > >The number of derivative > >combinations, especially if one considers variants besides varying > degrees, > >can, under quite reasonable circumstances, become quite staggering. > >So, sometimes enormous complexity *can* be explained in terms of a few > >simple things. A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact > that > > > >all possible information (in the information- all possible information (in > the > >the > >using just two symbols, zero and one! > > > -------------------------------------- > Howard: > My preceding sentence came out as utter gobbledygook! It was supposed > to be as follows: "A really simple way to see this is to consider the fact > that all possible information (in the information-that all possible inform > encoded using just two symbols, zero and one!" > I haven't a clue as to how it came out so badly! ;-) > ------------------------------------------ > > TG: I like the first one better. Sure, I don't know what you're talking > about, but it sounds great! ------------------------------------------ Howard: Excellent! I do try to fit right in on DSG!! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------- > > > > > Limiting oneself to just strings of > > >zeroes and ones of length up to 12, the total number is 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + > >... + 512 > >+ 1024 + 2048 + 4096 = 8190. And going a bit further in length, there are > >over a million bit strings of length 20 alone. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > ======================== With cyrptic and deadening metta, ;-) Howard #68945 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Reductionism Re: Rupas upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and TG) - In a message dated 2/27/07 3:20:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > > I thought your points about degrees were very good, Howard. But I > think that degrees of difference in a Great Element sense, and degrees > of difference in a numeric sense must be carefully distinguished. > Because while a degree of hardness/pressure and a small increase to > that can still be considered to be in the same continuum, 0 and 1 have > very little in common. Neither does 10 and 11, 100, or 101. > > In the Dhammasangani of modern chemistry, the periodic table of > elements, each element differs from the previous one by only one > additional proton. Yet this numeric difference constitutes an element > unrecognisable in character from it's lighter counterpart. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, this just serves to support my point, I think, that enormous multiplicity can be based in simplicity. :-) ---------------------------------------- > > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman > > ==================== With metta, Howard #68946 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (14) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - In a message dated 2/27/07 3:35:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I can only come up with two characteristics of consciousness, any > consciousness. One characteristic is that consciousness is > consciousness of an object, and the other is that consciousness is > other than it's object, it is not that object. Consciousness and > object are separate, which makes consciousness the point of view on > the object. All consciousness is an idea of something. Consciousness > itself, is nothing. > > >... > >>>p.s We had a friend in Thailand who kept talking about 'pov's' - where > >>has > >>>this idea come from? > >> > >>You may have heard of Albert Einstein, and his theories on relativity. > >>Blame him! > >.... > >S: I'm not sure why it is suddenly popping up everywhere in dhamma > >discussions though? > > > > Perhaps some of your dhamma buddies are waking up to the fact that the > notion of knowing an absolute (like a paramattha dhamma) is absurd. > :-) > ======================= Herman, you are using pov in the literal sense - the point or place or element of observing. But the usual sense of pov is "opinion" or interpretation". What you say about the distinction between consciousness and its object is well accepted here, with it well understood that the knowing of an object is not a self-knowing by the object. One could then *say* that the knowing is, literally, a point-of-view, but that's not what most folks mean by pov. Also, I believe you are using 'idea' in a non-standard way. People generally dist inguish between an idea of something and an observing of that thing, the former involving attitude, concept, and interpretation, and possible even when the object is not present. So, folks, for example, distinguish between an itch and the idea of an itch. With metta, Howard #68947 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Herman, Herman: My tendency would be to take the instruction that could be applied to the most cases. Which is why I would prefer neither sutta. Instead I would prefer the instructions on the brahmaviharas, because these gifts are absolutely not selective. Han: I think you are referring to radiating metta and karuna to all beings without distinction, and without selection. Yes, if you can abide by brahmaviharas that would be very good. But daana is a different matter involving donor, recipient and gifts, and one cannot avoid considering these factors. ------------------------------ Herman: I will continue to read your series with interest. I am secretly hoping that there will be a section on situations where the sangha is instructed by the Buddha to politely insist that the giver of a gift should instead give it to people who need it more, or are better served by it. Han: I am grateful to you for your continuing interest. But please do not be frustrated if you do not find what you wanted to see in the series. I must tell you that I do not know anything about 227 training rules that the monks have to observe. In those training rules there may be Buddha’s instructions to the monks to the effect you have just mentioned. I do not know. Only those who are experts in vinaya rules will be able to clarify those issues. Respectfully, Han #68948 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Scott) - In a message dated 2/27/07 5:15:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Sound that originates from temperature is, for example, the sound of > wind or of a waterfall. Sound that originates from consciousness is > speech sound. > ====================== Okay, this then involves a pointing to a primary condition. What would you say about a flute sound? I would say it originates directly from consciousness (of the flute player), wind (and immediate cause), and hardness (of the flute itself, a supportive cause) at the very least. They seem to be of equal weight. What would you say, Nina? With metta, Howard #68949 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas, Introduction, 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/27/07 6:02:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > We cannot call this private stocks of rupas. From the first moment of > life kamma produces bodysense, arising in a group of ten rupas. This > rupa arises and falls away, it is not a stock. So long as there are > condiitons kamma produces this. The rupa that falls away is replaced > by a new rupa. ------------------------------------ Howard: I know there is no stock. That is why I put "private stock" in quotes. I don't believe in "accumulations" either, not literally - just conditionality. ------------------------------------ > There are also rupas that are not of the body, but these are only > produced by temperature. When someone has died, a corpse is left, and > then temperature produces the rupas we call a corpse. The conditions > of kamma, citta and nutrition do not operate anymore. > For your other remark see my other post. > Nina. > > ======================== With metta, Howard #68950 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a cremation just like now upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/27/07 6:00:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > H: As I see it, what is arising in your mind, > Nina, as you read this post, is conditioned not only by your own > kamma, but > obviously by my actions as well, most specifically those involved in > my writing > of this post. The mindstates arising for you in reading this post > would not > exist without my kamma. What could be clearer? > ------ > N: Reading is not vipaaka produced by kamma, it is thinking about > what is seen. It can be done with kusala citta or akusala citta. We > cannot say that your kamma has anything to do with this. > Your kamma does not produce my seeing or my reactions. > There are circumstances, situations, involvements with others, and > they can influence one's behaviour. But the real cause is internal. > ======================= Nina, you could not read my posts if they were not produced, and my kamma produced them. With metta, Howard #68951 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:40 am Subject: An Insightful Typo [Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it?] upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 2/27/07 7:52:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > In the non-jhanic consciousness of wordlings ======================= LOLOL! I just realized that my mispelling gives an intersting insight: Worldlings are "wordlings", folks beset by attachment to concepts. ;-) With metta, Howard #68952 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner nilovg Dear Han and Herman, I do not know all the rules, but a monk could not do this, he has to receive the gift. He may not even share food with laypeople present, I experienced this myself once. But the left overs afterwards are taken by the layfollowers. It is a good custom in Thailand. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 14:26 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I > am secretly hoping that there will be a section on > situations where the sangha is instructed by the > Buddha to politely insist that the giver of a gift > should instead give it to people who need it more, or > are better served by it. #68953 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:54 am Subject: Re: Nibbana is Stilled Peace! nidive Hi Howard, > How, then, does one distinguish nabbana from bodhi? If nibbana > literally IS "The standstill of all forming activities, the > silencing of all kammic mental construction, > the relinquishing of all substrata fuelling existence, the fading > away of all craving, detachment, release, ceasing," then it would > seem that nibbana is an event that occurs in time. Is that not an > incorrect description of nibbana? I was expecting to read a reply from Bhikkhu Samahita, but I noticed that you did not include the word "Samahita" in your reply to him. I think you might get an answer from him if you resend with the word "Samahita" since he uses an automatic mail filter. Regards, Swee Boon #68954 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana is Stilled Peace! upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - Thank you for tyhe reminder! :-) With metta, Howard #68956 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:28 am Subject: Resending Nibbana is Stilled Peace! upasaka_howard Dear Venerable Samahita - I am resending this, as I forgot to mention 'Samahita' previously. With metta, Howard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - {see #68842} #68957 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:26 am Subject: Rupas, Ch 1, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Viewing the body and the things around us as different combinations of rúpas may be a new outlook to us. Gradually we shall realize that rúpas are not abstract categories, but that they are realities appearing in daily life. I shall quote the definitions of the different rúpas given by the commentaries, the “Visuddhimagga” and the “Atthasåliní”. These definitions mention the characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause or immediate occasion of the rúpas that are explained. The “Visuddhimagga” (XI,93) 3 gives, for example, the following definition of the rúpa that is the earth element or solidity: ...The earth element has the characteristic of hardness. Its function is to act as a foundation. It is manifested as receiving ... As to the proximate cause, I shall deal with that later on. Each reality has its own individual characteristic by which it can be distinguished from other realities. Solidity has hardness (or softness) as characteristic, the fire element has heat as characteristic. Such characteristics can be experienced when they appear. As to function, rúpas have functions in relation to other rúpas or in relation to nåma. Solidity acts as a foundation, namely for the other rúpas it arises together with in a group, that is its function. Smell, for example, could not arise alone, it needs solidity as foundation. It is the same with visible object or colour that can be experienced through the eyesense. Visible object or colour needs solidity as foundation or support, it could not arise alone. Solidity that arises together with visible object cannot be seen, only visible object can be seen. As regards manifestation, this is the way a reality habitually appears. Solidity is manifested as receiving, it receives the other rúpas it arises together with since it acts as their foundation. With regard to the proximate cause, according to the “Visuddhimagga” (XIV,35) each of the four Great Elements has the other three as its proximate cause. The four Great Elements arise together and condition one another. At first the definitions of realities may seem complicated but when we have studied them we shall see that they are helpful for the understanding of the different realities, and this includes understanding of the way they act on other realities and the way they manifest themselves. The study of realities is a foundation for the development of direct understanding, of seeing things as they really are. ******** Nina. #68958 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:30 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 8, no 10. nilovg Dear friends, You asked how we can learn to discern the difference between nåma and rúpa, and in particular the difference between bodily phenomena and the experience of bodily phenomena, since that is so difficult. Is there again an idea of self who can select phenomena in order to be aware of them? We know that the difference between nåma and rúpa should be distinguished, but the objects of awareness should not be selected. We are ignorant of all phenomena which appear. Do we know visible object as it is, seeing as it is, feeling as it is? When visible object appears it can be object of awareness so that right understanding of it can be developed. Right understanding can realize visible object as rúpa, different from nåma. After a moment of awareness of visible object, it is not necessary to be aware of seeing in order to realize the difference between nåma and rúpa; we cannot direct sati to particular nåmas and rúpas. After awareness of visible object, sati may be aware of feeling or of sound; sati is non- self, anattå. When the first stage of insight knowledge arises, the difference between the nåma and the rúpa which appear is clearly known; the objects of awareness are not necessarily seeing and visible object or hearing and sound. The objects of awareness are any kind of rúpa which appears and any kind of nåma which appears, there is no selection of objects, there is no idea that they would have to appear in a particular order. When we worry about how we can know the difference between a particular kind of nåma and a particular kind of rúpa we are not developing understanding. Thus, there is no prescription one could follow so that one could find out the difference between nåma and rúpa. It all depends on the development of sati-sampajañña. While we were in India Khun Sujin said that if one does not know the characteristic of sati it cannot be developed. On the other hand, only when sati arises can we know its characteristic. It seems like a vicious circle. Khun Sujin said time and again, "Develop it now". We were wondering how we could. The answer is that through the study of the teachings, through considering them, through asking questions, intellectual understanding is gradually built up. These factors are conditions for right awareness of realities which appear. We need patience to listen and consider again and again, we should have no desire for the arising of sati. Khun Sujin said: "If there is no desire for sati it will arise, I guarantee." Why do we discuss visible object time and again? In order to be reminded to consider it with awareness. When we see, we think immediately of the people and the things around us, because we always did this. However, we can remember that what appears through the eyes is only visible object. ******* Nina. #68959 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Group nilovg Hi James, What about posting the non-controversial articles to dsg? You could make a selection. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 13:44 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > I won't be posting the articles to DSG as they will be > controversial in nature #68960 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas, Ch 1, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/27/07 2:27:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Viewing the body and the things around us as different combinations > of rúpas may be a new outlook to us. ===================== People in this day and age quite commonly view the body and things around us as combinations of molecules or atoms or subatomic particles, and in the latter case, many folks are quite aware that these are supposed to be fleeting, ghostlike, certainly impersonal phenomena that arise and cease in trillionths of a second, and arise due to causes and conditions. How would that differ from the rupa perspective? Especially, why would the rupa perspective lend itself any more to a sense of anicca and anatta? Why is the rupa theory better? Is contemplating a theory really the means to freedom? With metta, Howard #68961 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] daana corner hantun1 Dear Nina (Herman), Thank you very much for your kind clarification. There are many things which I did not know, but am learning from you. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han and Herman, > I do not know all the rules, but a monk could not do > this, he has to > receive the gift. He may not even share food with > laypeople present, > I experienced this myself once. But the left overs > afterwards are > taken by the layfollowers. It is a good custom in > Thailand. > Nina. > Op 27-feb-2007, om 14:26 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: > > > I > > am secretly hoping that there will be a section on > > situations where the sangha is instructed by the > > Buddha to politely insist that the giver of a gift > > should instead give it to people who need it more, > or > > are better served by it. #68962 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:23 pm Subject: Daana Corner (08) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, This is taken from “The Practice of Giving” by Susan Elbaum Jootla. Susan wrote the essay in the following sub-headings: * The Factor of Volition * The Recipient of Gifts * The Objects to be Given * The Perfection of Giving * The Ultimate Goal of Giving The following is the beginning of sub-heading, The Recipient of Gifts. (I will post it in 3 parts) Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ------------------------------ The Recipient of Gifts The purity of the recipient is another factor which helps determine the kammic fruitfulness of a gift. The worthier the receiver, the greater the benefits that will come to the donor; hence it is good to give to the holiest people available. The Buddha teaches that the worthiest recipients of gifts are the ariyas, the noble ones, such as the Buddha himself and those of his disciples who have reached supramundane paths and fruits; for it is their purity of mind, attained by wisdom, that makes the act of giving capable of yielding abundant benefits. Therefore, to earn the maximum merit, we should give as much as we can, and as often as possible, to the noble ones. Gifts to a bhikkhu who strives for the state of a noble one, or to a Buddhist meditator who lives by the Five Precepts, will also yield bountiful results. When ariyas accept offerings, they do so to provide an opportunity for the donor to earn merit. Non-returners and Arahats in particular, who have attained the two highest stages of sanctity, have eliminated desire for sense objects. Thus when they are given gifts their minds remain detached from the objects presented and are filled with compassion for the giver. 'The Recipient of Gifts' to be continued. Han #68963 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Resending Nibbana is Stilled Peace! TGrand458@... Hi Howard (While we're waiting for Ven. Samahita's explaination.) In a message dated 2/27/2007 11:30:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > The Blessed Buddha once said: > Here, Ananda, the Bhikkhu considers it all like this: > This is the supreme peace, this is the sublime calm: The standstill of > all forming activities, the silencing of all kammic mental construction, > the relinquishing of all substrata fuelling existence, the fading away > of all craving, detachment, release, ceasing, Nibbana... > In this way, Ananda, the Bhikkhu may enter a mental absorption in > which there is no notion of I and mine, no attacks of conceiving any > internal consciousness or any external objects &wherein he is both > mentally released &fully liberated through understanding the all... > There is no inclination to I and mine-making, and no more attacks of > conceit by latent tendencies to identification, egotism, &narcissism! > > Knowing both what the inner is and the outer is, > one is neither stirred nor troubled any more! > When thus stilled and imperturbable, there is > neither any attraction, nor any aversion... > One has crossed &escaped ageing &death!!! > Sutta Nipata 1048 > > ======================== How, then, does one distinguish nibbana from bodhi? If nibbana literally IS "The standstill of all forming activities, the silencing of all kammic mental construction, the relinquishing of all substrata fuelling existence, the fading away of all craving, detachment, release, ceasing," then it would seem that nibbana is an event that occurs in time. Is that not an incorrect description of nibbana? With metta, Howard TG: You seem to be objecting to descriptions of Nibbana from the Suttas. I don't know where else we go to get correct descriptions of Nibbana. It will not surprise you that the descriptions quoted are by far and large the way I understand Nibbana to be handled in the Suttas. Let me take a shot at your two points though... 1) If Bodhi is the "active" understanding of actuality/enlightenment, then I would say it understands "reflectively," in review, that ... the "stilling of all (mental) formations" is the "end of suffering." 2) I don't know what a "time" issue has to do with it? Maybe you could elaborate. TG #68964 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Resending Nibbana is Stilled Peace! upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/27/07 5:47:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > TG: You seem to be objecting to descriptions of Nibbana from the Suttas. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I know what you mean, but I'm not. I simply interpret them somewhat figuratively. The kind of thing I assume you are referring to is that nibbana is the end of suffering. I think of that as a way of informmaly saying nibbana marks the end of suffering, or realizing nibbana is the end of suffering. It's analogous to the following proposition (that I do not believe, BTW): "Marriage is the end of freedom". That is not a definition of marriage. Marriage is the state of having a spouse. What the sentence actually MEANS is "GETTING married is the end of freedom". Follow me? ---------------------------------------- I > > don't know where else we go to get correct descriptions of Nibbana. It > will > not surprise you that the descriptions quoted are by far and large the way > I > understand Nibbana to be handled in the Suttas. Let me take a shot at your > > two points though... > > 1) If Bodhi is the "active" understanding of actuality/enlightenment, then > > I would say it understands "reflectively," in review, that ... the > "stilling > of all (mental) formations" is the "end of suffering." > > 2) I don't know what a "time" issue has to do with it? Maybe you could > elaborate. ---------------------------------- Howard: Nibbana is unborn, unceasing, unconditioned. It is NOT an event. -------------------------------- > > TG > > ================== With metta, Howard #68965 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! egberdina Hi Sarah, I'm sure there's overlap between various of our posts, but I'm sure that doesn't matter. On 26/02/07, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Herman, > > >There is never just hearing, or just > > seeing, no hearing in general, or seeing in general, it is always > > seeing or hearing something specific. > .... > S: > 1. Yes! It is always seeing of a particular visible object or hearing of a > particular sound. > > 2. In the same way, it is never just being aware or understanding in > general, but being aware or understanding a specific characteristic. > > 3. So all cittas experience an object. When the cittas accompanied by > awareness and understanding (and other sobhana cetasikas) arise, they > experience a dhamma. Such a dhamma may be seeing, hearing or any other > presently appearing dhamma. > ***** If you are saying that at point 3 there is consciousness of being conscious, as well as consciousness of the object, then I agree. Kind Regards Herman #68966 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A cremation, just like now! egberdina Hi Howard, On 27/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - > > BTW, I raised an issue in a recent post that no one has responded to. > It is the matter of whether different "people" are ever aware of the literally > same rupa. I don't mean that they have the identically same experience - of > course they cannot, but whether thay ever make contact with the very same rupa. > If not, if they never do, then there is a separate realm of rupas for each > namarupic flow, and the distinction between the radical phenomenalist position > and the objectivist position loses its significance. > ------------------------------------------ > I might well be barking up the wrong tree here, but I'll throw my two bits in. I think there are insurmountable problems with theories of pointilistic consciousness of pointillistic objects. To me, consciousness is a complex continuum, and so are the "objects" of consciousness. It makes more sense to me to talk of these matters in terms of fields, and so your question would become, do different people have contact with the same field? And I'd say, yes, for sure and for certain. That would of course be restricted to the senses of seeing and hearing, because the "objects" of those modalities are propagated in waves, or perhaps better said, the objects are waves. Which means they are non-local, they cover a non-discrete space at once, or in other words, they do not have a specific location. Kind Regards Herman #68967 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Resending Nibbana is Stilled Peace! TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 2/27/2007 4:38:25 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I know what you mean, but I'm not. I simply interpret them somewhat figuratively. The kind of thing I assume you are referring to is that nibbana is the end of suffering. I think of that as a way of informmaly saying nibbana marks the end of suffering, or realizing nibbana is the end of suffering. TG: I think I understand what you're getting at. But since I don't posit another attribute or substance to Nibbana, "the end of suffering" is as full a description of what it really is as anything else IMO. It's analogous to the following proposition (that I do not believe, BTW): "Marriage is the end of freedom". That is not a definition of marriage. Marriage is the state of having a spouse. What the sentence actually MEANS is "GETTING married is the end of freedom". Follow me? ---------------------------------------- I > > don't know where else we go to get correct descriptions of Nibbana. It > will > not surprise you that the descriptions quoted are by far and large the way > I > understand Nibbana to be handled in the Suttas. Let me take a shot at your > > two points though... > > 1) If Bodhi is the "active" understanding of actuality/enlighten 1) If Bodh > > I would say it understands "reflectively, I would say it unders > "stilling > of all (mental) formations" is the "end of suffering." > > 2) I don't know what a "time" issue has to do with it? Maybe you could > elaborate. ---------------------------------- Howard: Nibbana is unborn, unceasing, unconditioned. It is NOT an event. -------------------------------- TG: We can agree on the above!!! TG #68968 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Who knows anatta? /was Re: daana corner egberdina Hi KenH, On 27/02/07, ken_aitch wrote: > Hi Herman, > > ------------- > <. . .> > H: > You got me so worked up, I'm still not sure whether I've stopped > beating my wife :-) > ------------- > > And I am still waiting for that `yes or no' answer. :-) > > In the meantime, if I can get you to learn just one little bit of > Abhidhamma, my work will be done. I live in hope. > Would it impress you if I told you that I have neither stopped beating my wife, nor have I not stopped beating my wife? > ------------ > <. . .> > H: > What do you imagine to be the consequences of this "insight"? > ------------ > > Good question! What about the scientists and the non-religious > university graduates that have always existed throughout the ages and > who (according to you) have all known anatta? What have been the > consequences for them? If they have not attained enlightenment and > permanently destroyed their capacity for evil, perhaps theirs is not > the same anatta that the Buddha taught. > A well-documented phenomenon amongst Western educated classes is a decline in birth rates. It may not be all down to having acquired an understanding of the evolved / conditioned nature of the world, but certainly there is an increasing realisation amongst educated folks that by wilfully abstaining from creating new life, there is the abstaining from creating new suffering and new evil. As for attaining enlightenment, and permanently destroying a capacity for evil, where does that happen? ----------------------- > H: > It is well known to all regular university trained, non- > creationist, > non-intelligent-design type dudes who understand and accept evolution > theory, that any 'thing" is not it's own cause. That includes any of > the "things" you named above, or care to name at any time or place. > ----------------------- > > Discussions with you can be very helpful to Abhidhamma students. You > ask questions and we hone our right-understanding by answering them > in accordance with the texts. But what are they doing for you? > Thanks for the compliment, Ken. These discussions have the same helpful effect on me, except I don't think in terms of right understanding. My methodology is more a negative one, I find out what is wrong understanding, what cannot be. I do not presuppose there to be an absolute right understanding of the way things are. But there are many ways that things are not, and the discussions here certainly help bring that to light. > The things I named – houses, people, subatomic particles – are > imaginary. They are what the Buddha called conventional designations. > Therefore, to say that they bear the characteristic, anatta, is > ultimately no more meaningful than to say that they bear the > characteristic, flying purple elephant. > > It is only when we see conditionality (ultimate reality: nama and > rupa) in conventional designations that we can begin to see them as > anatta. > You still have not told me how illusion is distinguished from reality, and how that could occur in the framework of a present moment only. Until such time, I will put the above down as another impressive piece of oratory :-) > ------------------------ > <. . .> > KH: > > in what way does my version differ from the > > version found in the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries? > > > > H: > The Tipitaka and the canonical commentaries are books. You are > not. You are intentional. Books are not. There is nothing in a book, > meaningwise, that you do not put there yourself. It is no surprise to > me that your version does not differ from your version :-) > ------------------------ > > If I had said black was black you would have argued it was white, > wouldn't you? :-) > Oh, I'm not like that, am I? :-) Seriously, you wouldn't dispute that your interpretations of the Theravadan canon are on the fringes of the mainstream, would you? Kind Regards Herman #68969 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Resending Nibbana is Stilled Peace! egberdina Hi Howard and TG, I'm not telling you anything here that I haven't told you before. But that's never stopped me before :-) On 28/02/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, TG - > > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > Nibbana is unborn, unceasing, unconditioned. It is NOT an event. > -------------------------------- True. Any experience of nibbana is born, it ceases, and it is conditioned. Kind Regards Herman #68970 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Where does Anger start from? philofillet Hi Nitesh I'm very interested in this topic and will be posting more about it to you later, but to begin with I think it helps me (very prone to anger) to reflect on the way all moments of anger have their origin in clinging to something. I get angry at someone for the way the behave towards me because of clinging to being treated in a nice way. I get angry and cranky when I am feeling physically unwell (sick, tired) becaues I have been clinging so much to the pleasure of feeling well. I get angry when I am pressed by time because I have been clinging to lazy pleasures that distract me from what needs to be done. Maybe we can see clinging at the root of all our anger? Also, I like to reflect that anger is a universal phenomenon of mind, it's not about Phil or Nitest being bad people who get angry. In his third discourse, the Buddha said that the world, the all, is burning with greed, hatred and ignorance. In another sutta in Anguatta Nikaya, he said that the mind is like an open sore, prone to irritability and anger and hatred. If the commentarial note is to believed, only the ariyan (I think it is safe to say that we are not ariyans) has a "mind like a flash of lightning" (sees into Noble Truths) or "mind like a diamond." (Perfectly englightened.) So we all have minds like open sores. What does one do with an open sore? Protect it, prevent it from incoming defilements. We have to be heedful at all times. This won't prevent angry outbursts from occuring at times, but we must be heedful. By being heedful and following the Buddha's explicit advice on training the mind we can gradually develop a mind that learns to recognize and overcome anger before it runs away. We can learn to "get out of the road" as one talk I heard puts it. I will post more sutta references when I have time, Nitesh. Don't worry, anger is a universal phenomenon of mind, not a shortcoming of Nitesh as a human being. Or Phil. On the other hand, acts of anger leave terrible kammic imprints so Phil and Nitesh have to be very heedful and learn to train the mind so there is less susceptibility to anger. It works, no doubt about it! More later. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kanchaa" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Hello! > > I was curious today about Anger.... Can anyone explain where does > anger start and where does it end?? What is its role in a life? > > I would be very thankful.. > > Sincerely, > > Nitesh > #68971 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:35 pm Subject: Re: Where does Anger start from? philofillet Hi Nitesh I would like to reword what I wrote below. Acts of anger *are* "shortcomings as a human being." Let's not be too easy going about that. But what I meant is that when there are these acts we needn't fret or feel unworthy. We are so very fortunate to be among the few beings who resepond to the Buddha's teaching, and he teaches us how to become liberated from anger in a very clear way! (Which you might not see if you spend a lot of time reading overly complicated and difficult and suble posts at DSG! :) Metta, Phil >Don't > worry, anger is a universal phenomenon of mind, not a shortcoming of > Nitesh as a human being. Or Phil. On the other hand, acts of anger > leave terrible kammic imprints so Phil and Nitesh have to be very > heedful and learn to train the mind so there is less susceptibility > to anger. It works, no doubt about it! More later. > > #68972 From: "sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:59 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing sukinderpal Hi Phil, > * For example Phil described his 'sitting' experience. He saw that thoughts > just kept proliferating, all seemingly in some causal pattern. Having judged > the stories as being rooted in desire, he came to the conclusion that such > was a glimpse of the kilesas ( I haven't bothered to reread your post Phil, > so forgive me if I misinterpret what you said.). But as you can see, these > are stories centered on personal experience, and are they reliable? Even > when the conclusion is made from present observation, these are not of the > 'characteristic' of realities, but only ideas/concepts. Sukin, I don't believe the Buddha told people of shallow understanding to strive to understand the characteristic of realities. S> No I don't think the Buddha would have expected those with 'undeveloped' understanding to suddenly have direct experience or insight. However I think you will agree that "insight" into the nature of realities is what the Dhamma is all about. This must be acknowledged, given the fact that behind one's ignorant perception of the 'world', what 'really' goes on are conditioned realities arising and falling away. When I say "understand characteristics", I do not expect beginners like myself to have any real direct experience. But *understanding it is*, and this is the "key". And so what else is to be understood at this level of understanding? That realities here and now are no different from the realities there and then. For example lobha here, say to a film, is no different from lobha there, say to a quiet surrounding. Seeing here is no different from seeing there. Thinking here is no different from thinking there. Different thoughts condition different responses. If I were to be averse to the noise here, I will judge it as undesirable for a lot many things, including 'meditation'. It is therefore natural to then have ideas about a better time and place. But if instead I were to see with any degree of wisdom, that in fact sounds, sights, feelings and so on are only fleeting realities and that the real problem is 'not knowing' the\m as such, would that make me want to go elsewhere to try and understand these realities? When is the time to understand them if not when they *do* arise? One may for example realize that the aversion is to "noise", and this is 'concept', and that "sound", the reality, is in fact so fleeting. That "here" too is a concept and so is "there". Furthermore, that the aversion and attraction is to concepts, having taken them seriously and not acknowledging the fact about ultimate realities as being what is arising and falling away in the moment. This is why it is so important to understand the distinction between reality and concept. Without this, there can't be any progress along the Path. Do you agree with this, if so, then is it not clear that 'understanding' can't be stressed enough? And is this not necessary pariyatti? ========================================== Phil: Not that I have heard from other teachers. That understand will come, or it won't, but first we must guard the sense doors, and develop virtous habits of body, speech and mind. (This is laid out so explicitly in so many suttas that I think one would have to be seriously delusional to try to deny it.) S> How come this idea about "guarding the senses"? Why the particular interest in this over 'understanding'? I wanted to say this to you before when you implied somewhere, that A.Sujin and her students do not stress enough the importance of sila, or something to the effect. Phil, if you were to look again without any bias, any of A. Sujin's books, you will see that she talks about Sila throughout!! What do you think it means to know seeing as seeing, sound as sound, thinking as thinking and so on? Is this not 'guarding the senses' in the highest sense that this concepts allows? It is the development through this kind of understanding which leads to Sila being perfected at Stream Entry. Mentally separating sila from the development of satipatthana as taught by other teachers is an abstraction conditioned by desire. It seems also to be encouraging of 'self-view' as it puts some aspects of the Teachings within 'self's' reach. True, there is a level of sila at which the five precepts can be "followed" (whatever I mean by that), without much or any understanding about the Path. But what does this then condition? Less occasions for transgressions? But does this lead to panna? If followed with full force of self-view or any idea that this is the basis for panna to arise later, then I don't think it does. The development of panna has its own course. It is related to the development of the 10 Perfections, each of which is connected in ways of which I understand only vaguely. Sila is only one of these 10 perfections, still as far as I can see, this like the other 9, never involves any idea of 'doing for a 'self''. I read very little Suttas, but I do have a strong tendency to being deluded. Could you quote me one of the many Suttas that might suggest that this above kind of sila is that which leads to insight? But I will have to ask others to join in to help with the interpretation, as I am not at all good at this. ======================================== Phil: So when guarding the sense doors, yes, there will be sorting out things conceptually. There is no way around that unless we want to believe that we have access to some kind of shortcut to insight. All in due course. S> No short cut to insight, but is the 'guarding of the senses' in which the conventional 'self' does certain things, a precursor to the 'real' thing? Any planned course of action based on past perceptions, for e.g. some past transgression, with the idea of determining future outcome, is 'self' induced activity. This is not a 'beginner's' right footing which would lead to dhammas being understood as conditioned, anicca and anatta, is it? And yes, there is no way around, but this is a reference to 'knowing realities' and not any conventional practice. This latter appears in fact, to be the easy alternative!! ;-) ================================== Phil: I don't want to go through life thinking thinking thinking about "characteristics of realities." S> There is no stopping 'thinking', obviously. But I think what you are critical of is the kind of thinking as expressed by A. Sujin's and her students. You do not believe that such ideas lead anywhere close to direct experience, right? And what you call 'sexiness of wisdom' is a kind of obsession on the part of some of us, no? But maybe that was just your own approach, and the disappointments and reactions now should be directed towards that? Clearly there has been so much misrepresentation, at least from where I stand.? The distinctive feature of Dhamma is "wisdom". From start to finish it is all about the development of understanding. Do you seriously think that there is anything in the Dhamma not requiring understanding? If so, what would that then require? "Thinking" is not the problem, but attachment to thinking can be a hindrance. At least it seems to be so in my case. A.Sujin is always encouraging and reminding her listeners about the importance of 'direct' experience over 'intellectual' understanding. However, because there is not enough panna, either we don't get it, or if we do, any study of the moment is immediately followed by thinking/theorizing about it. The attachment to such thinking is quite evident. But that's it, it all amounts to what has been accumulated more, sati and panna or avijja and tanha. If the scale wasn't so tilted to the side of the latter, then probably there would have been more moments of satipatthana or at least wise reflection, instead of thinking with attachment. Here is where the concept of saccannana > kiccannana > katannana come in. We still to some extent believe in analysis and thinking as means of acquiring knowledge and understanding. That in fact direct experience of characteristics and insight as being the only means of real understanding has not sunk in enough. :-/ The "panna" has to evolve this way, merely 'reasoning' this to be the case does not do it, this idea about sitting quietly being one example. It therefore has nothing to do with any decision to "practice", but about a level of panna arising in the present moment. Ideas about another time, place and posture arises due to a particular line of reasoning and so seem to be missing the point. Even at the beginning level, the panna is rightly interested in the present moment and not the past or future. And since there are realities arising and falling away all the time, there is always a good chance that these will be 'studied' with any level of understanding. Better to know 'thinking' as thinking, than to mistake thinking of a different sort (your 'refined' thinking) to be anything more, namely direct experience. The "thinking, thinking, thinking" that we do, are as you say, about "characteristic of realities", and this is about the present moment and not the past or future. One strange phenomena you may have noticed; most meditators are only marginally interested in hearing about/being reminded of, present moment realities such as seeing, hearing and so on. But really, what else is there to know?! Something seems to be wrong here. Also for example, I remember liking Bhikkhu Bodhi's writings a lot, however when I came upon Nina's writings, I saw an important difference in stress. I saw that BB tended to philosophize / theorize a great deal, whereas Nina was more interested in understanding the present moment. I lost interest in BB's writings almost immediately. You will also have noticed here on DSG, that those who initiate and take part in speculation the most, for example about 'Nibbana', are those who 'meditate'. And that A. Sujin's students never take part in such discussions. Why do you think this is? Who really enjoys "thinking, thinking, thinking"? ;-) ================================ Phil: I want to follow the humble path the Buddha taught to busy householders. Avoiding evil deeds, doing good ones. Evil deeds are to be understand conceptually, because they involve the harm we due to ourselves and others - not to realities with characteristics. S> I don't think this idea of "busy householder" is at all helpful here. It seems to condition all sorts of ideas about what one can and must "do", nothing to do with realities arising in the present moment. Perhaps also reading into the Sutta, something that is not there? And of course, the humble beginnings according to me, is "listen and consider" and never thinking that one has heard enough. =============== Phil: Eventually the conditions come for deeper understanding - or they don't. S> But you are convinced that this is how it is developed. =================================== Phil: But they don't come by going around thinking about paramattha dhammas. S> Not 'thinking', but developing "understanding", starting with the intellectual level. ================================== Phil: I haven't come across the pariyatti>patipatti dynamic as taught by Acharn Sujin. Until I do I will remain doubtful that it is an important teaching of the Buddha. S> I don't think more evidence or majority count would change anyone's views. The attachment to an existing view keeps accumulating each time there is pondering over it, but more so when connected with some results. =================================== Phil: (Sorry to be so aggressive sounding, but I am feeling propelled by a lot of saddha these days! Based on dramatically wholesome changes I see happening on my life thanks to a simple, less intellectual approach to Dhamma.) S> I didn't sense any aggression at all, but no need to worry about this. I wonder about the kind of "saddha" though. If it is based on some 'result' then one should consider the possibility of 'lobha' being there instead. These two to us worldlings, appear the same. I think one should look at causes and not so much, results. I know that you are busy, so no need to respond if you don't feel like it. ==================================== Metta, Sukin. #68973 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Group buddhatrue Hi Nina and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > What about posting the non-controversial articles to dsg? You could > make a selection. > Nina. That's an idea! I don't necessarily want to have my own group. Actually, I don't like that at all. However, I have a hard time knowing what is controversial or not (very little shocks me). Let's say I send the articles, as I write them, to Sarah (off-list) and if she deems that the article is okay, she can post it to DSG. How's that sound? Metta, James #68974 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Group upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Nina & Sarah) - > Let's say I send the articles, as I write them, to Sarah (off-list) and > if she deems that the article is okay, she can post it to DSG. How's > that sound? =========================== I like this idea a lot. It would be a nice balance for DSG to have some conversations with a personal touch. (Oops, sorry folks, I used the dirty word 'personal'! ;-) With metta, Howard #68975 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Group sarahprocter... Hi James, Howard (& Nina), > > > > Let's say I send the articles, as I write them, to Sarah (off-list) > and > > if she deems that the article is okay, she can post it to DSG. How's > > that sound? > =========================== >H: I like this idea a lot. It would be a nice balance for DSG to > have > some conversations with a personal touch. (Oops, sorry folks, I used the > dirty > word 'personal'! ;-) ... S: As far as Jon and I are concerned 'personal' is not a 'dirty word' and neither is 'controversial'. I doubt there'd be a list without controversy:-). The only time we take anyone to task is when the list guidelines are not being followed. The first one is: "Stay friendly and pleasant when writing to the list. Please avoid any sarcasm, discourtesy or overly personal remarks." This particularly refers to overly personal remarks to or about *other* people which is likely to cause offence, rather than about oneself. Scott put it well when he said one can always choose examples about one's own family or life, if in doubt. Anyone is always welcome to ask us *off-list* for clarification anytime! I think everyone knows when the line has been crossed, including James! The same applies to those who repeatedly forget to *Trim!*, *split really long copied articles* (or use a link), or forget to *address anyone or forget to sign off* etc. In all these areas, I give James's posts as a model example! Anyway, back to James's articles. Can I make an amendment to his good suggestion and ask if James could send them to Howard (rather than me) to clear and forward to the list if he considers them appropriate? (I'm sure that would work fine. If he's too lenient, we (or others!!) will soon let him know, lol!). I know James trusts Howard's judgement on these things and so do we. I think everyone would be happy with this and it would save us having any more mod dilemmas first thing when we wake up - as Colette suggested the other day, we have our fill:-). Most of this should have been sent off-list or from the mod account. If anyone wants any clarification or wishes to comment further, I think *off-list* would be more appropriate, especially anything related to our mod-role or the guidelines. Many thanks! Metta, Sarah ======== #68976 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:06 am Subject: The Four Postures! bhikkhu5 Friends: Awareness of Body as Postures of Elements! The Blessed Buddha said regarding noting The Four Postures: Again, friends, when walking, a Bhikkhu notes and understands: This body is walking; when standing, he notes and understands: This body is standing; when sitting, he notes and understands: This body is sitting; when lying down, he notes and understands: This body is lying down or he notes and understands the attitude, position and location of whatever way his body frame is postured. In this way he lives considering the body as internal, as external as both something internal and external. And he lives therefore abiding independent, freed, not clinging to anything in this world... He knows and understands that it is no real person, no real being, no 'I', 'me' or ego that goes, sits, stands and lies down, but that it are only the 5 clusters of clinging & the 4 great elements of solidity, fluidity, heat & motion, which arising & ceasing in adjacent locations appears to be going, sitting, standing, and lying down, yet all these elements naturally & instantly cease right wherever they arised! Source Text: Majjhima Nikaya 119: Kayagata-Sati Sutta http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #68977 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:24 am Subject: 'sanghika daana' was: daana corner sarahprocter... Dear Han, Herman, Ven Dhammanando & all, I'm also appreciating the way you're running this corner, Han. > Herman: <....> >It seems to me that making an offering to > someone with shaved head and wearing a robe is not > necessarily 'sanghika daana'. > > Han: Since you have quoted one sutta, please allow me > to quote another sutta. > It is MN 142 Dakkhinaavibhanga Sutta. > On page 1105 (translated by Bhikkhu Naanamoli and > Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > 8. “In future times, Aananda, there will be members of > the clan who are ‘yellow-necks,’ immoral, evil > character. People will give gifts to those immoral > persons for the sake of the Sangha. Even then, I say, > an offering made to the Sangha is incalculable, > immeasurable. I say that in no way does a gift to a > person individually ever have greater fruit than an > offering made to the Sangha.” End quote. > > Both are the Buddha’s words, your quote and my quote. > Please take whichever you prefer. .... S: I like this quote very much. I've always found it very helpful to reflect on the Sangha - especially in the sense of those who have followed the teachings, become enlightened and helped preserve the teachings, rather than think about the individual. Technically, in order to be 'sanghika daana', I believe there is much more involved than just having the intention to give to the Sangha. There is more in the Vinaya I'm sure. I think this may be a topic that Ven Dhammanando would be able to add useful detail, if you are following Ven Sir. Nina may also remember K.Sujin talking about this topic further in India. I'll look forward to any clarifications. Metta, Sarah ====== #68978 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha, Always good to know you're around. --- matheesha wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I recently came across what some consider the best meditation > instructions on the internet. It is by a man called Upasaka Culladasa > who has many decades of experience on the matter. It is a staggering > account of the mastery of anapanasathi. I have gained a lot from these, > so for those in DSG who are so inclined - I have inculded his > instructions in a folder in the Files sections. It is > called 'Meditation instructions in Plain English'. .... S: It might be useful to discuss short extracts if you'd like to start another corner like Han's! I liked the way the article stressed the importance of any practice being to understand realities (my very rough paraphrase from recollection). The first paragraph I got to where I had serious misgivings was this one: "The first thing that is required for successful investigation of anything is that we have the concentration skills necessary to apply our attention effectively to the object of our investigations. Mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, engineers and scholars are familiar exemplars of people with highly developed concentration abilities. What is being concentrated is, of course, attention. Concentration has two aspects to it – the ability to intentionally direct and to continuously sustain the attention on the object of investigation without being distracted, and the ability to focus the attention exclusively (single-pointedly) on that object." .... S: The article goes on to show how much of the time we're distracted and so on and that awareness cannot develop at such times. My comments are these: 1. As clearly indicated in the above, many people have 'highly developed concentration' in this sense. To the list could have been added: burglars, archers and those in clearly less 'respectable' professions! In other words, most concentration is unwholesome - there is no dana, sila or bhavana involved. 2. In the first part of the article (all I read so far), there is an emphasis, as here on 'intentionally directing and sustaining attention'. In a conventional sense, we understand this, but at a deeper level, this is no self, no person who can intentionally direct attention and so on. 3. The comments I just got up to about distractions and multi-tasking in daily life and how there cannot be awareness at such times merely indicates a lack of appreciation of sati, panna and other sobhana cetasikas to me. While being distracted or multi-tasking (all my loose paraphrasing), if there isn't awareness of what is being experienced and appearing through eyes, ears and so on, then it's wishful thinking to suggest another time, another place and a lack of distraction would be more suitable. As I said, I've only had a cursory look at the article because you found it so helpful and indeed it's written very clearly. I apologise for not having read it more carefully, but thought it would be useful for others to discuss further. Metta, Sarah ======= #68979 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Where does Anger start from? sarahprocter... Hi Nitesh, Thx for sharing your experiences. I've appreciated all the other kind responses, including the article Melek gave the link to. --- kanchaa wrote: > Hello All, > > Thanks for your reply... > > I am meditating an hour a day... I am still not feeling very good... > Maybe I have to ignore the situation for a while... .... S: I think it always comes back to the present moment. Now, if we're feeling badly about past anger, what is the present reality? Is it good or bad? Aren't we just accumulated more aversion when there is feeling badly about that which has passed away? Isn't it just a clinging to the 'story' about what happened, over and over again? Perhaps instead you can apologise sincerely, offer some kindness or gift and develop awareness of what is presently being experienced. Also, do we feel so badly about past attachment? I don't think so. As Phil suggested, attachment is always at the root of anger. The biggest attachment is of course to *Me*. Whilst being upset about 'my' past anger, it indicates more attachment to *Me* and wishing to be another way. Instead of helping to decrease the anger, it actually increases it. .... > > I realized that there is a difference between What you think or know > and what you are??? I still know its impermanent but am not able to > cope with it.. .... S: This is because it's all taken for *Me*. Really, as the Buddha taught us, there are only mental and physical phenomena, no 'what you are'. ... Its creating Sanskara, full of anger and hatred.... .... S: This is just thinking and again clinging to *Me* and *My sankhara*, instead of being aware of the present dhammas. .... > > I am trying my best to cope with it... I will try for sure and will > not give up so easily.. ... S: Just accept that what has gone has gone - there really is no use in 'crying over spilt milk'. As Phil said, anger is very common. It's good to see how bad it is...and also the attachment behind it. Better still is to understand and become more detached from the present dhammas appearing now, such as seeing and visible object, likes and dislikes, feelings and so on, so that less importance is given to what is experienced through the senses and the ideas we have about them. Best wishes. Metta, Sarah ====== #68980 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:41 am Subject: Re: Time & other ontological blind sideways! bhikkhu5 Friend Howard asks: >> It would seem that Nibbâna is an event that occurs in time. >> Is that not an incorrect description of Nibbâna? Nibbana is not an issue reachable by ontological discussions… Nibbana is not an event. Nibbana does not occur in time. (or space) Nibbana is not describable in language. Yet Nibbana is quite real and so very realizable and even remotely touchable and tastable for each and every keen meditator… Therefore: Better put this perplexing question aside! Instead: Please keep sitting and breathing! Calm is solidified bliss! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #68981 From: connie Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:16 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (36) nichiconn Dear Friends, Somaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa / The commentary on the verses of Therii Somaa Ya.m ta.m isiihi pattabbanti-aadikaa somaaya theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii sikhissa bhagavato kaale khattiyamahaasaalakule nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m patvaa aru.nara~n~no aggamahesii ahosiiti sabba.m atiitavatthu abhayattheriyaa vatthusadisa.m. Paccuppannavatthu pana aya.m therii tattha tattha devamanussesu sa.msarantii imasmi.m buddhuppaade raajagahe bimbisaarassa ra~n~no purohitassa dhiitaa hutvaa nibbatti. Tassaa somaati naama.m ahosi. Saa vi~n~nuta.m pattaa satthu raajagahapavesane pa.tiladdhasaddhaa upaasikaa hutvaa aparabhaage sa~njaatasa.mvegaa bhikkhuniisu pabbajitvaa katapubbakiccaa vipassanaaya kamma.m karontii na cirasseva saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m paapu.ni. The verses beginning That [place] ... attained by the seers are Therii Somaa's. She too performed meritorious deed under previous Buddhas and acumulated good [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. She was born during the time of the Blessed One Sikhii in the family of a wealthy Khattiya. When she came of age, she became chief queen of King Aru.na. All of the story of her past is the same as the story of Therii Abhayaa {#68493}. But the story of the present of this therii is: she journeyed on in various existences among devas and men. In this Buddha era, she was born as the daughter of the chief minister of King Bimbisaara, and her name was Somaa. At the age of discretion, she gained faith when the Teacher went into Raajagaha and became a lay follower. Afterwards, a profound stirring arose [in her], and she went forth with the bhikkhuniis. She fulfilled the preliminary duties, devoted herself to the gaining of insight, and after a very short time she attained Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. Tena vutta.m apadaane (apa. therii 2.1.71, 80-90)- "Nagare aru.navatiyaa, aru.no naama khattiyo; tassa ra~n~no ahu.m bhariyaa, vaarita.m vaarayaamaha.m. "Yaavataa…pe… kata.m buddhassa saasanan"ti;- sabba.m abhayattheriyaa apadaanasadisa.m; As it is said in the Apadaana: There was a Khattiya named Aru.na in the town of Aru.navati. I was that king's wife and kept myself well restrained ... etc, down to: "I have done the Buddha's teaching" is all like the Apadaana [verses] of Therii Abhayaa {#68528). arahatta.m pana patvaa vimuttisukhena saavatthiya.m viharantii ekadivasa.m divaavihaaratthaaya andhavana.m pavisitvaa a~n~natarasmi.m rukkhamuule nisiidi; atha na.m maaro vivekato vicchedetukaamo adissamaanuruupo upagantvaa aakaase .thatvaa- Then, after attaining Arahatship, she lived in Saavatthi in the happiness of freedom. One day, after her meal, she entered the Andha Grove for her daytime rest and sat down at the foot of a certain tree. And Maara, invisible, went up to her [trying] to destroy her desire for seclusion, stood in the air, and spoke this verse: 60. "ya.m ta.m isiihi pattabba.m, .thaana.m durabhisambhava.m; na ta.m dva"ngulapa~n~naaya, sakkaa pappotumitthiyaa"ti.- Ima.m gaathamaaha. 60. The place, hard to gain, which is to be attained by the seers, cannot be attained by a woman with two-finger intelligence [ie, very little intelligence]. RD: That vantage-ground the sages may attain is hard To reach. With her two-finger consciousness That is no woman competent to gain! (60) Tassattho- siilakkhandhaadiina.m esana.t.thena "isii"ti laddhanaamehi buddhaadiihi mahaapa~n~nehi pattabba.m, ta.m a~n~nehi pana durabhisambhava.m dunnipphaadaniiya.m. Ya.m ta.m arahattasa"nkhaata.m paramassaasa.t.thaana.m, na ta.m dva"ngulapa~n~naaya nihiinapa~n~naaya itthiyaa paapu.nitu.m sakkaa. Itthiyo hi satta.t.thavassakaalato pa.t.thaaya sabbakaala.m odana.m pacantiyo pakkuthite udake ta.n.dule pakkhipitvaa "ettaavataa odana.m pakkan"ti na jaananti, pakkuthiyamaane pana ta.n.dule dabbiyaa uddharitvaa dviihi a"nguliihi pii.letvaa jaananti, tasmaa dva"ngulipa~n~naayaati vuttaa. 60. The meaning of this is: it is to be attained by those of great wisdom, Buddhas, etc, by those who have received the name "seer," in the sense of seeking for the division of virtuous conduct, etc. But it is hard to gain (durabhisambhava.m), hard to accomplish (dunnipphaa-daniiya.m) for others. That [place] which is named Arahatship, the state of supreme confidence, cannot be obtained by a woman of two-finger intelligence (dva"ngula-pa~n~naaya), of inferior wisdom (nihiina-pa~n~naaya). Indeed, starting at the age of seven or eight, women are always cooking boiled rice, throwing husked rice into water that is boiling hot. They do not know as much as whether the boiled rice is cooked. But when it is boiling, they take out some of the husked rice with a spoon, press it between two fingers, and then they know. Therefore, it is known as two-finger intelligence. {{See also the comments in Spk I 189 and S I 129, quoted in EV III, p75}} Ta.m sutvaa therii maara.m apasaadentii- 61. "Itthibhaavo no ki.m kayiraa, cittamhi susamaahite; ~naa.namhi vattamaanamhi, sammaa dhamma.m vipassato. 62. "Sabbattha vihataa nandii, tamokkhandho padaalito; eva.m jaanaahi paapima, nihato tvamasi antakaa"ti.- Itaraa dve gaathaa abhaasi. Having heard this, the therii rejected Maara, speaking the other two verses: 61. What [harm] could the woman's state do to us when the mind is well concentrated, when knowledge exists for someone rightly having insight into the Doctrine? 62. Everywhere enjoyment of pleasure is defeated. The mass of darkness [of ignorance] is torn asunder. Thus know, evil one, you are defeated, death. RD: How should the woman's nature hinder us? Whose hearts are firmly set, who ever move With growing knowledge onward in the Path? What can that signify to one in whom Insight doth truly comprehend the Norm? *183 (61) On every hand the love of pleasure yields, And the thick gloom of ignorance is rent In twain. Know this, O Evil One, avaunt! Here, O Destroyer! shalt thou not prevail. (62) *183 It is regrettable that, in this work, Somaa's dignified retort lacks the noteworthy extension given to it in the Sa.myutta version (see Appendix): ... {see below**} Tattha itthibhaavo no ki.m kayiraati maatugaamabhaavo amhaaka.m ki.m kareyya, arahattappattiyaa kiidisa.m vibandha.m uppaadeyya. Cittamhi susamaahiteti citte aggamaggasamaadhinaa su.t.thu samaahite. ~Naa.namhi vattamaanamhiiti tato arahattamagga~naa.ne pavattamaane. Sammaa dhamma.m vipassatoti catusaccadhamma.m pari~n~naadividhinaa sammadeva passato. Aya~nhettha sa"nkhepo- paapima, itthii vaa hotu puriso vaa, aggamagge adhigate arahatta.m hatthagatamevaati. 61. There, what [harm] could the woman's state (itthi-bhaavo) do (kayiraa) to us (no) means: what [harm] could the state of womanhood (maatugaama-bhaavo) do (kareyya) to us (amhaaka.m), which fetter would it cause to arise with respect to the attainment of Arahatship? When the mind (cittamhi) is well concentrated (susamaahite) means: when the mind (citte) is well concentrated (su.t.thu samaahite) through the concentration of the highest path (agga-magga-samaadhinaa). When knowledge (~naa.namhi) exists (vattamaanahmi) means: for someone seing (passato) properly (samma-d-eva) through a disposition towards full understanding, etc, (pari~n~naadi-vidhinaa) of the Doctrine of the four [noble] truths (catu-sacca-dhamma.m). This, then, is [the meaning]] in brief: "O evil one, whether it be a woman or a man, when the highest path is reached, one indeed comes into possession of Arahatship." {{See also the comments in Th-a II 169 and v.398}} Idaani tassa attanaa adhigatabhaava.m ujukameva dassentii "sabbattha vihataa nandii"ti gaathamaaha. Saa vuttatthaayeva. Somaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. Tikanipaatava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 62. And now, showing very clearly her own state of attainment, she spoke the verse [beginning] Everywhere enjoyment of pleasure is defeated. The meaning has already been stated. Here ends the commentary on the verses by Therii Somaa. Here ends the section of groups of three [verses]. ==== ** RD's version of SN.5.2 as given in the appendix to Psalms of the Sisters: ... *457 Now Somaa ... entered the Dark Wood for siesta, and, plunging into its depths, sat down at the root of a certain tree for siesta. Then Maara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, wavering, and dread in her, desiring to make her desist from concentrated thought, went up to her, and addressed her in a verse: 'That vantage-ground the sages may attain is hard To reach. With her two-finger consciousness That is no woman competent to gain!' Then Somaa thought ... 'Sure 'tis Maara!'... and replied with verses: 'What should the woman's nature do to them *458 Whose hearts are firmly set, who ever move With growing knowledge onward in the Path? What can that signify to one in whom Insight doth truly comprehend the Norm? To one for whom the question doth arise: Am I a woman in these matters, or Am I a man, or what not am I, then? To such an one is Maara fit to talk!' Then Maara, thinking, 'Bhikkhunii Somaa knows me,' vanished thence, sad and dejected. ***** *457 Where dotted lines occur, here and below, the reading is as for AA.lavikaa. {#68911} *458 Not 'to us,' as in the Psalm. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of these verse portions in Connected Discourses: 522: "That state so hard to achieve Which is to be attained by the seers, Can't be attained by a woman With her two-fingered wisdom." 523: "What does womanhood matter at all When the mind is concentrated well, When knowledge flows on steadily As one sees correctly into Dhamma 524: "One to whom it might occur, 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' Or 'I'm anything at all' -- Is fit for Maara to address." ===== peace, connie #68982 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'sanghika daana' was: daana corner hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your post. Sarah: Technically, in order to be 'sanghika daana', I believe there is much more involved than just having the intention to give to the Sangha. There is more in the Vinaya I'm sure. I think this may be a topic that Ven Dhammanando would be able to add useful detail, if you are following Ven Sir. Nina may also remember K.Sujin talking about this topic further in India. I'll look forward to any clarifications. Han: While waiting clarifications from Ven Dhammanando and Nina, I would like to post the following which I received from Antony Woods. (Antony, thank you very much.) What Are the Factors of Sanghikadâna? by Ven. Ledi Sayadaw http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Ledi/Dhamma/Sanghadana/sanghadana.html Respectfully, Han #68983 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Group upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and James, and Nina) - In a message dated 2/27/07 11:32:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Anyway, back to James's articles. Can I make an amendment to his good > suggestion and ask if James could send them to Howard (rather than me) to > clear and forward to the list if he considers them appropriate? (I'm sure > that would work fine. If he's too lenient, we (or others!!) will soon let > him know, lol!). I know James trusts Howard's judgement on these things > and so do we. > ========================= James, if this is something you would want to do, I won't refuse, but I am a bit uncomfortable doing it. It puts me in the position of censoring the writings of a friend. Were I a moderator, and were it necessary or, as in this case, requested, well, that would be my job. But I'm not. I *will* do this, if you, Sarah, and you, James, want me to - just as you suggest, Sarah, but what I would *prefer* to do is the following: James - if you wish, you forward a proposed "personal" post (one you mark as "DSG PERSONAL"?) to me for my opinion (yes, no, or suggestions for modification), I write you back, and then you act as you deem appropriate - sending it as is, sending it modified according to all or some of my suggestions, or withholding it. Once such a post is sent by you, and others reply, and a list conversation ensues, however, I don't think your follow-up posts, James, should go to me at all. It would be crazy for me to look at and comment on every ping of a ping-pong game. With metta, Howard #68984 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:32 am Subject: Re: 'sanghika daana' was: daana corner dhammanando_... Hi Sarah, Herman & Han, >> Han: Since you have quoted one sutta, please allow me to quote >> another sutta. It is MN 142 Dakkhinaavibhanga Sutta. On page 1105 >> (translated by Bhikkhu Naanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. >> >> "In future times, Aananda, there will be members of the clan who are >> 'yellow-necks,' immoral, evil character. People will give gifts to >> those immoral persons for the sake of the Sangha. Even then, I say, >> an offering made to the Sangha is incalculable, immeasurable. I say >> that in no way does a gift to a person individually ever have greater >> fruit than an offering made to the Sangha." > Sarah: I like this quote very much. I've always found it very helpful > to reflect on the Sangha - especially in the sense of those who have > followed the teachings, become enlightened and helped preserve the > teachings, rather than think about the individual. > > Technically, in order to be 'sanghika daana', I believe there is much > more involved than just having the intention to give to the Sangha. > There is more in the Vinaya I'm sure. Well there is, but the Vinaya usage of this term doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion. For Vinaya purposes the term 'sanghika daana' applies to ANY gift where the donor speaks words to the effect that that the gift is intended for the sangha of the four directions (rather than for some individual bhikkhu or bhikkhuni). In Vinaya contexts this broad definition suffices, for the aim is not to assess the degree of merit in the offering but rather to classify the types of property belonging to the sangha. The term usually crops up in discussions about which items belong to the whole sangha, which to a monastery, and which to an individual monk or nun, whether a monk would be guilty of stealing if he used such and such item without permission, and that sort of thing. In the Sutta commentaries, where the merit of the gift is the issue, it seems that what makes a gift count as sanghika daana is the donor's wish that it should benefit the sangha, without having any preference for any particular monk or nun. To quote the commentary to the Dakkhinaavibhanga Sutta: "One thinking 'I shall give a gift dedicated to the sangha', having prepared an item to be given, having gone to the vihaara, says: 'venerable sir, give this to the sangha, to one elder or another.' Then, if the item were to be given by the sangha to a saama.nera and the donor became otherwise [i.e. got upset] thinking, "a saama.nera got my gift!' then that would not be a gift dedicated to the sangha. Or if a great elder got the gift and the donor thought, 'a great elder got my gift!' and became elated on that account, then that too would not be a gift dedicated to the sangha. "If the donor, when saying 'I give to the sangha', is agreeable enough that he would remain respectful no matter whether the gift were [subsequently] given by the sangha to a saama.nera, or one fully ordained, a junior or an elder, a fool or a sage, then that would be a gift dedicated to the sangha." (MA. v. 75) Best wishes, Dhammanando #68985 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:36 am Subject: Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2 nilovg Hi Howard (and Herman), thank you for your useful remarks which touch on the essence of the dhamma. ------------- H: People in this day and age quite commonly view the body and things around us as combinations of molecules or atoms or subatomic particles, and in the latter case, many folks are quite aware that these are supposed to be fleeting, ghostlike, certainly impersonal phenomena that arise and cease in trillionths of a second, and arise due to causes and conditions. How would that differ from the rupa perspective? Especially, why would the rupa perspective lend itself any more to a sense of anicca and anatta? Why is the rupa theory better? Is contemplating a theory really the means to freedom? --------- N: There is no rupa theory. Rupas are realities with characteristics that can be directly known by pa~n~naa. Not all of the 28 rupas are suitable for insight, but several of them are. Take hardness, the element of solidity that appears through the bodysense whenever we touch something hard. We can learn that in the ultimate sense there is not a hard thing, and there is no body. There is just the contact of element on element. At each moment all the rupas of the body arise, due to the four factors and then they fall away, there is nothing left of them. But rupas are replaced by new rupas and then our body seems such a solid thing that remains. In reality there is nothing left when at each moment each rupa falls away. This can be realized through the development of insight. We see people walking and moving their hands, and it is because of sa~n~na that we perceive this. In reality at each splitsecond all rupas fall away, nothing is left. This can lead to more understanding of the truth that in the ultimate sense there is no person. But clinging to ideas is in the way to really accept this. I appreciated Herman's post to Sarah where he said: a concept is known. He warned against just knowing the names. Understanding concepts that designate realities is a beginning, but direct understanding has to be developed. Kh. Sujin used to say: She meant that right understanding when it is developed leads to detachment from all these rupas, from head to toe. Molecules do not have characteristics that can be directly experienced, knowing about them does not lead to detachment. One can think about them, but thinking is only thinking. The Buddha taught Rahula, that he should realize the truth of all five khandhas, including ruupakkhandha. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta: < "Rahula, whatever rupa, - past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, base or exalted, whether it is far or near, - all rupa should be seen as it really is with right wisdom in such a way: "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not me". "Rupa only, Lord? Rupa only, Blessed One?” "Also feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, Rahula, as well as rupa."> (I left rupa untranslated, it is translated as form, but this is not so clear. It is rupakkhandha) When I have time I shall attend to your other challenging posts. Nina. #68986 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:42 am Subject: Away for a Week upasaka_howard Hi, all - We're leaving for a week tomorrow to the Dallas, TX area. I will maintain some internet contact, but not a lot. With metta, Howard #68987 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2 TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 2/28/2007 8:41:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: We can learn that in the ultimate sense there is not a hard thing, and there is no body. There is just the contact of element on element. TG: I like and agree with this for the most part. However, I think it puts too much emphasis on NO to body and hard thing ... and YES to elements. There is a way of looking at things that would have the mind think "there is a body." There is another way of looking at it that would have the mind think "there is no body." Likewise, there is a way of looking at elements that would have the mind think "there are elements." There is another way of looking at elements that would have the mind think "there are no elements." (Due to be conditioned by "other things" and empty of anything of their own.) At each moment all the rupas of the body arise, due to the four factors and then they fall away, there is nothing left of them. But rupas are replaced by new rupas and then our body seems such a solid thing that remains. In reality there is nothing left when at each moment each rupa falls away. This can be realized through the development of insight. We see people walking and moving their hands, and it is because of sa~n~na that we perceive this. In reality at each splitsecond all rupas fall away, nothing is left. TG: Here's where you are relying on pure theory IMO. In a sense, since there is continuous change, we might want to say that things arise and fall away moment by moment as each moment they become something a little different. But the above tone is far too dogmatic IMO. In my view, the Buddha did not teach impermanence in this way at all. Impermanence is always presented in the Suttas as a gradual changing process. I personally think the above account of impermanence -- rupas being replaced by new rupas, etc. -- is just flat wrong and not useful in applying insight. Also, it lacks a conditional component which I think is counterproductive to insight. Other opinions appreciated. TG #68988 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Away for a Week TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/28/2007 8:48:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, all - We're leaving for a week tomorrow to the Dallas, TX area. I will maintain some internet contact, but not a lot. With metta, Howard Have a good trip. TG #68989 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:50 am Subject: Rupas, Ch 1, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, In the “Greater Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint” (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 28) we read that Såriputta taught the monks about the four Great Elements. We read about the element of earth or solidity, which is translated here as “extension”: ....And what, your reverences, is the element of extension? The element of extension may be internal, it may be external. And what, your reverences, is the internal element of extension? Whatever is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentary, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is hard, solid, is internal.... If the body can be seen as only elements the wrong view of self can be eradicated. Solidity can be internal or external, outside the body. Solidity is also present in what we call a mountain or a rock, in all material phenomena. Såriputta reminded the monks of the impermanence of the element of extension: There comes a time, your reverences, when the element of extension that is external is agitated; at that time the external element of extension disappears. The impermanence of this ancient external element of extension can be shown, your reverences, its liability to distruction can be shown, its liability to decay can be shown, its liability to change can be shown. So what of this shortlived body derived from craving? There is not anything here for saying, “I”, or “mine” or “I am”.... The impermanence of the element of solidity may manifest itself in such calamities of nature as an earthquake, but actually at each moment rúpas arise and then fall away, they do not last. As regards the Element of Water (in Påli: åpo dhåtu) or cohesion, the “Visuddhimagga” (XI, 93) defines it as follows [1] : ...The water element has the characteristic of trickling. Its function is to intensify. It is manifested as holding together. The element of water or cohesion cannot be experienced through the bodysense, only through the mind-door. When we touch what we call water, it is only solidity, temperature or motion which can be experienced through the bodysense, not cohesion. Cohesion has to arise together with whatever kind of materiality arises. It makes the other rúpas it accompanies cohere so that they do not become scattered. The “Atthasåliní “ (II, Book II, Ch III, 335) explains: ... For the element of cohesion binds together iron, etc., in masses, makes them rigid. Because they are so bound, they are called rigid. Similarly in the case of stones, mountains, palm-seeds, elephant- tusks, ox-horns, etc. All such things the element of cohesion binds, and makes rigid; they are rigid because of its binding. ---------- Footnote 1: See also Dhammasangaùi § 652 and Atthasåliní II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 332. ******** Nina. #68990 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:55 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 8, no 11 nilovg Dear friends, We need to discuss many realities, and then, if there is no selection of particular objects, there will be conditions for gradually understanding the nature of rúpa and of nåma. We may believe that it is sufficient to be aware of visible object just a few times in order to know what it is. This is not enough. Visible object is in front of us but we are often forgetful of it. We do not have to think about it, it is there and it appears through the eyes. We cannot see sound, we can only see what impinges on the eyesense, visible object. There can be conditions to study with awareness nåma and rúpa, if we see that it is beneficial to have less ignorance of realities. There is also the reality which experiences visible object. It is not self, it is only an element which experiences. We often lose opportunities to study the objects which are there, every day. We have to continue to study all realities which appear through all the doorways. There should just be awareness of the reality which appears, through one doorway at a time, and we should not think or worry about it whether it is nåma or rúpa. At the moment of worry or doubt there is no awareness, the citta is akusala. We should know that enlightenment cannot be attained by developing satipaììhåna only during one life- time. Awareness of realities is a new accumulation which is gradually acquired. We read in the "Gradual Sayings" (Book of the Threes, Ch XIV, par. 131, Fighting-man) that a fighting-man has three qualities: he is a far-shooter, a shooter like lightning and a piercer of huge objects. A monk who is worthy of respect should have these three qualities. We read: Now, in what way is a monk a far-shooter? Herein, whatsoever rúpa... feeling... perception (saññå)... activity (saòkhårakkhandha)... whatsoever consciousness he has, be it past, present or future, personal or external to self, be it gross or subtle, mean or exalted, far or near,- everything in short of which he is conscious,- he sees it as it really is by right insight thus: This is not mine. This am I not. This is not for me the Self. That is how a monk is "a far-shooter". The five khandhas, all conditioned rúpas and nåmas should be realized as they are. We then read that the monk is a shooter like lightning when he understands the four noble Truths: dukkha, its origination, its ceasing and the Way leading to its ceasing. He is a piercer of huge objects when he pierces through the huge mass of ignorance. If one wants to learn the art of shooting with bow and arrow one has to have endless patience and perseverance to learn this skill. Evenso one needs great patience and perseverance to develop satipaììhåna. It has to be learnt without an idea of self who is training. The right conditions have to be there in order to be able to develop right understanding. The person who shoots from far and can hit the aim very precisely is like the person who has developed paññå which has become so keen that it can realize the true nature of the reality which appears. Paññå is as swift as lightning and it can pierce through the huge mass of ignorance. Since ignorance is a mass accumulated for aeons it cannot be eradicated within a short time. ******* Nina. #68991 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a cremation just like now nilovg Hi Howard, You talk now about a situation, not about realities which each have their own condition. Besides, it is not your kamma that produced your posts. The citta was thinking (with kusala or with akusala) and citta moved your hand in writing. I am reading , and there must also be seeing, The experience of colour. Seeing is produced by kamma, eyesense is produced by kamma. Have a good trip to Dallas. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 14:31 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: Reading is not vipaaka produced by kamma, it is thinking about > > what is seen. It can be done with kusala citta or akusala citta. We > > cannot say that your kamma has anything to do with this. > > Your kamma does not produce my seeing or my reactions. > > There are circumstances, situations, involvements with others, and > > they can influence one's behaviour. But the real cause is internal. > > > ======================= > Nina, you could not read my posts if they were not produced, and my > kamma produced them. #68992 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1. nilovg Hi Howard, We talk about the factor that originates sound. Making music with the recorder is like articulate sound, thus, by citta. But there are also moments that temperature originates sound. We say sound, but in fact there are many, many rupas arising and falling away.It seems one moment of hearing sound, but there are countless moments. There are other conditions, like the wood, etc. but when we speak about the four factors that produce rupa we think of directly producing. Not of all the other factors, situation, the builders of the recorder, etc. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 14:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Sound that originates from temperature is, for example, the sound of > > wind or of a waterfall. Sound that originates from consciousness is > > speech sound. > > > ====================== > Okay, this then involves a pointing to a primary condition. What would > you say about a flute sound? I would say it originates directly from > consciousness (of the flute player), wind (and immediate cause), > and hardness (of the > flute itself, a supportive cause) at the very least. They seem to > be of equal > weight. #68993 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (08) nilovg Dear Han, Here again it seems Susan thinks of having merit for oneself, like I said in the beginning. Also about selecting the receiver. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 22:23 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Therefore, to earn the > maximum merit, we should give as much as we can, and > as often as possible, to the noble ones. #68994 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupas, Introduction, 3. nilovg Hi Howard, this is a short post. We can say: accumulations are a condition. You have skills in Mathematics, you learnt such skills. We all have accumulated different skills and talents. If they are not accumulated and carried on from moment to moment, where are they, how could they appear? Someone may have been taught by his parents to be generous, and so he accumulated generosity. This conditions the arising again of generosity. Nina. Op 27-feb-2007, om 14:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I know there is no stock. That is why I put "private stock" in quotes. > I don't believe in "accumulations" either, not literally - just > conditionality. #68995 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:51 am Subject: Q. Re: Rupas. Introduction, 1.vipassana ~naa.na. nilovg Dear Scott, very useful you transcribed the discussion. I like to consider this again. ------- S: She discusses the growth of sati and how at the beginning the awareness is not well-enough developed to be able to make distinctions which can differentiate what is given theoretically. She says, in discussing sense-door and mind-door, that to separate the sense-door and the mind-door that follows after bhavanga in between is not possible when development is tender, The distinction was made that at the sense-door pa~n~na can only understand ruupa, not naama but that at the mind-door vipassanaa-~naana can be more distinguishing of both ruupa and naama and can know this. --------- N: In a mind-door process insight can know nama and rupa, but there are several processes with insight. It has to be like that, because each citta with pa~n~naa, experiences only one object at a time. -------- S: Kusala with pa~n~na can arise at six doorways. By reason, she says, there must be ruupa at the sense-door before it appears at the mind-door in order for ruupa to be known at the mind- door. Now, she points out, without well-developed pa~n~na, the sense-door process 'covers up' mind-door process. -------- N: She often explained: just now seeing experiences visible object, and after that visible object is experienced in a following mind-door process, but this is not known. It is all very fast, and the sensedoor proces covers up as it were the mind-door process. ------ S: When its a moment of vipassanaa-~naana, this can show that this is the world of mind-door process. ------- N: At such moments nama and rupa are known through the mind-door. The mind-door process is no longer hidden. Also she said: there are only nama and rupa at such moments, no world, no self. ------- S: The sense-door process lasts only seven javana moments. She notes that given how fast and how short a moment it is, its through sense-door that the mind door can understand ruupa. ------ N: The rupa that is the object of insight in a mind-door process must have been known before by cittas in a sense-door process. It is in a flash: sense-door process, mind-door process, sense-door process, mind-door process,... and so on. Thus, she explained, when vipassana ~naa.na arises in a mind-door process, and there is again a sense- door process, the cittas are also accompanied by pa~n~naa. We have learnt before that also in a sense-door process there can be kusala cittas accompanied by pa~n~naa. Now one can experience that this is true. -------- S: She also notes that it is at the different sense-doors that nothing can hide the mind-door process when its vipassanaa-~naana and that this can understand the ruupa at the sense-door. Now, at this moment, she says, its the kusala with panna at the sense-door process. There are alternating moments of sense door and mind door with bhavanga in between. Citta at the mind-door understands naama and ruupa. It is vipassaana-~naana which understands. Satipa.t.thaana can arise in the sense-door at the moment of vipassaana-~naana and at that moment there is no doubt as to what is sense-door and what is mind-door. ------- N: But she also explained that it goes on so fast that one cannot 'count' the different processes. But pa~n~naa cannot be hindered when cittas of a sense-door process arise, it keeps on arising. Now it seems that we can see and hear at the same time, but when vipassanaa ~naa.na arises it is known that there are different processes with bhavangacittas in between. Now it seems almost unreachable, but then we think of a self who will attain. When it is the right time for pa~n~naa, pa~n~naa will. After this stage we really understand what nama is. Now we notice anger, but it is not known as nama. It is still 'my anger'. It is useful to know what we do not know yet. Otherwise we may take knowing names for realizing characteristics. I heard this morning: hard is hard, no matter there is no sati or there is sati. When there is awareness hardness is still hardness, but then hardness can be known as a reality, and the experience can be known as another type of reality. ------- Nina. #68996 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Group egberdina Hi Howard, James, Sarah, On 01/03/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and James, and Nina) - > > In a message dated 2/27/07 11:32:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > > Anyway, back to James's articles. Can I make an amendment to his good > > suggestion and ask if James could send them to Howard (rather than me) to > > clear and forward to the list if he considers them appropriate? (I'm sure > > that would work fine. If he's too lenient, we (or others!!) will soon let > > him know, lol!). I know James trusts Howard's judgement on these things > > and so do we. > > > ========================= > James, if this is something you would want to do, I won't refuse, but > I am a bit uncomfortable doing it. It puts me in the position of censoring the > writings of a friend. Were I a moderator, and were it necessary or, as in > this case, requested, well, that would be my job. But I'm not. There is also the option that James just posts what he feels comfortable with, and that people put some of their really indepth Buddhist knowledge into practice, rather than be come offended by squigles on their computer monitor. Kind Regards Herman #68997 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2 upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/28/07 10:41:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard (and Herman), > thank you for your useful remarks which touch on the essence of the > dhamma. > ------------- > H: People in this day and age quite commonly view the body and things > around us as combinations of molecules or atoms or subatomic > particles, and in > the latter case, many folks are quite aware that these are supposed > to be > fleeting, ghostlike, certainly impersonal phenomena that arise and > cease in > trillionths of a second, and arise due to causes and conditions. How > would that differ > from the rupa perspective? Especially, why would the rupa perspective > lend > itself any more to a sense of anicca and anatta? Why is the rupa > theory better? > Is contemplating a theory really the means to freedom? > --------- > N: There is no rupa theory. Rupas are realities with characteristics > that can be directly known by pa~n~naa. Not all of the 28 rupas are > suitable for insight, but several of them are. --------------------------------------- Howard: So, Nina, what you believe to be the case is fact, and the quarks and so on of the physicists are not? I don't know how you know that. To me it makes more sense to say I believe something to be the case rather than I know it to be so when, in fact, I don't really know it to be so. Now, I happen to believe in rupas also, Nina, very much so. But I take them to be elements of experience - physical experience, and not liitle bits of material. For a science of materials I'd sooner turn to the chemists and physicists circa 2007. But the main point of my question is how studying about rupas as opposed to subatomic particles is particularly suited to leading towards awakening and liberation. The subatomic particles of physics are every bit as anicca, sankhata, and anatta as are the rupas. ------------------------------------- > Take hardness, the element of solidity that appears through the > bodysense whenever we touch something hard. We can learn that in the > ultimate sense there is not a hard thing, and there is no body. There > is just the contact of element on element. > At each moment all the rupas of the body arise, due to the four > factors and then they fall away, there is nothing left of them. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Do you observe this falling away and replacement? We read that this happens, just as we read that to be so for the subatomic particles. Has any of such reading *shown* you the radical impermanence of phenomena? Do you expect it to? --------------------------------------- But > > rupas are replaced by new rupas and then our body seems such a solid > thing that remains. In reality there is nothing left when at each > moment each rupa falls away. This can be realized through the > development of insight. > We see people walking and moving their hands, and it is because of > sa~n~na that we perceive this. In reality at each splitsecond all > rupas fall away, nothing is left. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, yes - I believe this too. Belief is just belief. ----------------------------------------- > This can lead to more understanding of the truth that in the ultimate > sense there is no person. > But clinging to ideas is in the way to really accept this. > I appreciated Herman's post to Sarah where he said: a concept is > known. He warned against just knowing the names. Understanding > concepts that designate realities is a beginning, but direct > understanding has to be developed. > Kh. Sujin used to say: toe.> She meant that right understanding when it is developed leads > to detachment from all these rupas, from head to toe. > > Molecules do not have characteristics that can be directly > experienced, knowing about them does not lead to detachment. One can > think about them, but thinking is only thinking. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Do you directly experience rupas? I know you believe they can be experenced, somehow. Actually, subatomic particles can in a way be experienced. ------------------------------------------- > > The Buddha taught Rahula, that he should realize the truth of all > five khandhas, including ruupakkhandha. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta: < > "Rahula, whatever rupa, - past, future or present, internal or > external, gross or subtle, base or exalted, whether it is far or > near, - all rupa should be seen as it really is with right wisdom in > such a way: "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not me". > "Rupa only, Lord? Rupa only, Blessed One?â€? > "Also feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, > Rahula, as well as rupa."> > (I left rupa untranslated, it is translated as form, but this is not > so clear. It is rupakkhandha) > When I have time I shall attend to your other challenging posts. > Nina. > ===================== The point of my posts on this is twofold: 1) Belief is just belief, and 2) Knowing does not come about just on the basis of belief. With metta, Howard #68998 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a cremation just like now upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/28/07 2:06:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > You talk now about a situation, not about realities which each have > their own condition. > Besides, it is not your kamma that produced your posts. The citta was > thinking (with kusala or with akusala) and citta moved your hand in > writing. ---------------------------------------- Howard: My posts were not produced without intention as a condition. That is a fact. ---------------------------------------- > I am reading , and there must also be seeing, The experience of > colour. Seeing is produced by kamma, eyesense is produced by kamma. > Have a good trip to Dallas. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks! :-) ==================== With metta, Howard #68999 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing m_nease Hi Sukin (and Phil), > And so what else is to be understood at this level of understanding? That > realities here and now are no different from the realities there and then. > For example lobha here, say to a film, is no different from lobha there, say > to a quiet surrounding. Seeing here is no different from seeing there. > Thinking here is no different from thinking there. Nicely put, I thought--this is what I tried to express when I wrote 'same (different) dhammas' etc. Like Nina's 'a cremation just like now', I think. Also, > True, there is a level of sila at which the five precepts can be "followed" > (whatever I mean by that), without much or any understanding about the Path. > But what does this then condition? Less occasions for transgressions? But > does this lead to panna? If followed with full force of self-view or any > idea that this is the basis for panna to arise later, then I don't think it > does. To think otherwise is, I think, the 'síla' part of 'sílabbatupådåna', clinging to rules and rituals, as much to be avoided as 'kåmupådåna', sensuous clinging. In other words, I think the former can be easily mistaken as a remedy for the former. So it seems to me, anyway--corrections welcome. Great post in general, Sukin, I thought. mike