#70800 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:52 am Subject: Breaking Viscious Circles [Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections N, no 10] jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for the sentiment expressed in this post of yours. It's something that I'm sure we could all benefit from bearing in mind. Jon #70801 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:27 pm Subject: Re: what is sati wisdomcompas... dear friends i feel to develop sati we must experiment. i like experimenting using buddhas words as he used in the sutta. like while walking i say to myself this is leg walking, and then i watch movements of leg patiently and closely as a scientist watches and experiments. and surprisingly if we do it repeatedly not only new observations about a simple act like walking comes up but the thought of "me" as walking is not present in that time. therefore there is no clinging in the mind. same can be extended to vedana in the body or any of five sense organs, and later on for thoughts. for thoughts when i think about something like as in ur example chattering of people in a restaurant, i would observe the inner feeling or emotion or content of thougth, mostly it is one of the five hinderances explained by buddha in satipatthana sutta. with perseverance and practice it can be done. we must not look for result but just try it out of interest. then it gives good result. with good wishes nidhi #70802 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The four Right Efforts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/19/07 2:28:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Jon, I'm afraid I'll have to beg your indulgence. I've > forgotten at > >this point what this was about, at least in detail, and I'm feeling > so poorly > >with this worsening cold that I'm really not up to the work > required to recall > >and reply, except to make a couple remarks below. I'm really sorry. > >---------------------------------------- > > > No problem. I'm happy to let this thread drop. I hope you make a > quick recovery from your cold. > > I'll snip the rest of your post and go to the one part that I'd like > to comment on. > > >>The question is whether, in setting out the 4 Right Efforts, the > >>Buddha is referring (a) to actual moments of kusala or (b) to > moments > >>that precede the arising of kusala (and which thus, by > definition, > >>would be akusala â€" as I see it anyway). > > > >---------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > To me, a well-intentioned effort to bring about a good thing > > is a good > >thing. The efforts to bring about as-yet-unarisen wholesome states, > to > >further already-arisen wholesome states, to abandon already-arisen > unwholesome > >states, and to prevent arising of as-yet-unarisen unwholesome > states, are, in each > >case, quite wholesome. > >--------------------------------------- > > It may seem axiomatic that a well-intentioned effort to bring about > kusala would itself be kusala. Unfortunately, however, there is no > mention of such an idea in the texts. -------------------------------------------- Howard: There is much more not in "the texts" than in them. So what? Among all the conventional things mentioned there, there is no mention of one "Jonathan Abbott". ;-)) In any case, Jon, do you think, then, that effort that is entirely** well intentioned is not kusala? That would be an interesting view. Would such effort not be (or be accompanied by) kusala kamma? If not, why not? And if that is not kusala kamma, what in the world would be? Something that worldlings cannot engage in? For if that is so, then there is no possibility of release. Most specifically, Jon, are not the four right efforts kusala? They are, in fact, efforts to bring about beneficial results - exactly that. -------------------------------------------------- > > Kusala is classified** in the suttas as dana, sila or bhavana (samatha > or vipassana). The 'well-intentioned effort' to bring about dana, > for example, is not itself dana, and obviously could not be sila or > bhavana either. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Is the mindstate not kusala? It is intention that determines the moral status of a mindstate and of action. And, in any case, are not the four right efforts instances of bhavana? They are well intentioned efforts to cultivate what is wholesome, and they, themselves, are part and parcel of bhavana. I really fail to see what you are arguing, Jon,or why. What is your point? I don't get it. --------------------------------------------------- > > What we take for well-intentioned effort to bring about kusala is > really akusala of some form or other. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! Well, that is not what *I* mean by good intention. I mean kusala cetana. From Nyanatiloka there are the following: > kusala: 'kammically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (A??hasalini), are: of > good health, blameless, productive of favourable kamma-result, skillful. (Also, for 'kusala', please see Nyanatiloka's material I quote at the end.) > cetana: 'volition', will, is one of the seven mental factors (cetasika, > q.v.) inseparably bound up with all consciousness, namely sensorial or mental > impression (phassa), feeling (vedana), perception (sañña), volition (cetana), > concentration (samadhi), vitality (jivita), advertence (manasikara). Cf. Tab. > II, III.With regard to kammical volition (i.e. wholesome or unwholesome > kamma) it is said in A. VI, 13: "Volition is action (kamma), thus I say, o monks; > for as soon as volition arises, one does the action, be it by body, speech or > mind." -------------------------------------------- > > This is why we do not find in the texts intention given as one of the > necessary conditions for the development of kusala (although the > intention that arises together with kusala is of course itself > kusala). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you are driving at here, Jon, or why. Cetana is kamma, and kamma is cetana, and kusala cetana (i.e., accompanied by wholesome roots) is auspicious, and actions in thought, word, and deed flowing from kusala cetana is to the good. The four right efforts are such action. It boggles my mind as to why you want to soft peddle the critical importance of cetana. ------------------------------------------------ > > Similar considerations apply as regards the mental factor of effort. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: WHAT similar considerations? The four right efforts are perfect instances of kusala kamma in action. What are you saying, Jon? I think I'll just let the Buddha speak for himself on the four right efforts: _____________________ "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." Please note the phrase "exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities". ---------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ====================== With metta, Howard ** Ven Nyanatiloka writes the following in his dictionary article on 'kusala': > It is defined in M. 9 as the 10 wholesome courses of action (s. kammapatha > ). In psychological terms, 'kammically wholesome' are all those kammical > volitions (kamma-cetana) and the consciousness and mental factors associated > therewith, which are accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (s. mula), i.e. by > greedlessness (alobha) and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases also by > non-delusion (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are > regarded as 'kammically wholesome' as they are causes of favourable kamma results > and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. From this explanation, > two facts should be noted: (1) it is volition that makes a state of > consciousness, or an act, 'good' or 'bad'; (2) the moral criterion in Buddhism is the > presence or absence of the 3 wholesome or moral roots (s. mula). /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./      (From the Diamond Sutra) #70803 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta wisdomcompas... hi i would try to explain me in my simple understanding and words. if i make a mistake learned members please forgive me. we are a complex composition of 1 body 2 mind body has five senses which experience sense objects with the help of mind. mind (here i mean only thought process excluding senses) is composed of three things 1) part of mind which labels the sensation (sanna that is perception) as good bad, right wrong etc. 2) part of mind which reacts to these labels (craving and aversion or neutral reaction) (sankhara or volition) 3) part of mind which records this reaction and makes memory of this (vinnana or re-cognition) these are panchupadan khanda as described by buddha. but actually if we closely see we find that neither of them are permanent, as they arise and go by themselves. and the part of mind which thinks that this is me or mine itself is absent at times and present at other times. for example in acute pain there is only pain and a moment later we reacognise that "I" had pain. then another part of mind (perception) says pain is not good. then other part of mind (volition) tries to do something about the pain. and then memory of the pain is made. this way we mistakenly assume all these parts of mind to be "me" or "I" or "mine". factually we have no control on either of these and none of these parts are present all the times. its just fast interaction that makes us feel that it is "me" who is doing all this so that part which is doing this is "me". i hope i could put it in understandable form regards nidhi #70804 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:36 pm Subject: Re: Letters on Vipassana 11, no 2. wisdomcompas... dear friends i think when we understand something at that moment thereis neither craving, nor aversion and neither ignorance. so actually understanding seems to be the right way. and further when we understand some mental emotion we dont make new sankhara. because volition is not present at that moment. as we are not reacting to the emotion. metta nidhi --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > "Should we hate our akusala? It is just a reality, it arises", Khun > Sujin reminded Sarah and Jonothan while they were in Bangkok. #70805 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/19/07 4:06:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wisdomcompassion@... writes: > we are a complex composition of > 1 body > 2 mind > ===================== I knowwhat you mean by that, but I believe it should be formulated differently. As I understand the Dhamma, there is (literally) no "we" to be anything at all, including being a complex composition of paramattha dhammas. What *is* the case, as I understand the Dhamma, is that millions upon millions of arising and ceasing namas and rupas stream into and out of existence, and because of the multitude of complex interrelationships holding among them, a process of thought (included therein) engages in conceptualizing a "being" that is imputed upon the basis of those multi-millions of interrelated empty and fleeting phenomena. It *seems* that there is a core "self" that the namas and rupas are aspects of, or that the collection of all of them is some "thing", or that there is some lasting medium in which these fleeting phenomena inhere, possibly one sort among these phenomena - usually consciousness. All of this self-making is delusion and is the root defilement. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) #70806 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:24 pm Subject: Re: a question kenhowardau Hi Howard, I have broken my own unwritten rule : 'Never think you know what a sutta is saying until you have checked with the ancient commentaries.' ------------------ H: > It is natural that you would think that to be what was alluding to, but I suspect that what he was alluding to was the four noble truths. ------------------ I remember there is a basic distinction (between the 4NT's and dependent origination) but I forget what it is. Can you remind me? --------------------------- H: > That makes sense given the sutta we are talking about. Moreover, in that sutta he taught the following: _____________________ Bhikkhus, the spiritual eye arose, insight arose, wisdom arose, true knowledge arose, and light arose regarding Dhamma we had never heard before, that the ---------------------------- I think your point is that the Dhamma specifically referred to in this sutta (the "Dhamma we had never heard before") was not the part that related to conditionality. You may be right, but it seems to me that the 4NT's are about conditioned dhammas as well as nibbana. Also, I was pretty safe in saying to Robert A that conditionality (the world of citta, cetasika and rupa) was unheard of before the Buddha, don't you think? Ken H #70807 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta TGrand458@... Hi Nidhi and Howard I thought Nidhi's thoughts, not copied here, were nicely clear. The use of "we" seemed to me to be a common sense conventional use of a term in order to communicate a meaning. I didn't see "we" as a "proposition/viewpoint" that Nidhi was trying to expound. It seems Nidhi is expressing dhamma with a Sutta approach, and Howard is expressing it with some type of progressive abhidhammic approach ... as copied below. Does that make sense? TG In a message dated 4/19/2007 2:34:28 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/19/07 4:06:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, _wisdomcompassion@wisdomcomwi_ (mailto:wisdomcompassion@...) writes: > we are a complex composition of > 1 body > 2 mind > ===================== I knowwhat you mean by that, but I believe it should be formulated differently. As I understand the Dhamma, there is (literally) no "we" to be anything at all, including being a complex composition of paramattha dhammas. What *is* the case, as I understand the Dhamma, is that millions upon millions of arising and ceasing namas and rupas stream into and out of existence, and because of the multitude of complex interrelationships holding among them, a process of thought (included therein) engages in conceptualizing a "being" that is imputed upon the basis of those multi-millions of interrelated empty and fleeting phenomena. It *seems* that there is a core "self" that the namas and rupas are aspects of, or that the collection of all of them is some "thing", or that there is some lasting medium in which these fleeting phenomena inhere, possibly one sort among these phenomena - usually consciousness. All of this self-making is delusion and is the root defilement. With metta, Howard #70808 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections N, no 10 egberdina Hi Jon (and Howard), On 20/04/07, jonoabb wrote: > > > When discussing the meaning of the words spoken by the Buddha, the > consciousness may be kusala or it may be akusala. I don't think it > matters. What matters is the attempt to communicate as best we can > the meaning of the words spoken by the Buddha as understood by us. > You wrote to Howard "What we take for well-intentioned effort to bring about kusala is really akusala of some form or other." Surely then the intention of having dhamma discussions is also akusala? What you didn't say to Howard, but you do say here, is that it doesn't matter whether consciousness is kusala or akusala. Which I can appreciate, because it means we can safely dispense with the Dhammasangani :-) Herman #70809 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta rjkjp1 Dear TG I agree except to note that Abhidhamma commentaries also use 'we', 'I' etc - with the understanding that these are mere conventional designations. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Nidhi and Howard > > I thought Nidhi's thoughts, not copied here, were nicely clear. The use of > "we" seemed to me to be a common sense conventional use of a term in order to > communicate a meaning. I didn't see "we" as a "proposition/viewpoint" that > Nidhi was trying to expound. > #70810 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/19/07 5:31:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I have broken my own unwritten rule : 'Never think you know what a > sutta is saying until you have checked with the ancient commentaries.' > > ------------------ > H: >It is natural that you would think that to be what was alluding > to, but I suspect that what he was alluding to was the four noble > truths. > ------------------ > > I remember there is a basic distinction (between the 4NT's and > dependent origination) but I forget what it is. Can you remind me? -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not all that clear on this. I do think that paticcasamupada includes suffering, its cause, the fact that there is an escape from it, and the means tothat escape in the step by step unraveling of the links. So, loosely, the 4NT are included there. But Ireally have nothing else worthwhile to offer on that. ----------------------------------------- > > --------------------------- > H: >That makes sense given the sutta we are talking about. Moreover, > in that sutta he taught the following: > _____________________ > Bhikkhus, the spiritual eye arose, insight arose, wisdom arose, true > knowledge arose, and light arose regarding Dhamma we had never heard > before, that the > > ---------------------------- > > I think your point is that the Dhamma specifically referred to in > this sutta (the "Dhamma we had never heard before") was not the part > that related to conditionality. You may be right, but it seems to me > that the 4NT's are about conditioned dhammas as well as nibbana. ------------------------------------ Howard: Well, sure, because they involve the dukkha and its cause. ------------------------------------ > > Also, I was pretty safe in saying to Robert A that conditionality > (the world of citta, cetasika and rupa) was unheard of before the > Buddha, don't you think? ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, conditionality as opposed to the substantialist theories of causation of his predecessors. -------------------------------------- > > Ken H ==================== With metta, Howard #70811 From: "sukinder" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:02 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] A Meditation Tip 2 sukinderpal Hi Dieter, I continue with this one. ========================= Dieter: you wrote: The ongoing debate concerning samatha and vipassana that you refer to is based on the idea of 'self'. Both side of the debate seem to come from the standpoint of "control" and therefore as far as I am concerned, both are wrong! D: please compare with the A.N. sutta I quoted .. it is a different approach but - as the Buddha mentioned -one should try to learn from eachother . I do not see the significance of self or control here . S=> I have given some comments in my last reply, but I'll add here this: The Buddha was enlightened to the 4NT, this contains all that is needed to know; Dukkha (or conditioned realities), the Cause (tanha), the Cessation (the Unconditioned Nibbana) and the Path (the N8FP). This last is the only Dhamma which leads one out of samsara/cessation of Dukkha. Samatha/Jhana would in my opinion still be a part of samsara, hence Dukkha. The significance of self and control is in the fact that both sides believe in 'deliberate' practice, samatha and/or vipassana. This I believe is due to not really understanding the 4NT. If indeed all there is are just conditioned dhammas (aside from Nibbana) each performing their functions in the span of one citta moment, why at the same time take seriously this illusory idea of a "'self' who needs to do this or that in 'meditation'"? What ever dhamma arises in the moment, why not understand that, and if not understood, why then believe in the 'story' (idea of meditation) spun out by those very dhammas "not known"? At this point I'd like to bring up the Dhamma concept of Saccannana, Kicchannana, and Katannana. Saccannana is intellectual understanding of the 4NT that has grown firm (supported by some degree of practice) to the extent that it understands that *this* moment is the only valid object of understanding. One grows ever more convinced of the uselessness of thinking in terms of past and future, stories about better time, place, objects and posture. This then leads to Kicchannana, which corresponds to the 'practice' of satipatthana. The wisdom here is stronger, not only is it convinced in principle, but also in practice ;-). It knows that dhammas arise now and "should" be understood. And when this is accumulated enough, Katannana namely, 'realization' is reached. And of course, once enlightenment has been reached, there is no more silabattaparamasa, namely thinking in terms of better time, posture and place for arousing sati. This being so, do you see a connection between the three namely Sacca-, Kiccha- and Kata- nnana? Is thinking now, of some better time, place and posture, the right cause for the right results? I don't think so. All these three stages involve "understanding", from 'principle' to finally being 'verified', of the same fact. ========================== Suk:If the study of Dhamma does not increase our understanding of present moment realities as being "conditioned", then I think there must involve "wrong" reading/studying/understanding. 'Right practice' can only come from right intellectual understanding; therefore if there is wrong understanding of the Teachings, then 'wrong practice' invariably follows. Dhammas are conditioned to perform their various functions, some like avijja and miccha ditthi, gives rise to the impression of there being 'selves' making choices developing/not developing the Path. And this seems to be where most Buddhists are at.. D: as I see it the study of Dhamma means first of all penetration into the (deeper) understanding of the 4 Noble Truths for the aim of abolishing ignorance (avijja) , i.e. cessation of suffering, which we achieve by practice of the 8fold Noble Path. The first step , right understanding , starts with the mundane aspects.. You certainly know that but my purpose to point that out is that I have difficulties to relate above with the path ... easier perhaps when I understand your linking to it S=> Please refer to what I wrote above. However I think it may take some time for you to get a good idea of where I come from, since your understanding, which is akin to the mainstream one, is something I totally reject, namely that the N8FP is about separate practices to be followed. Overall, the Path according to my understanding consists of the development of the Parami along with the Eight Fold Path. The former involves the accumulation and development of many kusala dhammas, including Dana, Sila, Metta, Sacca, Uppekha, Khanti, and so on. These develop when they do and takes as you know, uncountable lifetimes to be perfected. The idea that one must develop Sila so as to have more Samadhi and which then leads to Insight seems like an oversimplification and somewhat tunnel visioned in light of the above. Perhaps it appeals to those who are attached to self/results and/or believe that one can/must 'get it' within just one lifetime. I realize that in your case Sila is stressed from a broader context, namely being part of the N8FP. But because you see it as independent, though related, there is still the problem of distortion. ================= Dieter: Moreover it seems to me necessary to talk about the I/Self ...remember only the Never -Returner realises liberation from the fetter conceit.. S=> You misunderstand. The I/Self of concern here is Sakaya ditthi and not Mana. And btw, mana is eradicated by arahatta magga. And yes, it is right to talk conventionally about I/Self, there is no way around this. However, what is pointed out here is the 'wrong view of self' behind certain expressed opinions, and this is what I am concerned with and consider necessary to correct. ================ Dieter: Quite a big issue to discuss the aspects of anatta .. detachment is not a matter of the head alone and I believe one need to be very patient in order not to 'suffocate ' the heart.. S=> Yes patience is a great virtue and a Parami to develop, which I confess to be lacking a great deal when it comes to sense contacts. However it is more important I think, when it comes to developing wisdom, and here I am in no hurry. ;-) I don't know what you are suggesting in differentiating head from heart. Do you mean to stress Saddha? Or is it your impression that what I express is merely an intellectual exercise and nothing to do with experience? Have you by any chance created a false duality; I remember reading such a thing by some monk of the Thai forest tradition? Please explain. ==================== Suk: Coming to khanika samadhi, this is the samadhi arising with each citta, performing the function of fixing the citta and the other accompanying mental factors on to the object. Why then the idea of developing this samadhi? Is it not more a matter of developing sati and panna which are particularly sobhana cetasikas? In fact why focus on developing any samadhi at all? If attachment, aversion, ignorance, doubt, envy and so on can arise and perform their specific functions in the span of one consciousness moment, then why not mindfulness, confidence, wisdom, and so on do? D: sounds like why not realising enlightenment within 7 days.. the shortest period the Buddha mentioned in respect to Sati practise ... the point is only who can do ? S=> No! The development of wisdom takes place very, very gradually starting with pariyatti. If only it were so simple as to develop "samadhi", the process would take far lesser time. What I am suggesting implies that it does take many aeons to develop. ========================== Suk: Reading the Texts with 'self view' creates many distortions imo. D: to which texts you are refering to? S=> Any part of the Teachings, including Abhidhamma and commentaries. ========================= Suk: Indeed the development of understanding (along with the paramis) must be very slow and gradual given the great tendency to akusala. About this idea re: Sila, Samadhi and Panna, are you referring to the distinction made in the Visuddhimagga? If so, last time I heard was that this distinction is for the purpose of teaching. D: The Buddha has mentioned Sila, Samadhi and Panna as the training ( for the purpose of practise not as a teaching advise) in numerous suttas. The sequence , corresponding to the path links 345 - 678 - 12 , is - as far as I know- only stated in a sutta concerning a dhamma lesson by a nun , which however lateron was confirmed by the Buddha. Buddhagosa made it ' a rule' ... S=> We could discuss the Suttas you have in mind. I don't understand the reference to "path links 345 - 678 - 12", could you explain? Also how do you read Buddhagosa as having made anything into 'a rule'? ======================= Suk: True that on the one hand this reflects the possibility of development, namely that concentration and wisdom cannot be perfected before morality is, on the other hand however this also shows that "panna" is needed all the way through, doesn't it? And also it is not a matter of anyone having to first develop sila, then samadhi and then panna.? D: when we define panna as the wisdom of understanding the 4 Noble Truths, there is a gradual accumulation of insights contributing to that wisdom up to samma ditthi , on the other hand a gradual abolishment of avijja. The progress of understanding ( as well by heart ;-) means therefore too a growing panna level. Understanding is needed all the way through ..the forerunner as it is called . I had some difficulties in the past to agree with that the Noble Path should start with Sila .. but changed my mind by accepting that we are talking about training .. and training assumes the acceptance by ( a first) understanding The sequence of the training does not exclude an interrelated approach to all path links respectively it may be even the rule.. S=> I understand what you are saying and would have agreed with you had I not heard the Abhidhamma and learnt about conditionality. Besides knowing that the N8FP in fact refers to mental factors arising together, I now understand Sila to be conditioned, beyond the control of self. Seeing the danger of akusala deeds is the proximate cause for Sila to arise in the moment and not as an abstract idea to be clung to. Sometimes it seems to me, that a non-Buddhist, if he or she were to exercise restraint it might consist of more moments of genuine sila, a Buddhist (so called) with a view that this is what he must 'do' in order that he achieve concentration and insight is placing himself to much distortions. But neither of them is getting closer to perfecting 'panna' anyway. I know this may put me in hot water, but I don't mind. ;-) Besides, there is absolutely no contradiction with regard to developing all kinds of kusala, including Sila, if one were to see the danger in ignorance and be determined to develop wisdom in any and every situation. Moreover at the moment of understanding, as Nina has said, sila can be seen as right practice and moves towards being perfected. Otherwise being momentarily free from the tyranny of self view, Sila and other kusala dhammas become also more pure, which they are beyond control of 'self' anyway. One can't make Sila arise by dint of will and no one can stop sila from arising when the conditions are right. It appears as though some people do not trust the teachings on conditionality that they insist on being proactive in developing Sila and such. Actually I think it is more like they *don't understand* it. Being interested in overcoming ignorance *includes* being interested in developing all kinds of kusala. Does not after all knowing the present moment reality include also knowing somewhat its status as being kusala or akusala? On the other hand, while some strive with 'self view' to "guard the senses" not only does wrong view get accumulated, what in fact they consider to be 'guarding the senses' may not be so. And in mistaking akusala for kusala, they invariably accumulate more ignorance and attachment... ======================= Suk: Of course we must allow for different levels of understanding and even misunderstanding. But though this latter is 'natural' for all, should we be encouraging it? And if we continue to fail to identify instances of 'wrong understanding', does not the chance to "correct" it become even more remote? D: more often than less I recognized that chance to correct misunderstandings or even wrong understandings fail in the course of communication .. but always worth a new trial, isn't it? S=> Yes, as long as we continue to see the value of dhamma discussions and have the good fortune of meeting the wise friend and there are conditions for us to appreciate Right View. ============================== D: 'Suttas and the Vinaya *can* be read to completely agree with the Abhidhamma and Sutta and Vinaya are faced with many contradiction within one or both of these' ? of course I deny the latter ( please prove your point) and are in doubt of the former.. so looking ahead for a lively discussion ;-) S=> I was afraid that you would ask this of me. :-P I most likely have the least knowledge amongst members of this group, of Suttas and any other part of the Texts, and also a very bad power of recall. What comes to mind at the moment are the Mahasatipatthana Sutta on the one hand and the Sabba Sutta and Anattalakkhana Sutta on the other. Most Sutta readers go away with the interpretation that the Mahasatipatthana Sutta is about recommending people to observe their everyday conventional (perceived and conceived) bodies and actions, only now with more deliberation and focus. The Sabba Sutta tells us what in fact the underlying realities are and the Anattalakkhana Sutta tells us that these same realities are conditioned and beyond control of any 'self'. The Sabba Sutta and the Anattalakkhana Sutta, impresses upon us a completely different and groundbreaking view of the world. Reading the Mahasatipatthana Sutta in terms of observing bodily postures and actions does nothing to confirm such an understanding. In fact it encourages a perception, atta-sanna and a conceiving, which is our very problem. The commentaries (and Abhidhamma perspective) on the other hand, tells us about what in fact the Satipatthana Sutta is all about. That it points to understanding of the same realities referred to in the Sabba Sutta and that these must be known no matter what we are doing, (the reference to the different postures and activities), the arising of which being conditioned and beyond control as one reads in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. So what say you? :-) Metta, Sukinder Ps: If possible I think it may be a good idea if instead of responding in-text you could give comments under various headings? This may shorten the posts. #70812 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable lbidd2 Hi Jon, J: "It is certainly not vipaka, to my understanding." L: If being run over by a car is kamma, so be it. According to my own understanding you, being an upstanding responsible citizen, are the expert on all things vipaka: CMA p. 172 "The Sammohavinodanii states that the distinction between the intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average man (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants." " L: Could you give me an example of undesirable visible data and explain why it is undesirable? Larry #70813 From: han tun Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:23 pm Subject: Daana Corner (42) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, The following is taken from “Generosity: The Inward Dimension” by Nina Van Gorkom Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) ------------------------------ Good deeds are usually classified as threefold: as generosity, morality, and mental development. This threefold classification should not be considered a rigid one. Morality, or abstinence from evil deeds, can also be seen as an aspect of generosity, as an act of kindness to others. When we abstain from evil deeds we give other beings the opportunity to live in peace, free from harm. If we want to develop generosity, we should not neglect mental development — the development of wholesome states of mind. We should know when consciousness is unwholesome and when wholesome in order to develop generosity and other good qualities. Knowing more about one's different types of consciousness is mental development. The "stream-winner" is the noble person at the first stage of enlightenment. He has developed right understanding of the different mental and physical phenomena that appear at the present moment and has seen realities as they are. With the attainment of enlightenment he experiences Nibbana, the unconditioned reality, for the first time. At the moment of enlightenment the wrong view of self is eradicated, and with it stinginess too is destroyed. Stinginess can never arise again, and he thus has perfect generosity. An ordinary person may be able to suppress stinginess temporarily, for example, at the time of giving, but stinginess is bound to arise again so long as its accumulated tendency remains. The stream-winner, through right understanding, has eradicated the tendency to stinginess and can never be overcome by it anymore. Learning from the Buddha's teachings how to develop wholesomeness and to eradicate defilements is the greatest blessing. Therefore the teaching of the Dhamma, the Buddha's teaching, should be considered as the giving of the highest gift. In learning what the Buddha taught and in developing wholesomeness we correct our views about what is worthwhile striving for and what is not, about what is real and what is mere illusion. Before we heard about the Buddha's teachings we may have considered the enjoyment of pleasant sense objects to be the goal of our life. After we learn the Buddha's teachings we may gradually come to see that selfish attachment gives unrest of mind and that it is harmful to ourselves and others. We may come to understand that wholesomeness is beneficial both for ourselves and for others, that it brings peace of mind. Our outlook on what is worthwhile in life can change. We correct our views about reality when we understand what wholesome kamma is and what unwholesome kamma is, when we understand that kamma brings its appropriate result. We correct our views when we understand that not a self but different types of consciousness, wholesome and unwholesome, motivate our deeds, when we understand that these types of consciousness arise because of different conditioning factors. There are many degrees of correcting one's views. By developing understanding of realities the wrong view of self can be eradicated, and thereby perfect generosity can emerge. The effect of learning the Dhamma should be that we become less selfish and more generous, that we have more genuine concern for other people. The End of “Generosity: The Inward Dimension” by Nina Van Gorkom “The Perfections of Giving” by Acariya Dhammapala will start from next post. metta, Han #70814 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/19/2007 6:38:24 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear TG I agree except to note that Abhidhamma commentaries also use 'we', 'I' etc - with the understanding that these are mere conventional designations. Robert Hi Robert Yes and understood. My comments were more in regards to the view that "millions and millions of namas and rupas are streaming in and out of existence." Best Wishes, TG #70815 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/19/07 6:38:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Nidhi and Howard > > I thought Nidhi's thoughts, not copied here, were nicely clear. The use of > > "we" seemed to me to be a common sense conventional use of a term in order > to > communicate a meaning. I didn't see "we" as a "proposition/viewpoint" that > > Nidhi was trying to expound. > > It seems Nidhi is expressing dhamma with a Sutta approach, and Howard is > expressing it with some type of progressive abhidhammic approach ... as > copied > below. > > Does that make sense? > > TG > ============================ I thought that what Nidhi said was fine - and correct, but only figuratively so, and that an attempt to add more literal detail might prove to be useful for him and possibly others. I don't see what I had to say as especially constituting a progressive abhidhammic approach, though, but quite mainstream suttic Dhamma. With metta, Howard #70816 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Robert) - In a message dated 4/19/07 11:06:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes to RobK with regard to my post being "abhidhammish" ;-)), as follows: > My comments were more in regards to the view that > "millions and millions of namas and rupas are streaming in and out of > existence." > ========================= In the suttas the Buddha certainly spoke of namas and rupas, and he did so in many ways, using a variety of terminologies. He spoke there of thr very brief duration of namas and rupas, especially namas, and for sure over the course of a lifetime, in fact over multiple lifetimes, there are millions and millions of dhammas. So what makes this particularly "abhidhammic"? Why are you willing to cede to Abhidhamma fine analysis, and not credit the suttas with it as well? The Sutta Pitaka is a lot more than lessons in morality and nice stories.The whole of the Dhamma is to be found there (though not only there). With metta, Howard #70817 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta TGrand458@... Hi Howard It's merely the manner in which you spoke that takes on an abhidhammic tone IMO. Some of which infers abhidhammic analysis that is not at all a literal analysis of what is contained in the Suttas. On terms of "fine analysis," I find none finer than what is in the Suttas. Who would say I cede "fine analysis" to abhidhamma??? Why, in the years you have known me, would you conclude that I merely see the Suttas as "lessons in morality and nice stories"??? Anyway, namas and rupas are not "things" or states, they are just categories for the convenience of conceptualization and IMO should be stated as nama and rupa. To pluralize them, as abhidhammic analysis does, is to impart of the impression of "existent identities." I also do not see phenomena as having "short durations." But rather I see phenomena as continuously altering, so in effect, phenomena have no duration as "a thing/things." Abhidhamma focuses on "states as existing," whereas, I believe the Buddha wanted minds to focus on experiences in order to realize that -- "there are no states as existing." Not to be replaced with the idea of non-existence, but just to see beyond and out of the idea of existence...in order to free the mind from these delusions. TG #70818 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta TGrand458@... Hi All One clarification... In previous post I commented critically of Abhidhamma. This is not correct. My critical comments are directed more toward Abhidhamma commentarial interpretations. I see nothing wrong with the Abhidhamma Pitaka other than perhaps its tendency to produce a "substantialist view" on those who might over-interpret it. TG #70819 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip 2 moellerdieter Hi Sukinder, thanks for your answer. I printed both messages , 15 pages .. will try to edit it a bit so my reply will take time ;-) wit Metta Dieter #70820 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:03 am Subject: Re: a question kenhowardau Hi Robert A, ----------- RA: > Study of the Abhidhamma is, I am sure, a very useful thing to do, but one of the realities of my own life is that I don't do very well academically - I never have been much of a student. Is there a way to train in loosening our clinging to things and ideas without an intellectual understanding of all that is contained in the Abhidhamma? ------------- Something you will hear very often here at DSG is, "There is only the present moment." When we genuinely believe that, we won't be worried about future study, will we? We can see that our present understanding (however great or small it may be) is the result of our past hearing and wise consideration of the Dhamma. That will inspire us to study more. And we will do that at our own pace. There is no pressure. But there is no other way. Right understanding is of three kinds; there is pariyatti (intellectual), patipatti (practice, 'satipatthana'), and pativedha (complete penetration). They can be seen as both the results and the process of the "factors for enlightenment," which are, 1) association with wise friends, 2) hearing the true Dhamma, 3) wise consideration of the true Dhamma, and 4) practice in accordance with the true Dhamma. Good luck with it! :-) Ken H PS: I am not sure, but I think "factors for enlightenment" may be a commentarial term. As for authority from the suttas, I can refer you to one that Jon once quoted when asked about them: Kitagiri Sutta MN 70 (MLDB, Nanamoli/Bodhi trans): <> #70821 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:20 am Subject: Re: Letters on Vipassana 11, no 2. gazita2002 Hello James, I'm still here! and I'm on night beat this week so not a lot of clear headspace time :-) there are a couple of things I want to address in this post but it will have to wait a coupla days. You've done well James, I'm generally a 'lurker' and your've managed to get me posting. See ya soon.... Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Azita, > > Thanks for writing back to me!! :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" > wrote: > > > > Hello James, > > > > Well, lifetimes I do have! > > Firstly, why do you have such aversion to commentaries etc? > > James: I wouldn't really say I have an "aversion" to commentaries, > per se, but I just don't trust them as much as the suttas themselves > (and even those I don't always trust). Do you know who wrote the > commentaries? I don't. Why should you completely trust someone and > you don't even know the source? If an argument only has the > commentaries as support, it is very suspect and should be thrown out. > ............ > James: What "little things" do you mean? I thought you just said you > believed in doing nothing special? #70822 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:48 am Subject: Re: A Meditation Tip 2 sukinderpal Hi Dieter, > thanks for your answer. > I printed both messages , 15 pages .. will try to edit it a bit so my reply will take time ;-) :-) I'm sure this is the main reason why I almost never get any response from anyone. Please take your time and feel free to just bring up one point or two in the whole of these 15 pages. Or better still, just stick to the one point I am most interested in, namely – "what according to you are the conditions for samatha/jhana starting from the first baby steps?" Take care. Sukinder #70823 From: "benji_941" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:12 am Subject: homosexuality and jhana benji_941 hi, i think there are some experts on meditation here, so I hope I can get an answer to a question I have. I have been told that homosexuals cannot attain jhana( i think it is said in the Visuddhimagga ). is this true? Have there been any gay people who had jhana? thanks. #70824 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/20/07 12:39:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > It's merely the manner in which you spoke that takes on an abhidhammic tone > > IMO. Some of which infers abhidhammic analysis that is not at all a > literal > analysis of what is contained in the Suttas. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Okay, the tone. I can see that - I've probebly been on DSG too long! ;-) But AFAIK, the content was not at variance with Dhamma as presented in the suttas. If you can point to something specific, I'd appreciate it, because I don't want to be unaware of what's going on in my mind. ---------------------------------------- > > On terms of "fine analysis," I find none finer than what is in the Suttas. > > Who would say I cede "fine analysis" to abhidhamma??? Why, in the years > you > have known me, would you conclude that I merely see the Suttas as "lessons > in > morality and nice stories"??? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I wouldn't, which is why your take on what I wrote surprised me. It seemed to me to suggest a perspective of the suttas missing out on the full depth of Dhamma, especially with regard to anatta, with only Abhidhamma providing "ultimate" perspective. I took that to be what you were implying when you wrote of me "expressing it [the Dhamma] with some type of progressive abhidhammic approach." In any case, I'm glad that what you wrote does not indicate a change in your perspective on the Tipitaka. --------------------------------------------- > > Anyway, namas and rupas are not "things" or states, they are just > categories > for the convenience of conceptualization and IMO should be stated as nama > and rupa. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, here we may disagree. I don't think that namas and rupas, specific ones such as specific sights, sounds, tastes, feeling(s) of namas and rupas as pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, acts of recognizing, fearings, lovings, etc are categories. Every nama and every rupa is an actual experiential phenomenon/event distinguishable but not self-existent; not an entity with own being, but not a category or concept either. ------------------------------------------------ To pluralize them, as abhidhammic analysis does, is to impart of the > > impression of "existent identities." ------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, you are saying that there is "rupa" but not "rupas"? I would say just the opposite. Rupas occur. But "rupa" is concept. Rupas are experienced, but "rupa" is only conceptualized. It seems to me that you are according reality to substances implied by mass nouns and according no reality to what are actual experiential realities. When I do walking meditation, and I sense motion in the leg, it isn't "rupa" that is sensed, but a specific present experiential content, a specific rupa - a specific bodily sensation. I am not reifying that specific content - it is a fleeting, conditioned experience, contingent and without own being, but infinitely real compared to the mere category of "rupa". -------------------------------------------------- > > I also do not see phenomena as having "short durations." But rather I see > phenomena as continuously altering, so in effect, phenomena have no duration > > as "a thing/things." ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, how short does an event have to be considered short? An impression of hardness lasts one heck of a lot less than "my computer" has lasted. And why does short duration have to imply no development while existing and precise startings and endings? It does not for me. Let's consider what I call the fingertip pressure in my right middle finger as it was just tapping a key: I cannot pinpoint a precise beginning or ending to the sensation, and it certainly involved an escalation, peaking, and diminishing while in effect, but also it is true that it was not in occurrence a minute ago, then it was but for no longer than a relative instant, and then once again not in occurrence, and I would describe that as being of "short duration". -------------------------------------------------------- > > Abhidhamma focuses on "states as existing," whereas, I believe the Buddha > wanted minds to focus on experiences in order to realize that -- "there are > no > states as existing." > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know whether we see this in the same way as not, and are simply"speaking" differently, but I do believe that you were not understanding me. I hope I have clarified my perspective sufficiently. -------------------------------------------------- Not to be replaced with the idea of non-existence, but > > just to see beyond and out of the idea of existence...in order to free the > mind from these delusions. > > TG > ========================= With metta, Howard #70825 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:53 am Subject: [dsg] Persuasion technique of KS (Re: Perfections N, no 8) scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Sorry for the delay. I appreciate your reply: N: "...We read about kusala and akusala, we have intellectual understanding of them, but their characteristics can be known as a kind of dhamma, as nama, when they actually appear. Perfect confidence is the confidence of the sotaapanna who has developed direct understanding of nama and rupa up to the stage of enlightenment. He 'has arrived at this true Dhamma'. But we can begin, in being mindful of whatever appears, not being selective as to the object of awareness and right understanding. In this way all realities can be faced with equanimity. Whatever appears has arisen because of conditions." Scott: When you get a moment, would you clarify the difference between upekkhaa and manopavicaara in upekkhaa? Sincerely, Scott. #70826 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:44 am Subject: Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi all, The distinction conventional / ultimate reality is entirely a commentarial product. This is a footnote on DN 9 at ATO (accesstoinsight) 10. The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea — which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism — that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context. What the Buddha said is in the Suttas. What commentators have said about what the Buddha said is in later works. It beats the hell out me why 90% of discussions at dsg is about what commentators have said. Herman #70827 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:18 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) nichiconn dear friends, part 3 of Khema: Atha devii "vihaara.m passissaamii"ti raajaana.m pa.tipucchi. Raajaa "vihaara.m gantvaa satthaara.m adisvaa aagantu.m na labhissasii"ti vatvaa purisaana.m sa~n~na.m adaasi- "balakkaarenapi devi.m dasabala.m dassethaa"ti. Then the queen asked the king, "May I see the monastery?" The king went to the monastery. Not seeing the Teacher, he said, "You will not have an opportunity to approach." He gave a signal to his men, saying, "Make the queen see the One of Ten Powers, even [if it must be done] forcibly." Devii vihaara.m gantvaa divasabhaaga.m khepetvaa nivattentii satthaara.m adisvaava gantu.m aaraddhaa. Atha na.m raajapurisaa anicchantimpi satthu santika.m nayi.msu. Satthaa ta.m aagacchanti.m disvaa iddhiyaa devaccharaasadisa.m itthi.m nimminitvaa taalapa.n.na.m gahetvaa biijayamaana.m akaasi. Khemaa devii ta.m disvaa cintesi- "evaruupaa naama devaccharapa.tibhaagaa itthiyo bhagavato aviduure ti.t.thanti, aha.m etaasa.m paricaarikataayapi nappahomi, manampi nikkaara.naa paapacittassa vasena na.t.thaa"ti nimitta.m gahetvaa tameva itthi.m olokayamaanaa a.t.thaasi. The queen went to the monastery and spent part of the day there. Turning back, she was about to go without seeing the Teacher. Then the king's men led her into the presence of the Teacher, even though she did not want to go. When the Teacher saw her coming, he created a woman who looked like a celestial maiden by means of his supernormal power, and taking a palm leaf, he had her fan him. Queen Khemaa saw her and thought, "Women comparable to celestial maidens, of such an appearance indeed, stand near the Blessed One. I am lost because of my evil, useless mind. I am not adequate to be an attendant for her." She took this as a sign and stood there looking at that woman. Athassaa passantiyaava satthu adhi.t.thaanabalena saa itthii pa.thamavaya.m atikkamma majjhimavayampi atikkamma pacchimavaya.m patvaa kha.n.dadantaa palitakesaa valittacaa hutvaa saddhi.m taalapa.n.nena parivattitvaa pati Tato khemaa kataadhikaarattaa eva.m cintesi- "eva.mvidhampi sariira.m iidisa.m vipatti.m paapu.ni, mayhampi sariira.m eva.mgatikameva bhavissatii"ti. Athassaa cittaacaara.m ~natvaa satthaa- "Ye raagarattaanupatanti sota.m, saya.m kata.m makka.takova jaala.m; etampi chetvaana paribbajanti, anapekkhino kaamasukha.m pahaayaa"ti.- Gaathamaaha Then as she watched her, by the power of the Teacher's resolve, that woman went beyond youth and went beyond middle age to attain old age with broken teeth, grey hair, and wrinkled skin. She fell down and twisted the palm leaf. Then Khemaa, because of her meritorious deeds, thought as follows: "Even a body of such a nature has arrived at such misfortune. My body too will produce a similar destiny." Then the Teacher, knowing the workings of her mind, spoke this verse: Those who pursue passion make a stream for themselves as a spider [spins] its web. After they sever that, wandering free from longing, they have abandoned the happiness of the sensual pleasures. RD: Then, as she looked, that woman, through the steadfast will of the Master, passed from youth to middle age and old age, till, with broken teeth, grey hair, and wrinkled skin, she fell to earth with her palm-leaf. Then Khemaa, because of her ancient resolve, thought: 'Has such a body come to be a wreck like that? Then so will my body also!' And the Master, knowing her thoughts, said: 'They who are slaves to lust drift down the stream, Like to a spider gliding down the web He of himself has wrought. But the released, Who all their bonds have snapt in twain, With thoughts elsewhere intent, forsake the world, And all delight in sense put far away.' *264 *264 Dhammapada, ver. 347. === c: In "Treasury of Truth" it's said that our queen was the only one to see this superior beauty and watch her turn << into a corpse, her stinking body being attacked by maggots. At that instant, Queen Khema realized the impermanence and worthlessness of beauty. The Buddha knowing the state of her mind remarked, "O, Khema! Look carefully at this decaying body which is built around a skeleton of bones and is subject to disease and decay. Look carefully at the body which is thought of so highly by the foolish. Look at the worthlessness of the beauty of this young girl." After hearing this, Queen Khema attained sotapatti fruition. >> Commentary is given there for two phrases of Dhp. v. 347: 1. makka.tako va jaala.m: like the spider's web, made by itself. The spider follows the various streams (threads) of the web to capture its victims. 2. anupatanti sota.m: Those in the lust of passion, too, follow their self-made streams of sensual pleausres and fall into those streams. to be continued, connie #70828 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:41 am Subject: Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Interesting questions: H: "...It beats the hell out me why 90% of discussions at dsg is about what commentators have said." Scott: This might be one reason, from the home page: "Description A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the 'realities' of the present moment)." H: "This is a footnote on DN 9 at ATO (accesstoinsight) 10. The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context." Scott: Who is this commentator? Sincerely, Scott. #70829 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is sati, to Rob A. nilovg Dear Robert A, you have a good question. This is difficult to answer, because each person has to find out for himself when there is a subtle trying to be aware, when there is hoping for sati, or liking it, even after it has arisen. As soon as one tries to observe realities, I think that one does not let sati do the work. It depends on conditions of what object, and at what moment sati is aware. We are not master of these conditions. If one feels guilty on account of the many moments of forgetfulness in a day, it shows already that there is clinging. If one 'lets' sati arise because of its own conditions one comes to understand more that it is a dhamma devoid of self. This can be known not just in theory, but because of direct understanding. Nina. Op 19-apr-2007, om 16:40 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > Can you give me some examples of the obstacles we put in the way of > sati? #70830 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:53 am Subject: Q. What is sati. to Nidhi. nilovg Dear Nidhi, I would like to answer first your good question on samadhi you sent me off line. Others are interested as well. --------------- Nidhi: i would like to know what are the types of samadhi other than appanå samådhi and upacåra samådhi and where in sutta can i find information about these. -------- N: You find info in Buddhist Dictionary, Nyanatiloka: M. 44: 'Onepointedness of mind (citass'ekaggataa), Brother visaakha, this is called concentration.' It is ekaggata cetasika arising with each citta and it focusses on one object, so that citta experiences one object at a time. There are many levels of it, depending on the citta and other cetasikas it accompanies. In samatha it is developed to upacåra samådhi and it is appanå samådhi when jhaana is attained. It is also a Path factor and it developes together with sammaadi.t.thi, right view or right understanding, and the other factors. When the Path is mundane, the object is a naama or a ruupa, not a concept, such as a leg you gave as an example. You wrote: Nidhi: like while walking i say to myself this is leg walking, and then i watch movements of leg patiently and closely as a scientist watches and experiments. and surprisingly if we do it repeatedly not only new observations about a simple act like walking comes up but the thought of "me" as walking is not present in that time. therefore there is no clinging in the mind. --------- N: But I think you realize that thinking of a leg is thinking of a concept. When someone describes a situation like this, I cannot know what is in someone else's mind. It is good to realize: what does pa~n~naa know at such a moment? Is there a ruupa presenting itself through the bodysense and is it known as rupa? There is also naama at that moment, for example the nama that experiences hardness. When we take nama and rupa together as a mass there is still an idea of my body, my feeling, even though we have understood this in theory. To continue with samaadhi: it is also a factor of enlightenment bojjhanga, and one of the bodhipakkhiya dhammas, the 37 dhammas pertaining to enlightenment. (Yes, Ken H, it is in M. 77.) When the factors of enlightenment develop together, always together, they can become powers, balas. They cannot be shaken by their opposites. You mentioned in another post volition, but this is a cetasika accompanying each citta. It performs its own function all the time. People are sometimes wondering: is no effort needed for sati? Effort is a cetasika that performs its own function while it arises together with the other Path factors as the Path is being developed. It is ardent energy accompanying sati and pa~n~naa. But if one thinks: now I must make an effort to focus on nama and rupa, we do not see that sati is anatta arising because of its own conditions. We do not *let* sati arise and we spoil it all. To continue with samaadhi: at the moment of enightenment it accompanies lokuttara citta and experiences nibbaana. Then it has the strength of appana samaadhi, even if one has not developed mundane jhaana. Nina. #70831 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/20/07 8:45:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi all, > > The distinction conventional / ultimate reality is entirely a > commentarial product. > > This is a footnote on DN 9 at ATO (accesstoinsight) > > 10. The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the > idea — which in later centuries became current in all schools of > Buddhism — that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and > ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely > to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his > interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should > not be interpreted out of context. > > What the Buddha said is in the Suttas. What commentators have said > about what the Buddha said is in later works. It beats the hell out me > why 90% of discussions at dsg is about what commentators have said. > > > Herman > > > ========================= Stephen Bachelor agrees with you. In this regard, take a look at the site http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:2NcRPcog-7cJ:www.tricycle.com/blog/stephen_b\ atchelor/2454-1.html+sammuti+sacca&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&ie=UTF-8 I'm not so ready to agree, however. I do think that a conventional speech/literal speech distinction does occur in the suttas. In fact, I'm certain I have seen a sutta in which the Buddha says that he uses concepts without being taken in by them. With metta, Howard #70832 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Persuasion technique of KS (Re: Perfections N, no 8) nilovg Dear Scott, I did not see manopavicaara before, it must have escaped me. I found in the dict: pavicarati: investigate thoroughly. Perhaps you could give the context? Nina. Op 20-apr-2007, om 13:53 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > would you clarify the difference between > upekkhaa and manopavicaara in upekkhaa? #70833 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:31 am Subject: Rupas Ch 9, no 3 nilovg Dear friends, Nutritive essence present in food that has been swallowed [6] , produces rúpas and it supports and sustains the body. Rúpas produced by nutrition arise only in the body of living beings. Nutrition produces pure octads and also groups of rúpa with lightness, plasticity and wieldiness. Nutrition, present in a group produced by nutrition, can produce another octad and thus link up many occurrences of octads. The “Visuddhimagga” (XX, 37) states that nutriment taken on one day can thus sustain the body for as long as seven days [7]. The groups of rúpas produced by kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition are interrelated and support one another. If only kamma would produce rúpas the body could not continue to exist. We read in the “Visuddhimagga” (XVII, 196): Now although this kamma-born materiality is the first to find a footing in the several kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station of consciousness, and abode of beings, it is nevertheless unable to carry on without being consolidated by materiality of triple origination (by citta, temperature and nutrition), nor can that of triple origination do so without being consolidated by the former. But when they thus give consolidating support to each other, they can stand up without falling, like sheaves of reeds propped up together on all four sides, even though battered by the wind, and like (boats with) broken floats that have found a support, even though battered by waves somewhere in mid-ocean, and they can last one year, two years,... a hundred years, until those beings’ life span or their merit is exhausted. The “Atthasåliní” (I, Book I, Part III, Ch I, 84), in the context of bodily intimation, explains that groups of rúpa produced by citta are interlocked with groups of rúpas produced by kamma, temperature and nutrition. We read: When the body set up by mind (citta) moves, does the body set up by the other three causes move or not? The latter moves likewise, goes with the former, and invariably follows it. Just as dry sticks, grass, etc. , fallen in the flowing water go with the water or stop with it, so should the complete process be understood.... --------- Footnotes: 6. See Ch 2. The substance of morsel-made food (kabaîinkåro åhåro) contains nutritive essence, ojå. When food has been swallowed the nutritive essence pervades the body and supports it. 7. Also nutriment smeared on the body originates materiality, according to the “Visuddhimagga”. Some creams, for example, nourish the skin. ******* Nina. #70834 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:36 am Subject: Perfections N, no 13 nilovg Dear friends, We may believe that we see the disadvantage of unkind deeds and speech but how do we think about other people? We may easily be ignorant of unwholesome thinking because we are so used to thinking in such a way and we believe that we do not harm others just by thinking. Is there lack of mettã while we think about others? We also need to develop the perfection of metta. If there is no mettå sila cannot be brought to perfection. When we criticize others, even in our thoughts, because we don't like their appearance or their way of speech there is no metta. Our unkind thoughts can easily motivate unpleasant speech. Before we realize it we have spoken already unkind words. Then we may have aversion about our own akusala. We may think, I should have more kusala. However, it is important to face akusala and to realize it as just a reality which has arisen because of conditions. There should be no selection of the object of mindfulness. Any reality which appears can be object of mindfulness. Who knows what the next moment will be? It can be seeing, thinking, very strong attachment, anger or jealousy. In order to learn to see the disadvantage of akusala its characteristic has to be known, and thus there should be awareness of it when it appears. One may be inclined to ignore the characteristic of akusala, one may prefer to be calm. One finds it pleasant to be calm with kusala, one clings to an idea of 'my kusala’.Instead of the development of right understanding of what appears now one may turn to other kinds of practice. One may spend one's life with many good works such as the study of Dhamma and the writing of books about it, but put off the practice of Dhamma, that is, the development of understanding just now. One may want to accumulate kusala for oneself, and one does not realize that one's goal should be the eradication of defilements through right understanding. Khun Sujin reminded us that when there is the development of satipatthana there is no attachment to the result of kusala, no clinging to an idea of: I should have more dana, I should have more sila, I should have more calm . All kinds of kusala are good, but they can become objects of clinging and when there is clinging there is no development of kusala. ******** Nina. #70835 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] disappearance of dhamma. nilovg Dear Leo, The objects of awareness, nama and rupa, are everywhere and they present themselves at all times. As Sarah said, also on the surfboard there are nama and rupa. But it is a long time practice. As to solitude, there is not only solitude as to body, but also of the mind. When there is awareness of nama and rupa one begins to realize that what we take for people who exist are actually impermanent citta, cetasika and ruupa. We are inclined to think of what other people do or say and we may be impatient about it, or have aversion. In fact what we experienced has fallen away, even the nama and rupa we take for other people have fallen away. This is a degree of solitude and it can bring more peace in life. I am grateful to Sarah of her many reminders that we should see through the stories about people which are only concepts we think of. What matters is having more understanding of nama or rupa appearing now. That is mental solitude. I think of K. IV, the Ch on Migajaala, who asked about dwelling alone. Who still has craving for the objects cognizable by the six doors, one is not a dweller alone, but a dweller with a companion. Nina. Op 19-apr-2007, om 12:10 heeft Leo het volgende geschreven: > It looks to me there is a big issue with solitude > and practice. #70836 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi again, Herman (and Nidhi, and TG) - As a one example, you might consider the following material from the sutta 248 (11) "The Sheaf of Barley" in the Salayatanasamyutta: _________________________ ... In conceiving, one is bound by Mara; by not conceiving, one is freed from the Evil One. Bhikkhus, 'I am' is a conceiving; 'I am this' is a conceiving; 'I shall be' is a conceiving; 'I shall not be' is a conceiving; 'I shall consist of form' is a conceiving; 'I shall be formless' is a conceiving; 'I shall be percipient' is a conceiving; 'Ishallbe nonpercipient' is a conceiving; I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient' is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: 'We will dwell with a mind devoid of conceiving.' _________________________ Along these lines, the following conventional truth of Nidhi's is a conceiving. It is, in its formulation, a conceiving of the type 'I am this': > we are a complex composition of > 1 body > 2 mind Another suttic example, is the source of Nagasena's chariot simile in the Bhikkunisamyutta, 10 Vajira. There, this arahant bhikkhuni replies to Mara's questioning her about the creation of "this being". She replies in verse as follows: ______________________ Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found. Just as with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,when the aggregates exist, There is the convention 'a being.' -------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #70837 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate moellerdieter Hi Howard , Herman ,.All if you don't mind I just chip in .. I had a brief look at Stephen Batchelor's article you mentioned and would question it in a similar way. As far as I understand, the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth is already made by the First Noble Truth (the latter by defining dukkha in brief by 5 Khanda -Attachment) I stumbled upon B.'s statement 'Ethics, meditation and wisdom are not founded on some absolute truth, but grow out of a careful examination of what causes suffering and what brings it to an end. Enlightenment, for the Buddha, entailed simply paying attention to the phenomenal flux of your own empirical experience. ' would you say that is the point of view K.S. is taking ? with Metta Dieter #70838 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 4/20/07 12:00:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: > I stumbled upon B.'s statement > 'Ethics, meditation and wisdom are not founded on some absolute truth, but > grow out of a careful examination of what causes suffering and what brings it > to an end. Enlightenment, for the Buddha, entailed simply paying attention to > the phenomenal flux of your own empirical experience. ' > > would you say that is the point of view K.S. is taking ? > ========================== I'm not all that clear on her positions. At times it seems she advocates that, but at other times it seems she doesn't recognize the possibility of willing the doing of anything. So, I just don't know. With metta, Howard #70839 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta TGrand458@... Hi Howard (You're making me work.) LOL In a message dated 4/20/2007 5:05:52 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/20/07 12:39:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > Hi Howard > > It's merely the manner in which you spoke that takes on an abhidhammic tone > > IMO. Some of which infers abhidhammic analysis that is not at all a > literal > analysis of what is contained in the Suttas. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Okay, the tone. I can see that - I've probebly been on DSG too long! ;-) But AFAIK, the content was not at variance with Dhamma as presented in the suttas. If you can point to something specific, I'd appreciate it, because I don't want to be unaware of what's going on in my mind. ---------------------------------------- TG: All I said was that your expression of Abhidhamma seemed to be a progressive abhidhamma approach. I didn't criticize it as wrong. (Perhaps I should have?) ;-) That approach contrasted to Nidhi's which seemed to be a more direct expression from the Suttas. > > On terms of "fine analysis," I find none finer than what is in the Suttas. > > Who would say I cede "fine analysis" to abhidhamma?? Who would say I ced > you > have known me, would you conclude that I merely see the Suttas as "lessons > in > morality and nice stories"??? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I wouldn't, which is why your take on what I wrote surprised me. It seemed to me to suggest a perspective of the suttas missing out on the full depth of Dhamma, especially with regard to anatta, with only Abhidhamma providing "ultimate" perspective. I took that to be what you were implying when you wrote of me "expressing it [the Dhamma] with some type of progressive abhidhammic approach." In any case, I'm glad that what you wrote does not indicate a change in your perspective on the Tipitaka. --------------------------------------------- TG: Ouch! Maybe if it was Nina's or Sarah's birthday, but otherwise no. LOL > > Anyway, namas and rupas are not "things" or states, they are just > categories > for the convenience of conceptualization and IMO should be stated as nama > and rupa. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, here we may disagree. I don't think that namas and rupas, specific ones such as specific sights, sounds, tastes, feeling(s) of namas and rupas as pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, acts of recognizing, fearings, lovings, etc are categories. Every nama and every rupa is an actual experiential phenomenon/event distinguishable but not self-existent; not an entity with own being, but not a category or concept either. ------------------------------------------------ To pluralize them, as abhidhammic analysis does, is to impart of the > > impression of "existent identities." ------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, you are saying that there is "rupa" but not "rupas"? I would say just the opposite. Rupas occur. But "rupa" is concept. Rupas are experienced, but "rupa" is only conceptualized. It seems to me that you are according reality to substances implied by mass nouns and according no reality to what are actual experiential realities. When I do walking meditation, and I sense motion in the leg, it isn't "rupa" that is sensed, but a specific present experiential content, a specific rupa - a specific bodily sensation. I am not reifying that specific content - it is a fleeting, conditioned experience, contingent and without own being, but infinitely real compared to the mere category of "rupa". -------------------------------------------------- TG: Yes, this is subtle. Language is a culprit here IMO. The way I perceive that Nina, for example, understands Dhamma is more of a "substantialist" view of phenomena than I am comfortable with. The terminology of -- namas, rupas, ultimate realities, own characteristics, dhammas, rise and immediately fall away (apparently due to "their own" impermanence), etc. are all inter-related in very subtle and in my view, unwittingly pernicious ways. To adopt this language in conversation is to partially support those positions even if "just a whiff." Its like "playing in their ball park." It gives "substantialism" home field advantage. I try to avoid Pali anyway. Using Pali sort of gives a"gloss" of -- yes, this must be right because its Pali." When it really doesn't mean a thing. How many times have you seen people (excuse the conventionality) use Pali to "prove" a point that they couldn't well support in English...because the use of Pali masks their lack of real understanding. This is not always the case, but many times is. > > I also do not see phenomena as having "short durations." But rather I see > phenomena as continuously altering, so in effect, phenomena have no duration > > as "a thing/things. as "a ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, how short does an event have to be considered short? An impression of hardness lasts one heck of a lot less than "my computer" has lasted. And why does short duration have to imply no development while existing and precise startings and endings? It does not for me. Let's consider what I call the fingertip pressure in my right middle finger as it was just tapping a key: I cannot pinpoint a precise beginning or ending to the sensation, and it certainly involved an escalation, peaking, and diminishing while in effect, but also it is true that it was not in occurrence a minute ago, then it was but for no longer than a relative instant, and then once again not in occurrence, and I would describe that as being of "short duration". -------------------------------------------------------- TG: I love this question/comment! I will try to give it more justice later. But for now let me say -- the form of the computer is continuously altering. Its only a "computer" (conventionality) in our minds-eye as long as it performs the function we want it to do. This is all part of the delusion. A "computer" doesn't actually exist right? Let's deal with the perception of hardness for a second. Please contemplate the following...The Buddha said "perception is like a mirage." A mirage isn't really real is it? Seriously, why would the Buddha say that? Slightly new discussion.... When something seemingly "arises," is not this also a conventional outlook? If we build a house, the "house" is not a "new thing." It is just the transformation of "other things," i.e., the transformation of phenomena." Once the house is built, it does not "have a duration" other than in conventional thinking. The house continues to alter as does all phenomena. Its just that the house appears to us to "continue" due to the slowness of its altering. Hardness is also not a "new thing," but is rather a transformation of phenomena. The duration of "things" or events is subjective. The understanding of Dependent Arising frees the mind from "taking things as real." Hence my antithetical stance from Nina and some of the others...who like to see things as ultimate realities. There is altering phenomena, but there is no individual state that occurs. Not even hardness. There is the experience of hardness, but it is not a single reality...rather, it is a shadow born from a "shadow world." Both the awareness of "hardness" and regard to its duration are subtle conventions. It is only when the mind is aware of impermanence, affliction, and no-self, in regards to dependent phenomena (all conditions), that it really sees what is real.... Emptiness. Nina's group has only gone from gross conventional awareness, to subtle conventional awareness. And the real tragedy is that they have convinced themselves that they are at a Dhammic pinnacle. And I do not put you in that category. > > Abhidhamma focuses on "states as existing," whereas, I believe the Buddha > wanted minds to focus on experiences in order to realize that -- "there are > no > states as existing." > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know whether we see this in the same way as not, and are simply"speaking" differently, but I do believe that you were not understanding me. I hope I have clarified my perspective sufficiently. -------------------------------------------------- TG: My original comment had a twofold purpose. To give confirmation to Nidhi's expression of dhamma, which he/she probably doesn't need from me. LOL And to alert you to your abhidhammic use of terminology and what it projects in my mind, for better or worse. But I did not have a problem with what you said. Sure got complicated though. LOL Not to be replaced with the idea of non-existence, but > > just to see beyond and out of the idea of existence... just to see beyond and o > mind from these delusions. > > TG > ========================= With metta, Howard TG #70840 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/20/2007 8:02:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: I'm not so ready to agree, however. I do think that a conventional speech/literal speech distinction does occur in the suttas. In fact, I'm certain I have seen a sutta in which the Buddha says that he uses concepts without being taken in by them. With metta, Howard Hi Howard But this is just what Herman said. The Buddha uses conventional language. But does not speak about conventional realities. TG #70841 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/20/2007 9:40:15 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Along these lines, the following conventional truth of Nidhi's is a conceiving. It is, in its formulation, a conceiving of the type 'I am this': > we are a complex composition of > 1 body > 2 mind Hi All Concerned To me this is just a simple use of conventional speech used much as the Buddha did. No big deal. I'm not sure why you're pushing this so hard Howard. TG #70842 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... Hi Herman Agreed. What usually gets called "conventional reality" is really just delusion. But I agree, Buddha did not teach a "conventional reality." I'm glad you reminded me because I kind of got sucked into using that terminology even just today. LOL IMO, those who propose a conventional vs ultimate reality are confused and are attempting to justify their so called ultimate realities ... which are actually also conventional...even if just more subtly. TG In a message dated 4/20/2007 6:45:13 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi all, The distinction conventional / ultimate reality is entirely a commentarial product. This is a footnote on DN 9 at ATO (accesstoinsight) 10. The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea — which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism — that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context. What the Buddha said is in the Suttas. What commentators have said about what the Buddha said is in later works. It beats the hell out me why 90% of discussions at dsg is about what commentators have said. Herman #70843 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard In a message dated 4/20/07 1:14:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > (Howard) In any case, I'm glad that what you wrote does not > indicate a > change in your perspective on the Tipitaka. > --------------------------------------------- > > > > TG: Ouch! Maybe if it was Nina's or Sarah's birthday, but otherwise no. > LOL > > ========================= LOLOL!!!! With metta, Howard #70844 From: "Robert" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is sati, to Rob A. avalo1968 Dear Nina, Thank you again for your good answers to my questions. This last one has given me quite a bit to think about. Robert A #70845 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi again, TG - Continuing with my reply to your post - my computer was casing trouble before. In a message dated 4/20/07 1:14:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So, you are saying that there is "rupa" but not "rupas"? I would say > just the opposite. Rupas occur. But "rupa" is concept. Rupas are > experienced, > but "rupa" is only conceptualized. It seems to me that you are according > reality to substances implied by mass nouns and according no reality to > what > are > actual experiential realities. > When I do walking meditation, and I sense motion in the leg, it isn't > "rupa" that is sensed, but a specific present experiential content, a > specific > rupa - a specific bodily sensation. I am not reifying that specific content > > - > it is a fleeting, conditioned experience, contingent and without own being, > > but infinitely real compared to the mere category of "rupa". > -------------------------------------------------- > > > TG: Yes, this is subtle. Language is a culprit here IMO. The way I > perceive that Nina, for example, understands Dhamma is more of a > "substantialist" > view of phenomena than I am comfortable with. The terminology of -- namas, > > rupas, ultimate realities, own characteristics, dhammas, rise and > immediately > fall away (apparently due to "their own" impermanence), etc. are all > inter-related in very subtle and in my view, unwittingly pernicious ways. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with you on this.There are some here, incuding Nina (Sorry, Nina!), who I believe tend, albeit unintentionally, to reify dhammas, viewing rupas as self-existent "atoms"and namas as agents and "little selves". I don't know for a fact that they think about dhammas this way,but I think they do talk about them in this way. ------------------------------------------------- > > To adopt this language in conversation is to partially support those > positions even if "just a whiff." Its like "playing in their ball park." > It gives > "substantialism" home field advantage. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: To completely avoid saying what might carry a whiff of reification would require not talking at all. There is no way to talk about namas and rupas without talking about namas and rupas. The bodily sensations that are currently causing me to wheeze & cough [My cold's still bad, and I'm asthmatic] are actual, experienced physical phenomena - rupas. -------------------------------------------------- > > I try to avoid Pali anyway. Using Pali sort of gives a"gloss" of -- yes, > this must be right because its Pali." > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you're right. I've often thought that. The Pali itself serves as "authority", and simply using Pali terms suggests depth of meaning. LOL! Using Pali is fine, though, even helpful (!), provided that it's use doesn't serve as a substitute for good and clear content, and certainly there is no need for that to be the case. ------------------------------------------------------- When it really doesn't mean a thing. > > How many times have you seen people (excuse the conventionality) use Pali > to > "prove" a point that they couldn't well support in English...because the > use of > Pali masks their lack of real understanding. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I'm not a mind reader, and have a hard time measuring others' understanding, but I do believe I have seen that here (rarely) and on other lists occasionally, though usually not. The understanding on DSG is incredibly high, I think, though that still leaves room for differences in interpretation. But what you are speaking of is a common phenomenon more generally, particularly with the use of a specialized jargon in research papers, articles, and talks hiding the fact that the content is superficial or even empty. And Pali *can* function as jargon, though it should not. ------------------------------------------------ > > This is not always the case, but many times is. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >I also do not see phenomena as having "short durations." But rather I see > >phenomena as continuously altering, so in effect, phenomena have no > duration > > > >as "a thing/things. as "a > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, how short does an event have to be considered short? An > impression of hardness lasts one heck of a lot less than "my computer" has > lasted. And > why does short duration have to imply no development while existing and > precise startings and endings? It does not for me. Let's consider what I > call the > fingertip pressure in my right middle finger as it was just tapping a key: > I > cannot pinpoint a precise beginning or ending to the sensation, and it > certainly > involved an escalation, peaking, and diminishing while in effect, but also > it > is true that it was not in occurrence a minute ago, then it was but for no > longer than a relative instant, and then once again not in occurrence, and > I > would describe that as being of "short duration". > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > TG: I love this question/comment! I will try to give it more justice > later. But for now let me say -- the form of the computer is continuously > altering. Its only a "computer" (conventionality) in our minds-eye as long > as it > performs the function we want it to do. This is all part of the delusion. > A > "computer" doesn't actually exist right? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right. Conventional objects such as computers are imputed upon "realities" that come and go and are seen as the *qualities*of the conventional object. It is the stream of such dhammas arising and ceasing that is responsible for the appearance of the conventional object continuously altering. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Let's deal with the perception of hardness for a second. Please > contemplate > the following...The Buddha said "perception is like a mirage." A mirage > isn't really real is it? Seriously, why would the Buddha say that? > > Slightly new discussion.... > > When something seemingly "arises," is not this also a conventional outlook? > > If we build a house, the "house" is not a "new thing." It is just the > transformation of "other things," i.e., the transformation of phenomena." > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but here you are talking of pa~n~nati. A hardness experience is not the transformation of other things. It is one of those things! (And yet it is like foam, in that it is fleeting and unreliable, and not self-existent, but entirely without own being and utterly contingent.) ------------------------------------------ Once > > the house is built, it does not "have a duration" other than in > conventional > thinking. The house continues to alter as does all phenomena. Its just > that > the house appears to us to "continue" due to the slowness of its altering. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That's an okay view with regard to conventional objects, but not with regard to khandhic elements (a.k.a. paramattha dhammas). ----------------------------------------- > > Hardness is also not a "new thing," but is rather a transformation of > phenomena. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't get that. What is being transformed? Some underlying substance? It seems to me that what is happening is that repeatedly there is the gradual arising, leveling off, and subsiding (in intensity) of an experienced hardness. ----------------------------------------- > > The duration of "things" or events is subjective. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: From my phenomenalist standpoint, everything is subjective (or, better, intersubjective). ---------------------------------------------- The understanding of > > Dependent Arising frees the mind from "taking things as real." > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Not real if by 'real' you mean being a separate, independent entity. ---------------------------------------------- Hence my > > antithetical stance from Nina and some of the others...who like to see > things as > ultimate realities. --------------------------------------------- Howard: If there is the sense of "separate, self-existent entity" included in the term 'reality' when they use it, I agree with you. But if it only means to them "not merely conceptualized," then I do not. ----------------------------------------- > > There is altering phenomena, but there is no individual state that occurs. > > Not even hardness. There is the experience of hardness, but it is not a > single reality...rather, it is a shadow born from a "shadow world." Both > the > awareness of "hardness" and regard to its duration are subtle conventions. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Forme,ewxperirnced hardness is the onlyhardness,or at least the only hardness I can know of. -------------------------------------------- > > It is only when the mind is aware of impermanence, affliction, and no-self, > > in regards to dependent phenomena (all conditions), that it really sees what > > is real.... Emptiness. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, now you are poining towards the true ultimate reality, nibbana! ---------------------------------------------- > > Nina's group has only gone from gross conventional awareness, to subtle > conventional awareness. And the real tragedy is that they have convinced > themselves that they are at a Dhammic pinnacle. > > And I do not put you in that category. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I a certain ancient Nazarean warned about judging! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >Abhidhamma focuses on "states as existing," whereas, I believe the Buddha > >wanted minds to focus on experiences in order to realize that -- "there > are > >no > >states as existing." > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know whether we see this in the same way as not, and are > simply"speaking" differently, but I do believe that you were not > understanding me. > I hope I have clarified my perspective sufficiently. > -------------------------------------------------- > > TG: My original comment had a twofold purpose. To give confirmation to > Nidhi's expression of dhamma, which he/she probably doesn't need from me. > LOL > And to alert you to your abhidhammic use of terminology and what it > projects > in my mind, for better or worse. But I did not have a problem with what > you > said. > > Sure got complicated though. LOL > > > > > Not to be replaced with the idea of non-existence, but > > >just to see beyond and out of the idea of existence... just to see beyond > and o > >mind from these delusions. > > > >TG > > > > ========================= > With metta, > Howard > > > > TG > ======================== With metta, Howard #70846 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/20/07 1:28:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > But this is just what Herman said. The Buddha uses conventional language. > > But does not speak about conventional realities. > > TG > ======================== Ah, good, I misunderstood! I'll blame it on my cold - actually it's turned intoan asthmatic bronchitis,which Itypically get twice a year. (So, only one more to go! ;-) With metta, Howard #70847 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/20/07 1:49:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi All Concerned > > To me this is just a simple use of conventional speech used much as the > Buddha did. No big deal. I'm not sure why you're pushing this so hard > Howard. > > TG > ====================== It's because I think it's important to be aware of one's speech so as not to be fooled by it. Often, as we speak, so we think. With metta, Howard #70848 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Scott, On 20/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Scott: Who is this commentator? > I think it was Thannisaro Bhikkhu. This is his intro to DN09, which some may find interesting. This sutta portrays two modes by which the Buddha responded to the controversial issues of his day. The first mode — illustrated by his contribution to the discussion on the ultimate cessation of perception — was to adopt the terms of the discussion but to invest them with his own meanings, and then to try to direct the discussion to the practice leading to the cessation of suffering & stress. The second mode — illustrated by his treatment of whether the cosmos is eternal, etc. — was to declare the issues as unconducive to awakening, and to refuse to take a position on them. Several other suttas — such as MN 63, MN 72, and AN 10.93 — portray the Buddha and his disciples adopting the second mode. This sutta is unusual in its extended portrait of the Buddha's adopting the first. Many of the technical terms he uses here — such as the perception of a refined truth, the peak of perception, the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception, the acquisition of a self — are found no where else in the Canon. At the end of the sutta, he describes them as "the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping at them." In other words, he picks them up for the purpose at hand and then lets them go. Thus they are not to be regarded as central to his teaching. Instead, they should be read as examples of his ability to adapt the language of his interlocutors to his own purposes. For this reason, this sutta is best read only after you have read other suttas and are familiar with the more central concepts of the Buddha's teachings. Of particular interest here is the Buddha's treatment of the three "acquisitions of a self." The first — the gross self — refers to the ordinary, everyday sense of identifying with one's body. The latter two — the mind-made acquisition and the formless acquisition — refer to the sense of self that can be developed in meditation. The mind-made acquisition can result from an experience of the mind-made body — the "astral body" — that constitutes one of the powers that can be developed through concentration practice. The formless acquisition can result from any of the formless states of concentration — such as an experience of infinite space, infinite consciousness, or nothingness. Although meditators, on experiencing these states, might assume that they have encountered their "true self," the Buddha is careful to note that these are acquisitions, and that they are no more one's true self than the body is. They are one's acquisition of a self only for the time that one identifies with them. The Buddha goes on to say that he teaches the Dhamma for the sake of abandoning every acquisition of a self "such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now." Herman #70849 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta egberdina Hi TG and Howard, On 21/04/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Slightly new discussion.... > > When something seemingly "arises," is not this also a conventional outlook? > If we build a house, the "house" is not a "new thing." It is just the > transformation of "other things," i.e., the transformation of phenomena." Once > the house is built, it does not "have a duration" other than in conventional > thinking. The house continues to alter as does all phenomena. Its just that > the house appears to us to "continue" due to the slowness of its altering. > > Hardness is also not a "new thing," but is rather a transformation of > phenomena. > > The duration of "things" or events is subjective. The understanding of > Dependent Arising frees the mind from "taking things as real." Hence my > antithetical stance from Nina and some of the others...who like to see things as > ultimate realities. > > There is altering phenomena, but there is no individual state that occurs. > Not even hardness. There is the experience of hardness, but it is not a > single reality...rather, it is a shadow born from a "shadow world." Both the > awareness of "hardness" and regard to its duration are subtle conventions. > > It is only when the mind is aware of impermanence, affliction, and no-self, > in regards to dependent phenomena (all conditions), that it really sees what > is real.... Emptiness. > > Nina's group has only gone from gross conventional awareness, to subtle > conventional awareness. And the real tragedy is that they have convinced > themselves that they are at a Dhammic pinnacle. > > And I do not put you in that category. > I think you wrote very well, TG, and you have my vote. The most subtle reification that occurs is conceiving of "the moment". It is the basis for conceiving of reality as a chain of discrete moments, each moment being the bearer of a discrete and absolute, temporary, reality. Just like a photo of a moving car betrays reality by showing a car standing still, the mental taking of momentary snapshots of experience is fundamental to the illusion that there *is* something static. Herman #70850 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi TG, Howard, Dieter and all, On 21/04/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Herman > > Agreed. What usually gets called "conventional reality" is really just > delusion. But I agree, Buddha did not teach a "conventional reality." I'm glad > you reminded me because I kind of got sucked into using that terminology even > just today. LOL > > IMO, those who propose a conventional vs ultimate reality are confused and > are attempting to justify their so called ultimate realities ... which are > actually also conventional...even if just more subtly. > Yes, I do not think that the Buddha taught a real, if momentary, reality. He taught that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta, and dukkha. There is no "right conceiving" of anything substantial in what is empty of own-being. Herman #70851 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:04 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,149 Vism.XVII,150 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 149. Herein: The mixed is double, sexed and not, And that with sex is double too; The least decads the first has got Respectively are three and two. 150. 'The mixed is double, sexed and not': that rebirth-linking consciousness, which, leaving aside the immaterial becoming, arises here mixed with materiality, is twofold as 'with sex' and 'without sex',25 because it arises in the fine-material sphere without the sex called femininity faculty and masculinity faculty, and because--leaving aside the rebirth-linking of one born as a eunuch--it arises in the sense-sphere becoming together with that [twofold] sex. 'And that with sex is double too': there also that with sex is twofold because it arises in association with either the female or the male sex. ------------------------- Note 25. Sa-bhaava (with sex) and a-bhaava (without sex) are not to be confused with sabhaava (individual essence) and abhaava (absence, non-existence). ********************* 149. tattha, missa.m dvidhaa bhaavabhedaa, sabhaava.m tattha ca dvidhaa. dve vaa tayo vaa dasakaa, omato aadinaa saha.. 150. missa.mdvidhaa bhaavabhedaati ya.m heta.m ettha a~n~natra aruupabhavaa ruupamissa.m pa.tisandhivi~n~naa.na.m uppajjati, ta.m ruupabhave itthindriyapurisindriyasa"nkhaatena bhaavena vinaa uppattito. kaamabhave a~n~natra jaatipa.n.dakapa.tisandhiyaa bhaavena saha uppattito sa-bhaava.m, a-bhaavanti duvidha.m hoti. sabhaava.m tattha ca dvidhaati tatthaapi ca ya.m sa-bhaava.m, ta.m itthipurisabhaavaana.m a~n~natarena saha uppattito duvidhameva hoti. #70852 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/20/2007 4:51:42 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: It's because I think it's important to be aware of one's speech so as not to be fooled by it. Often, as we speak, so we think. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I know but Nidhi is obviously an English as a second language person. Even so, I didn't get the sense that he was being fooled. I thought the content of his post indicated this ... and showed a sophisticated understanding. Fair enough for our various viewpoints on this mater I would think. TG #70853 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 4/20/2007 3:09:30 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Well, I'm not a mind reader, and have a hard time measuring others' understanding, but I do believe I have seen that here (rarely) and on other lists occasionally, though usually not. The understanding on DSG is incredibly high, I think, though that still leaves room for differences in interpretation. But what you are speaking of is a common phenomenon more generally, particularly with the use of a specialized jargon in research papers, articles, and talks hiding the fact that the content is superficial or even empty. And Pali *can* function as jargon, though it should not. TG: I think its a mater of degree. The degree its done here is less than other places. I agree with your above. This discussion has gotten too long and complicated now. We'll revisit some of this later. Best wishes for a speedy recovery from your bronchitis. TG #70854 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Persuasion technique of KS (Re: Perfections N, no 8) scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "I did not see manopavicaara before, it must have escaped me. I found in the dict: pavicarati: investigate thoroughly. Perhaps you could give the context?" Scott: I was just thinking of the whole question of equanimity and its effect on the conascent citta versus getting caught up in aversion regarding kilesas. I had seen this in Nyanatiloka: "Manopavicaara: 'mental indulging'. There are mentioned 18 ways of indulging: 6 in gladness (somanassuupavicaara) in sorrow (domanassa) 6 in indifference (upekkha). Perceiving with the eye a visible form... hearing with the ear a sound... being in mind conscious of an object, one indulges in the joy-producing object, the sorrow-producing object, the indifference-producing object...upavicaara is said to be identical with vitakka-vicaara" Scott: The context, then, unfortunately, was my own thinking about this. Sincerely, Scott. #70855 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for: H: "I think it was Thannisaro Bhikkhu..." Sincerely, Scott. #70856 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:55 pm Subject: The Uprooting Abilities! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Results and Fruits of the Abilities? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, these five abilities , when developed and cultivated, lead to the destruction of the evil mental fermentations . What five? The Ability of Faith eliminates the fermentations !! The Ability of Energy eliminates the fermentations !! The Ability of Awareness eliminates the fermentations !! The Ability of Concentration eliminates the fermentations !! The Ability of Understanding eliminates the fermentations !! These five abilities , when developed & cultivated, lead to the total breaking out of the inner mental chains, to the complete uprooting of the underlying mental tendencies, to the full understanding of the course, method and path , and to the final destruction of the mental fermentations. When, friends, these five abilities have been developed and cultivated, one of 2 fruits may indeed be expected: Either final knowledge in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging left, the state of non-returning ... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:236] section 48: The Abilities: 64+65. Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Uprooting the mental fermentations! #70857 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta wisdomcompas... hi all thats true i havent read abhidhamma. by "we" i mean human beings in general. with metta nidhi #70858 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:11 am Subject: Re: Q. What is sati. to Nidhi. wisdomcompas... dear nina thanks a lot for info about samadhi. it was really good to understand this. but i at times dont think of leg but understand as leg moving. in buddhas words "pajanati" there are surely moments when "I" ness is there as my leg, but there are rare moments as well when we are aware of leg as leg. i dont know about panna at that moment, but i think knowing a thing (leg) "as it is" is itself panna. i m not good at understanding and putting things intellectually. as long as effort is concerned, i think that to start with we have to make an effort and then things become effortless. otherwise buddha must not have taught satipatthana. but effort must be right effort, that is the purpose of study i believe. with love and regards nidhi --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Nidhi, > I would like to answer first your good question on samadhi you sent > me off line. Others are interested as well. > --------------- > Nidhi: i would like to know what > are the types of samadhi other than appanå samådhi and upacåra samådhi > and where in sutta can i find information about these. > #70859 From: abcd Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:51 am Subject: Re:Q. What is sati. to Nidhi. wisdomcompas... hi nina thanks for the input, surely there is a difference in my way of understanding of buddhism. i first try to see things myself then try to find how buddha has put it. my purpose is to understand the dhamma in my own words, in my own mind, and not how buddha puts it. because i feel that i cannot understand buddha otherwise. i keep general guidelines of buddha in mind but rest of the work we have to do. for me the pupose is to practice if intellect helps its good but practice is anytime more important to me.if we understand something in experience it makes very little difference how we put it in words. for example words like effort or volition how one understands on the level of experience differs from student to student. if for any other person understanding intellectually helps in understanding the experiences correctly i would really appreciate that because may be that person is more close to buddha's words. but i m satisfied this way because i really feel that dhamma is very simple in essence, and it looks simple but difficult in practice but looks quite difficult when we understand it intellectually. and on doing such experiments i found that all great saints are saying one and the same thing but in different words. my thinking is that ; when there is compassion in heart; wisdom comes by itself. we dont have to go to seek it. but i m glad that there are people like u who understand it at mental level. such people are of real help to me in case i dont understand buddha's words. best wishes for u and the people in the group. may all practice more and more!!! and understand dhamma more and more intellectually as well if it helps in practice. #70860 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta egberdina Hi Nidhi On 21/04/07, wisdomcompassion wrote: > > > hi all > > thats true i havent read abhidhamma. You are in good company here. I doubt anyone here has read abhidhamma. Most of what you will read people saying about abhidhamma here is actually repeating what commentators have said about it. Herman #70861 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:30 am Subject: Quanta are Unnecessary Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and TG, Dieter, and all) - In a message dated 4/20/07 7:38:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Yes, I do not think that the Buddha taught a real, if momentary, > reality. He taught that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta, > and dukkha. There is no "right conceiving" of anything substantial in > what is empty of own-being. > ========================== What strikes me as most evidently not instantaneous, and also not of a discrete, positive-duration but unchanging nature - the two ways of thinkng about a "momentary reality" are namas; i.e., mental activities, a.k.a. cittas and cetasikas. Consciousness of anything ebbs and flows - it waxes, peaks, and wanes. The complex operations of perception/recognition/sa~n~na, of vedana, and so on require time, and they are each a dynamic process ("process" in the everyday sense, not that of sequence of cittas), changing in its behavior while it is in effect, else accomplishing nothing at all. It also seems to me that, in reality, at the finest level, one will typically not find start points and end points, or at least not both of them. Our everyday conventional perspective causes us to believe in precise beginning and ending points, and we believe that without them there can be no change. I believe that reality is different from this - far more exotic than this! When there is warmth being experienced, there is no hardness observed; later the warmth is no longer present, but hardness is. We *say* that the warmth ceased as object and the hardness arose as object. But no point of cessation or of arising is ever seen. What are the facts? The warmth is gone (hence was anicca), and the hardness, which was not present, now is present - informally we say "it arose". The view of mindstates as being of zero-duration or as being positive-duration but homogeneous states with sharply delineated start and end points is not the only perspective possible. At any point in time, there are in process vi~n~nana with a unique physical or mental or thought-process-projected object (or object content or support), and a variety of other mental operations pertaining to that object, including sa~n~na, vedana, and a host of sankharic operations. The cluster of all the mental activities in effect on any occasion constitute the mindstate on that occasion. It is an aggregation, hence pa~n~nata, BTW - an abstraction. It is meanigful to ask what at any moment was one's mindstate. At different times, the states will differ, even when the object is the same, for some of the cetasikas will no longer be in effect at the later time and/or new ones will be in operation. But none of this requires a commitment to quanta. The bottom line on all this is that the quantized Momentarianism adopted by some in both Theravada and Mahayana is inessential, the mindstates and the tilakkhana getting along quite well without it. With metta, Howard #70862 From: connie Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:49 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) nichiconn Dear Friends, The Treasury of Truth translation of Dhp v 347 before moving on with (our 4th installment of) Khema's story: << Beings who are infatuated with lust fall back into the stream of craving they have generated, just as a spider does in the web it has spun. The wise, cutting off the bond of craving, walk on resolutely, leaving all ills (dukkha) behind. >> Saa gaathaapariyosaane saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m paapu.niiti a.t.thakathaasu aagata.m. Apadaane pana "ima.m gaatha.m sutvaa sotaapattiphale pati.t.thitaa raajaana.m anujaanaapetvaa pabbajitvaa arahatta.m paapu.nii"ti aagata.m. Tatthaaya.m apadaanapaa.li (apa. therii 2.2.289-383)- "Padumuttaro naama jino, sabbadhammesu cakkhumaa; ito satasahassamhi, kappe uppajji naayako. "Tadaaha.m ha.msavatiya.m, jaataa se.t.thikule ahu.m; naanaaratanapajjote, mahaasukhasamappitaa. "Upetvaa ta.m mahaaviira.m, assosi.m dhammadesana.m; tato jaatappasaadaaha.m, upemi sara.na.m jina.m. "Maatara.m pitara.m caaha.m, aayaacitvaa vinaayaka.m; nimantayitvaa sattaaha.m, bhojayi.m sahasaavaka.m. "Atikkante ca sattaahe, mahaapa~n~naanamuttama.m; bhikkhuni.m etadaggamhi, .thapesi narasaarathi. At the end of the verse, she attained Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations according to what has come down in the commentaries. But according to what has come down in the Apadaana, when she heard this verse, she was established in the fruition state of Stream-Entry. She obtained permission from the king and went forth. Then she obtained Arahatship. There, this is the text of the Apadaana: Padumuttara, the Conqueror who had reached the far shore of all phenomena, the Leader, was born one hundred thousand world cycles ago. At that time, I was born in Ha.msavatii in the family of a wealthy merchant, gleaming with all kinds of jewels, and I enjoyed great happiness. I went to the Great Hero and heard the teaching of the Doctrine. Then faith arose and I went to the Conqueror for refuge. And after imploring my mother and father, I invited the Leader and fed him together with his disciples for seven days. When the seven days had passed, the Charioteer of Men placed a bhikkhunii in the foremost position of great wisdom. "Ta.m sutvaa muditaa hutvaa, puno tassa mahesino; kaara.m katvaana ta.m .thaana.m, pa.nipacca pa.niidahi.m. "Tato mama jino aaha, sijjhata.m pa.nidhii tava; sasa"nghe me kata.m kaara.m, appameyyaphala.m tayaa. "Satasahassito kappe, okkaakakulasambhavo; gotamo naama gottena, satthaa loke bhavissati. "Tassa dhammesu daayaadaa, orasaa dhammanimmitaa; etadaggamanuppattaa, khemaa naama bhavissati. "Tena kammena sukatena, cetanaapa.nidhiihi ca; jahitvaa maanusa.m deha.m, taavati.msuupagaa aha.m. When I heard that, I was delighted and gave a gift to the Great Sage. Then I fell down before him, paid homage, and aspired to that position. Then the Conqueror said to me, "May your aspiration succeed. The service you have rendered me and the Order is of immeasurable fruit. "One hundred thousand world cycles from now, there will be reborn in the world the Teacher who will be named Gotama through his lineage, a descendant of the Okkaaka clan. You will be named Khemaa, an heir to the Doctrine, a legitimate offspring of the Doctrine, having attained that foremost position." 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. === c: Also according to the Treasury of Truth she had attained to arahatta before obtaining her husband's permission to seek admission to the Order. Noting another bit of discrepancy in the various versions of what we might know of her -- we read in the dictionary of pali names that << In the time of Padumuttara she was a slave, and having seen the Buddha's chief disciple, Sujáta, gave him three cakes, and that same day she sold her hair and gave him alms. >> peace, connie #70863 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Nidhi) - In a message dated 4/20/07 9:57:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I know but Nidhi is obviously an English as a second language person. Even > > so, I didn't get the sense that he was being fooled. I thought the content > > of his post indicated this ... and showed a sophisticated understanding. > > Fair enough for our various viewpoints on this mater I would think. > > TG > ========================= I wasn't being negatively critical of Nidhi, but trying to be helpful by adding what I saw as clarifying Dhamma detail. That, I think, is reflected in how I began my post to him: < > With metta, Howard #70864 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:09 am Subject: Yahoo Scrambling and Deleting Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi,again - I cannot understand why some of the material I quote is broadcast back by Yahoo in odd form! In a message dated 4/21/07 10:01:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > I wasn't being negatively critical of Nidhi, but trying to be helpful > by adding what I saw as clarifying Dhamma detail. That, I think, is > reflected > in how I began my post to him: > > < differently. As I understand the Dhamma, there is (literally) no "we" to be > anything at all, including being a complex composition of paramattha > dhammas.> > > > > With metta, > Howard > ======================= The quoted material above should be as follows: I know what you mean by that, but I believe it should be formulated differently. As I understand the Dhamma, there is (literally) no "we" to be anything at all, including being a complex composition of paramattha dhammas. With metta, Howard #70865 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] homosexuality and jhana nilovg Dear Benji, I see that nobody has answered you yet. I have not seen you before, so, welcome here. Visuddhimagga Ch V, 41 does not speak about homosexuals. It mentions hindrances to the attainment of jhaana and enlightenment, being heinous crimes, such as killing parents, and also being born with two hetus, thus without pa~n~naa, or with ahetuka vipaakacitta and this is for those who are handicapped from birth. Hindered by defilements: who have a fixed wrong view. Also who are hermaphrodites or eunuch (without sex). Hindered are also those who lack faith in the Triple Gem, and those who are without understanding. People may be worried whether they can attain enlightenment in this life, but then they are thinking of the future (as Ken H reminded us) instead of developing understanding of the present moment. We live in a time that we do not hear the Dhamma from the Buddha personally, and when we consider the amount of ignorance and defilements we have accumulated we cannot expect to develop the wisdom that eradicates defilements only during one life. One life is so short. When we are thinking with worry the citta is akusala and this does not help. We are involved in stories about enlightenment instead of developing the conditions for the growth of pa~n~naa right now. That is what matters. Nina. Op 20-apr-2007, om 12:12 heeft benji_941 het volgende geschreven: > I have been told that homosexuals cannot attain jhana( i think it is > said in the Visuddhimagga ). is this true? Have there been any gay > people who had jhana? #70866 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear All, (For anyone actually wanting to discuss suttas in detail.) Comparing 'Modern' Commentators On: DN9 (Maurice Walshe) "...Po.t.thaapada, there are three kinds of 'acquired self': the gross acquired self, the mind-made acquired self, the formless acquired self. What is the gross acquired self? It has form, is composed of the four great elements, nourished by material food. What is the mind-made self? It has form, complete with all its parts, not defective in any sense organ. What is the formless acquired self? It is without form, and made up of perception. "But I teach a doctrine for getting rid of the gross acquisition of self, whereby defiling mental states disappear and states tending to purification grow strong, and one gains and remains in purity and perfection of wisdom here and now, having realised and attained it by one's own super-knowledge...I also teach a doctrine for getting rid of the mind-made acquired self...I also teach a doctrine for getting rid of the formless acquired self...Po.t.thapaada, if others ask us: 'What, friend, is the gross acquired self, whose abandonment you preach...? We should reply: 'This is that gross acquired self for the getting rid of we teach a doctrine...' "If others ask us: 'What is the mind-made acquired self...? "If others ask us: 'What is this formless acquired self...? "...We reply: 'This is this [gross, mind-made, formless] acquired self for the getting rid of we teach a doctrine, whereby defiling mental states disappear and states tending to purification grow strong, and one gains and remains in the purity and perfection of wisdom here and now, having realised and attained it by one's own super-knowledge'... "...these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them." The Paa.li: Scott: This will take some time to assemble. Significant terms/phrases include: 1) 'acquired self' 2) 'the gross acquired self' 3) 'the mind-made acquired self' 4) 'the formless acquired self' 5) 'perfection of wisdom' 6) 'super-knowledge' 7) 'a doctrine for getting rid of' 8) 'names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world' Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "...Of particular interest here is the Buddha's treatment of the three "acquisitions of a self."...Although meditators, on experiencing these states, might assume that they have encountered their "true self," the Buddha is careful to note that these are acquisitions, and that they are no more one's true self than the body is. They are one's acquisition of a self only for the time that one identifies with them. The Buddha goes on to say that he teaches the Dhamma for the sake of abandoning every acquisition of a self "such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now." T. W Rhys Davis: "...For the most part, one point only is dealt with in each text. In our Sutta it is, in the first place, the gradual change of mental conditions, of states of consciousness: and then, secondly, the point that personality, individuality (attapa.tilaabho) is only a convenient expression in common use in the world, and therefore made use of also by the Tathaagata, but only in such a manner that he is not led astray by its ambiguity, by its apparent implication of some permanent entity." Scott: Can anyone find the Ancient Commentary to DN9? This would be good for comparison. Personally, I don't go with Thanissaro Bhikkhu because of his 'use-of-self-to-get-rid-of-self' notions, the heart of which can be seen in the above excerpt of his 'commentary' (while the essence of which suffuses his translations). The 'commentary' by Rhys Davis is, at least, devoid of such theorising, however bland by comparison. Sincerely, Scott. #70867 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, pinnacle of Dhamma? nilovg Hi Howard and TG, LOL. I really had to laugh. No, I do not mind when you say this. Let me collect a few of your sayings: TG: Hence my > > antithetical stance from Nina and some of the others...who like to see > things as > ultimate realities. --------------------------------------------- Howard: If there is the sense of "separate, self-existent entity" included in the term 'reality' when they use it, I agree with you. But if it only means to them "not merely conceptualized," then I do not. ------ TG: Nina's group has only gone from gross conventional awareness, to subtle > conventional awareness. And the real tragedy is that they have convinced > themselves that they are at a Dhammic pinnacle. -------- N: Interesting. I wonder about conventional awareness? Gross or subtle? Being at a dhammic pinnacle? I have to think of this English term, I asked Lodewijk. Ah, at the top of wisdom. I had an amusing experience, an interview by telephone and someone asking me how long I studied Buddhism. I said more than forty years, but that I still consider myself a beginner. He was so surprised. I explained that this is normal when considering the countless past lives full of ignorance we have had. What is forty years? Nothing. As to the use of the word reality, or ultimate reality, well, this was discussed before. It would take me long to give more explanations. Perhaps little by little at another time. I have to move to the kiutchen now. Nina. Op 20-apr-2007, om 22:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > There are some here, incuding Nina (Sorry, > Nina!), who I believe tend, albeit unintentionally, to reify > dhammas, viewing > rupas as self-existent "atoms"and namas as agents and "little > selves". I don't > know for a fact that they think about dhammas this way,but I think > they do talk > about them in this way. > ------------------------------- #70868 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Bridging Conventional and Ultimate: "Kiviachol" upasaka_howard Hi, all - I learned something today about Judaism that has application, I think, to our understanding of "conventional"and "ultimate" in the Dhamma, particularly with respect the the matter of atta and anatta. In the greater metropolitan New York area, there is a regularly broadcast TV series called The God Squad. (The name is clearly based on the name of the old TV detective show The Mod Squad.) It is produced by the Archdiocese of Rockville Center, on Long Island, NY, USA, and it's "stars" are Father Tom Hartman and Rabbi Marc Gellman, two lovely men. In addition to the TV show, they have a daily newspaper column by the same name in which they answer moral and religious questions of readers. In today's paper, Rabbi Gellman answered the question of a reader who wanted to know how to understand/interpret anthropomorphic language - language that attributes human traits and emotions and actions to God, for example saying that God smiled upon someone or was gracious or was displeased or angered. What the Rabbi said was something new to me. He said that it is a Jewish practice whenever anthropomorphic language is used to immediately follow it with the Hebrew word/phrase 'kiviachol', meaning "as it were". The purpose is to immediately point out that the prior conventional speech was merely "so to speak" speech and not to be taken literally. From the Jewish perspective, anything that is said with regard to "The One" must be only a pointing at, and never ultimate, literal truth, and to regard it as literal is a form of (relatively benign) idolatry. Even to begin with "God is ..." is to be in error from the ultimate perspective. As Seung Sahn, the Korean Son master says, "Open mouth already a mistake." But since we must open our mouth if we wish to communicate at all, it is good to throw in a "kiviachol" at least once in a while as a reminder. ;-) With metta, Howard #70869 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/21/2007 8:01:41 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: I wasn't being negatively critical of Nidhi, but trying to be helpful by adding what I saw as clarifying Dhamma detail. That, I think, is reflected in how I began my post to him: < > With metta, Howard Hi Howard Yes, Understood. Thank you. TG #70870 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, pinnacle of Dhamma? TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/21/2007 8:37:01 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: I had an amusing experience, an interview by telephone and someone asking me how long I studied Buddhism. I said more than forty years, but that I still consider myself a beginner. He was so surprised. I explained that this is normal when considering the countless past lives full of ignorance we have had. What is forty years? Nothing. Hi Nina This is an example that I think shows a difference between your approach to dhamma and mine. Although I believe in rebirth, past lives, etc., as more or less pointed out in the Suttas, its merely a "belief," I do not KNOW it for sure. It often appears to me that you accept a lot of things that you may not know as certainty and claim that as actual fact. I would actually be somewhat embarrassed to say to someone else in no uncertain terms what you have stated above. As a listener to such a statement, it would turn me off and also turn me off to Buddhism had I not know anything about Buddhism. Perhaps you have direct first hand meditative knowledge of past lives and in that case I am wrong. At any rate, this is the same type of pattern I see when abhidhamma commentarial positions are with certainty credited as the Buddha's own statements, even though they are not. They are just interpretations you and other have made and are so sure of yourselves, that you think the Buddha stated them. This to me is dangerous waters for a "truth seeker." I have several ideas on Dhamma that I know are extrapolations of the Suttas. I also believe they accord with the Buddha's intended meanings, but I cannot claim for sure that they are his teachings...and I must leave them at that. I must also provide that disclosure when talking to others (who wouldn't know better) about such ideas. This keeps my statements in accord with fact IMO. Sorry to be so critical because you are obviously a very nice person. Anyway, I hope your methods do achieve success for you. TG #70871 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 3 moellerdieter Dear Sukinder , I had a first look at your two messages.. not so easy to respond .. you wrote: ' ( printed both messages , 15 pages .. will try to edit it a bit so my reply will take time ;-) ) :-) I'm sure this is the main reason why I almost never get any response from anyone D: not necessarily the main reason .. ;-) replying to your last question: 'So what say you? :-) ' : we seem to be worlds apart , both thinking from eachother to take the poisonous snake with a wrong grip.. ( á simile the Buddha used to describe the wrong approach of the teaching) . When you say ( sorry to take a bit out of context ) ' I think it may take some time for you to get a good idea of where I come from, since your understanding, which is akin to the mainstream one, is something I totally reject, namely that the N8FP is about separate practices to be followed.' and 'I most likely have the least knowledge amongst members of this group, of Suttas and any other part of the Texts, and also a very bad power of recall.' my first thought - sorry if it sounds bluntly - was that you come from an academic position with a lack of understanding the Dhamma by heart . refering to our topic , you state : 'The Sabba Sutta and the Anattalakkhana Sutta, impresses upon us a completely different and groundbreaking view of the world. Reading the Mahasatipatthana Sutta in terms of observing bodily postures and actions does nothing to confirm such an understanding. In fact it encourages a perception, atta-sanna and a conceiving, which is our very problem. The commentaries (and Abhidhamma perspective) on the other hand, tells us about what in fact the Satipatthana Sutta is all about. That it points to understanding of the same realities referred to in the Sabba Sutta and that these must be known no matter what we are doing, (the reference to the different postures and activities), the arising of which being conditioned and beyond control as one reads in the Anattalakkhana Sutta.' The Maha Satipatthana Sutta starts ( after the introduction) with: 'There , the monk dwells in contemplation of the body, the feelings , the mind , and the mind objects, ardent , clearly conscious and attentive , after putting away wordly greed and grief' (tansl. Nyanatiloka).. that is practise of 7th step of the Noble Path. One cannot substitute that practise by perspectives of the commentaries /Abhidhamma. (let us leave aside now the analyses how the Anattalakkhana Sutta or others , correspond to it) These have been worked out to support the understanding of the teaching as laid down by the Buddha Dhamma/Vinaya , certainly not to start with ... You are ' making a point of the need to correctly understand at the intellectual level first' , but what the intellect accept to be logic , may be hearsay or a bias when not accompanied by experience, i.e. insight. The Buddha told us, not simply to believe , but to check his teaching like a goldsmith would do to check 'the genuineness of gold and silver'. We are supposed to accept what we ourselves have recognised to be true, to be good. There are several other issues of your messages to refer to (B.T.W: acc. to my sources Mana is given up at the entrance of Arahantship ) but for a start 'Or better still, just stick to the one point I am most interested in, namely - "what according to you are the conditions for samatha/jhana starting from the first baby steps?" the first steps : sit down and contemplate with a calm mind e.g. what is said in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta.. there are now MP3 recordings in the net available ...the question is whether it is possible for you to listen ... (?) ' so, what say you' ? ;-) with Metta Dieter #70872 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:00 pm Subject: Rupas Ch 9, no 4 nilovg Dear friends, The study of the groups of rúpas produced by the four factors of kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition and also their interrelation shows us the intricacy of the conditions for the bodily functions from birth to death. It reminds us that there is no self who can control the body. Not all types of rúpa arise in the different planes of existence where living beings are born. There is not only the plane of human beings, there are also other planes of existence. Birth in an unhappy plane or a happy plane is the result of kamma. Birth in the human plane of existence is the result of kusala kamma, but during life there are conditions for the experience of pleasant objects as well as unpleasant objects through the senses. In the human plane the decads of eye, ear, nose, tongue and bodysense that are produced by kamma arise, so that the different sense objects can be experienced. People who see the disadvantages of enslavement to sense impressions and have accumulated the right conditions for the development of a high degree of calm even to the degree of absorption or jhåna, can attain stages of jhåna. The result of the different stages of jhåna is birth in higher planes of existence where there are less sense impressions or none at all. In some of the higher planes [10] the decads of nose, tongue, bodysense and sex are lacking, but the decads of eye and ear, the decad of the heart-base and the nonad of life faculty (life faculty and the eight inseparable rúpas) arise. The rúpas produced by nutrition do not arise. In these planes one does not need food to stay alive. In one of the higher planes of existence there is no nåma, only rúpa [11]. Here the decads of eye, ear and the other senses, sex and heart- base are lacking. Sound does not arise and neither do rúpas produced by citta arise, since there is no nåma. Kamma produces the nonad of life faculty at the first moment of life and after that also temperature produces rúpas. In some of the higher planes there is only nåma and thus rúpas do not arise in such planes [12]. ---------- Footnotes: 10. The rúpa-brahma planes. Birth in these planes is the result of rúpa-jhåna, fine-material jhåna. 11. The “perceptionless beings plane” (asaññå-satta plane) which is one of the rúpa-brahma planes. Those who are born here have seen the disadvantages of nåma. 12. The arúpa-brahma planes. Birth in these planes is the result of arúpa-jhåna, “immaterial jhåna”. ******** Nina. #70873 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:03 pm Subject: Perfections N, no 14 nilovg Dear friends, It is only through satipatthana that sila can become firm and enduring. If there is no development of satipatthana we are actually in a dangerous situation. There may be conditions for kusala citta which observes sila, perhaps for a long time, but who knows his past accumulations of akusala? At any time there can be the arising of akusala citta which motivates a very bad deed. When satipatthana is not developed we are not honest with ourselves. We may think, I can observe the precepts, and delude ourselves into thinking that we are so good, but we may not notice the countless moments of akusala citta. We do not realize that there is no person who observes the precepts or who transgresses them, but that there are only dhammas, arising because of conditions. Kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas arise because of their own conditions, not because of our will. For some people the observance of the fifth precept, the abstaining from alcoholic beverages, is very difficult. One cannot force oneself to keep this precept, it is sati which keeps one from drinking. One can learn to be mindful of realities also while one enjoys the taste of alcoholic drinks. Is there no flavour appearing? It can be known as only a kind of rupa. Are there no tasting, no attachment appearing? These are realities which can be object of awareness. It is through satipatthana that one will know kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala, and it is through satipatthana that there will be more conditions to observe sila. Only when one has become a sotãpanna one can observe the five precepts perfectly. One can become a sotãpanna through the development of right understanding. One moment of right understanding of the present moment is more effective than many kinds of good works undertaken without any development of right understanding. One moment of right understanding now is a condition that right understanding can arise again and thus it can grow. It can lead eventually to the eradication of all defilements. We read in the Commentary to the "Ten Precepts" of the "Minor Readings" (the Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning) about the fruits of the abstaining from ill deeds. Such fruits are the result of firm, established sila, sila which is practised together with satipatthana. When we read the scriptures we should remember that satipatthana which is exclusively the teaching of the Buddha, is included in all of his teachings, also when it is not expressively mentioned. If we forget this we may read the whole Tipitaka with wrong understanding. We read that the fruits of abstention from alcoholic drinks are: ...swift recognition of past, future and present tasks to be done, constant establishment of mindfulness, freedom from madness, possession of knowledge, non-procrastination, non-stupidity, non- drivellingness, non-intoxication, non-negligence, non-confusion, non- timorousness, non-presumption, unenviousness, truthfulness, freedom from malicious and harsh speech and from gossip, freedom from dullness both night and day, gratitude, gratefulness, unavariciousness, liberality, virtuousness, rectitude, non-anger, possession of conscience (hiri), possession of shame (ottappa), rectitude of view, great understanding, wisdom, learnedness, skill in (distinguishing) good from harm, and so on. ****** Nina. #70874 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate nilovg Dear Scott, Yes,. I have it in hard cover. But time is a oribkem. Larry is waiting now and in a week I go off for two weeks. If you give a few words I can find the Pali. NIna. Op 21-apr-2007, om 16:29 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Can anyone find the Ancient Commentary to DN9? This would be > good for comparison. #70875 From: benji benji Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] homosexuality and jhana benji_941 thank you Nina. That was very helpful. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Benji, > I see that nobody has answered you yet. > I have not seen you before, so, welcome here. > Visuddhimagga Ch V, 41 does not speak about > homosexuals. It mentions > hindrances to the attainment of jhaana and > #70876 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate wisdomcompas... dear upasaka well i believe in buddha's saying that: "Yo Kho Dhammam passati, So mam passati Yo mam passati, So Dhammam passati. -Samyutta Nikaya, Vakkali Sutta" meaning "One who sees the Dhamma - the universal law of nature see me and one who sees me see the Dhamma" i personally like to follow this and so first try to see and then try to find what buddha wants me to see from sutta. so i havent read much of sutta. and therefore cant really understand and answer what u are saying. to me if anyone who quotes sees what they are quoting i would pay great respects and would consider him/her like buddha, otherwise what is the point of reading sutta. probably buddha has pointed towards that in kalama sutta, and at various places in dhammapada as well. i havent read much of sutta and never abhidhamma. so i m not capable of commenting. with metta nidhi -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Herman (and Nidhi, and TG) - > > As a one example, you might consider the following material from the > sutta 248 (11) "The Sheaf of Barley" in the Salayatanasamyutta: > ___ #70877 From: "Robert" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:33 am Subject: Re: a question avalo1968 Hello Ken H. Thank you very much for your reply. Ken H: Something you will hear very often here at DSG is, "There is only the present moment." When we genuinely believe that, we won't be worried about future study, will we? Robert A: I don't think this is what I was saying. My concerns about study are of a different nature. Ken H: We can see that our present understanding (however great or small it may be) is the result of our past hearing and wise consideration of the Dhamma. That will inspire us to study more. And we will do that at our own pace. There is no pressure. Robert A: I agree conpletely that whatever understanding I have (very small indeed) is the result of past hearing and wise (as wise as I can) consideration of the Dhamma. This does inspire me to study more, which is why I come to places such as the DSG, to read the thoughts of those that know more than me. Ken H: But there is no other way. Right understanding is of three kinds; there is pariyatti (intellectual), patipatti (practice, 'satipatthana'), and pativedha (complete penetration). They can be seen as both the results and the process of the "factors for enlightenment," which are, 1) association with wise friends, 2) hearing the true Dhamma, 3) wise consideration of the true Dhamma, and 4) practice in accordance with the true Dhamma. Robert A: What I was trying to express is the question of balancing study and practice. I see the possibility that a very little bit of study should be balanced with a great deal of practice. I tip the balance to practice because it seems to me that even the most elementary aspects of the Dhamma, such as Right Speech, could easily give us a lifetime of material to work on. Ken H: Good luck with it! :-) Robert A: Thank you. I am very grateful for you taking the time to answer my questions. Robert A: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert A, > > ----------- > RA: > Study of the Abhidhamma is, I am sure, a very useful thing to > do, but one of the realities of my own life is that I don't do very > well academically - I never have been much of a student. Is there a > #70878 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/21/07 3:32:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wisdomcompassion@... writes: > > dear upasaka > > well i believe in buddha's saying that: > "Yo Kho Dhammam passati, So mam passati > Yo mam passati, So Dhammam passati. > -Samyutta Nikaya, Vakkali Sutta" > > meaning "One who sees the Dhamma - the universal law of nature see > me and one who sees me see the Dhamma" > > i personally like to follow this and so first try to see and then > try to find what buddha wants me to see from sutta. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe I understand what you are saying, namely look & verify. However, for the looking (and acting) to be Buddhist practice it needs to be the sort of looking (and acting) the Buddha urged, which includes cultivation of moral behavior and moral inclination as fundamental preparation which calms the mind, ongoing equanimous mindfulness of whatever is present leading to insight and productive of right effort, and various modes of meditation cultivating calm and wisdom. To engage properly in such practice, at the very least it is important to read and contemplate those suttas, for example the Mahasatipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta, that teach Dhammic practice enabling you to understand what actually constitutes Dhammic practice. So, I would encourage you to at least study such suttas at the outset, and to go on to studying many, many more suttas to aid you as you move along the Buddha's way. ------------------------------------------ so i havent read > > much of sutta. and therefore cant really understand and answer what > u are saying. to me if anyone who quotes sees what they are quoting > i would pay great respects and would consider him/her like buddha, > otherwise what is the point of reading sutta. probably buddha has > pointed towards that in kalama sutta, and at various places in > dhammapada as well. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't understand how you can come to know what the Buddha taught without perusing what he taught. After (and while) seeing and attempting to understand what he taught, test it out for yourself. That is the gist of the Kalama Sutta. ----------------------------------------- > > i havent read much of sutta and never abhidhamma. so i m not capable > of commenting. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Commenting is unimportant. My comments before were not important, at least not at the moment. But my comment to you now, urging you to actually look and see what the Buddha taught is, I think, very important. ----------------------------------------- > > > with metta > nidhi ===================== With metta, Howard #70879 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:15 pm Subject: Re: a question kenhowardau Hi Robert A, ---------------- RA: > I don't think this is what I was saying. My concerns about study are of a different nature. ----------------- I am sure there are many different ways in which to discuss 'study' and 'academic ability.' The point I am trying to make is; there is only the present moment. Imagine you were lying on your deathbed or falling from a cliff. There would be no prospect of future study. And yet there would be the present moment. Study that may, or may not, be done in the future is just as inconsequential now (to you and me) as it would be to someone falling from a cliff. The present moment is all we have (all there is). See the Loka Sutta or the Sabba Sutta if you don't believe me. :-) Even if we have read those Abhidhamma-packed suttas, we can still go wrong. We can still have an idea of deliberately directing our minds towards an object in order to "practise" satipatthana. So we can imagine that the man falling from a cliff needs to think, "Concentrate on something!" In that case, we still haven't grasped the message of the suttas. In the ultimately real world there is no man, no cliff and no falling (no you or me). There are just fleeting, soulless mental and physical phenomena appearing and disappearing in accordance with conditions. --------------------- <. . .> RA: > What I was trying to express is the question of balancing study and practice. I see the possibility that a very little bit of study should be balanced with a great deal of practice. ---------------------- Yes, I thought that might be the point you were trying to express. Many people who have been in DSG for a long time are still trying to express that point. :-) They refuse to accept that there are only dhammas. Or they might concede that there are only dhammas, and yet still have a theory that allows for the concept of formal vipassana practice. That is what most of our DSG discussions are about (either directly or indirectly). Ken H #70880 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:39 pm Subject: Re: Quanta are Unnecessary Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Howard, On 22/04/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > The bottom line on all this is that the quantized Momentarianism > adopted by some in both Theravada and Mahayana is inessential, the mindstates and > the tilakkhana getting along quite well without it. > Very much agreed. Herman PS I sincerely hope your chest is returning to normal. It sounds like a very unpleasant condition. #70881 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question egberdina Hi KenH, On 22/04/07, kenhowardau wrote: > > Yes, I thought that might be the point you were trying to express. > Many people who have been in DSG for a long time are still trying to > express that point. :-) They refuse to accept that there are only > dhammas. Or they might concede that there are only dhammas, and yet > still have a theory that allows for the concept of formal vipassana > practice. > Well, it seems that some dhammas write posts, formally. Ahh, those crazy dhammas, they are so cunning. Herman #70882 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bridging Conventional and Ultimate: "Kiviachol" egberdina Hi Howard, On 22/04/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > "The One" must be only a pointing at, and never ultimate, literal truth, and > to regard it as literal is a form of (relatively benign) idolatry. Even to > begin with "God is ..." is to be in error from the ultimate perspective. As Seung > Sahn, the Korean Son master says, "Open mouth already a mistake." But since > we must open our mouth if we wish to communicate at all, it is good to throw in > a "kiviachol" at least once in a while as a reminder. ;-) > There is much wisdom in this. Herman #70883 From: "Leo" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] disappearance of dhamma. leoaive Hi I guess nama and rupa can have a condition of solitude and piece or it can be a condition that is not conductive for meditative life. So our way should be to take right, not wrong. Leo #70884 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Scott, On 22/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear All, > > (For anyone actually wanting to discuss suttas in detail.) > > Comparing 'Modern' Commentators On: > I write the following not to dissuade from discussing the suttas in detail, but only to caution against studying them with a belief that the meaning of the sutta is hidden in the fine detail. This is an excerpt from that sutta. "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life." It is also an excerpt of many other suttas. It beggars belief that this formulaic statement is a verbatim account of what transpired on each occasion which a sutta remembers. Clearly, if it was understood that the meaning of each sutta lies in the precision of it's remembered detail, no scribe would have dared to add an iota, let alone paragraphs of boiler-plate text. Again, this is not to dissuade from the study of texts. But history makes clear that Buddhism has branched into a multitude of streams, based on the interpretations of words here and there, words that were written centuries after they were alledgedly spoken. Who is right? I guess that the proof of the pudding will be in the ending of suffering. Any takers? Herman #70885 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Quanta are Unnecessary Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/21/07 6:40:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I sincerely hope your chest is returning to normal. It sounds like > a very unpleasant condition. > ======================= Thanks! :-) It's not doing all that well at this point. If it's not better by Monday, I'm gonna call the internist, ask for scrips for a chest X-ray & a blood workup just to be safe, and make an office appointment with him. Chances are it's the same hard-to-get-rid-of cold that a lot of folks around here have but complicated in my case by my allergies & asthma. I'm sure I'll be better soon. I really appreciate your good wishes! With metta, Howard #70886 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate lbidd2 Hi Scott, Do you have a question about DN9? What do you mean by Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "use of self to get rid of self"? Larry #70887 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/21/07 7:19:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > But history > makes clear that Buddhism has branched into a multitude of streams, > based on the interpretations of words here and there, words that were > written centuries after they were alledgedly spoken. Who is right? I > guess that the proof of the pudding will be in the ending of > suffering. Any takers? > ==================== Me, me, me, me! Can I try??? ;-)) Yes, Herman, I agree with you: There have certainly been revisions, additions, combinings, and even, I'm sure, a few whole-cloth insertions within all the branching streams, but the central teachings of the Buddha can be found throughout, and overall, I still put most trust in the Pali record. With metta, Howard #70888 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for the reply: L: "Do you have a question about DN9?" Scott: Not really, it came up in the thread and I was just trying to bring in the sutta to discuss something about it. L: "What do you mean by Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ''use of self to get rid of self'?" Scott: He writes: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html "...Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." And: "...Thus although the person on the Path must make use of Right View, he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of release. For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no 'subject' or 'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience or thing experienced. There is simply the experience in & of itself." And: "...Whether or not these four arguments are in fact true to the Buddha's teachings, it is important to remember his primary aim in presenting the doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those who put it to use can gain release from all suffering & stress." Scott: And for this, I have little confidence in the 'objectivity' of his transations. Sincerely, Scott. #70889 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Quanta are Unnecessary Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... Hi Howard I have one of those long lasting colds. The chest congestion just continues. In my case just an annoyance and no big deal. Hope yours clears up soon and is not too serious. TG #70890 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Scott: "And for this, I have little confidence in the 'objectivity' of his transations." Not to mention his translations, either, for that matter. Sincerely, Scott. #70891 From: "Leo" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:13 pm Subject: what can be the right balance continued extras leoaive Hi I found one Sutta, by the name Yasoja Sutta, it has interesting ending. So I see that Buddha is OK with Hill or Montain. The end of sitta is like that: In whom they're defeated — the thorn of sensuality, insult, assault, & imprisonment: like a mountain, he stands unperturbed, undisturbed by pleasures or pains : a monk With metta Leo #70892 From: "Robert" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:08 pm Subject: Re: a question avalo1968 Hello Ken H. I was surprised when I read your reply: Ken H: Yes, I thought that might be the point you were trying to express. Many people who have been in DSG for a long time are still trying to express that point. :-) They refuse to accept that there are only dhammas. Or they might concede that there are only dhammas, and yet still have a theory that allows for the concept of formal vipassana practice. Robert A: I did not know that the concept of practice was controversial. When I use the word 'practice' what I am referring to is how my being acquainted with the Dhamma has changed the way I live my life. To me, that is Buddhist practice - my knowledge of the precepts and how I keep them, the meditation I do in the course of my day, how I express the teachings of the Buddha through generosity and patience to the extent that I can. I'm afraid that I don't see how the fact that there are only dhammas would argue against living my life in this way. To me that is always the key question for any teaching - how does it change the way you live your life and relate to the experience of your life? I recognize that I am somewhat in over my head at the DSG and I appreciate your patience. I also recognize that the name of the group is Dhamma 'Study' Group, so I am not trying to argue that study is a bad thing. I do appreciate the work of those that become scholars of the Pali texts, for they help to preserve these teachings for the rest of us. Regards, Robert A. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert A, > > ---------------- > RA: > I don't think this is what I was saying. My concerns about > study are of a different nature. > ----------------- > > #70893 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "And for this, I have little confidence in the 'objectivity' of his transations." L: I don't understand. What do you find objectionable in these views? Thanissaro Bhikkhu: " "...Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." And: "...Thus although the person on the Path must make use of Right View, he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of release. For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no 'subject' or 'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience or thing experienced. There is simply the experience in & of itself." And: "...Whether or not these four arguments are in fact true to the Buddha's teachings, it is important to remember his primary aim in presenting the doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those who put it to use can gain release from all suffering & stress." " Larry #70894 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:14 pm Subject: Re: a question buddhatrue Hi Robert A., Don't be discouraged by Ken H. He speaks as if he is the mouth-piece for DSG and he is far from that. Actually, of those who study the Abhidhamma, he is the most extreme and short-sighted. And, with the moderators away on vacation, he has become an unbearable egomaniac. It would be best to just ignore him. The statement "There are only dhammas" implies existence, and the Buddha taught against existence. Instead the Buddha taught dependent origination which demonstrates that nothing really "exists" but rather just arises temporarily. It is not beneficial to think of things existing or not existing, but rather arising temporarily. Dhammas are fleeting phenomenon, not self-existent entities. And yes, you are quite correct; the purpose of the Buddha's teaching is practice. The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path and it is a path of practice with gradual results. Some members in this group don't like to hear that because it seems too "plain" and "boring" to them; they would rather entertain themselves with fanciful, esoteric thinking about the universe and its existence. They think that their ideas and philosophy are very "high" and so they remain stuck in the trap of conceit. Ken H. is the worst of them and so if you are a long-term member of this group and you disagree with him, he will label you as either stupid or a liar. Again, it would be best to just ignore him. The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path and that path does require formal meditation. Specifically one is to practice samatha meditation leading to jhana. When one emerges from jhana, the mind is very peaceful, sharp, and a fit instrument to investigate dhammas. The Abhidhamma began as a way to codify this experience of dhammas but then, over the centuries, turned into a way to explain the existence of the universe. There are seven books to the Abhidhamma, with commentaries, sub-commentaries, and sub-sub commentaries. In my opinion, it's a real mess!! I would recommend that if you want to get to the heart of the Buddha's teaching, stick with those "boring suttas" ;-)) Metta, James #70895 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:23 pm Subject: Re: Quanta are Unnecessary Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/21/07 8:38:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I have one of those long lasting colds. The chest congestion just > continues. In my case just an annoyance and no big deal. Hope yours > clears up soon > and is not too serious. > > TG > ===================== Thanks! Yeah, it's probably just like yours but complicated by being allergic. Hope you're better soon too! With metta, Howard #70896 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:34 pm Subject: Re: a question kenhowardau Hi Robert A, ---------- RA: > I was surprised when I read your reply: ---------- Sorry if it sounded a bit gruff. ---------------- <. . .> Robert A: I did not know that the concept of practice was controversial. When I use the word 'practice' what I am referring to is how my being acquainted with the Dhamma has changed the way I live my life. To me, that is Buddhist practice - my knowledge of the precepts and how I keep them, the meditation I do in the course of my day, how I express the teachings of the Buddha through generosity and patience to the extent that I can. ----------------- Yes, I have noticed similar changes to my way of life, and I am very pleased with them. I was a Buddhist for 26 years before joining DSG where I began to learn about the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries. That was a turning point in my understanding of the teachings. I now understand that true change (in my accumulated capacity for good and evil) is a very gradual process. So I am less impressed by any sudden changes that seem to have occurred. ------------------------ RA: > I'm afraid that I don't see how the fact that there are only dhammas would argue against living my life in this way. ------------------------ Again, I agree. But I would like to add that there is no set, prescribed, Buddhist way of life. In the ultimate sense (in which there is only one citta at a time) a Buddhist would be a fleeting moment in which there are the mental factors samma-ditthi (right understanding), samma-sankappa (right thought) and samma-vaca (right speech) etc. I can now see that even a soldier, or a butcher (etc) can have right practice. ------------------------------------ RA: > To me that is always the key question for any teaching - how does it change the way you live your life and relate to the experience of your life? I recognize that I am somewhat in over my head at the DSG and I appreciate your patience. I also recognize that the name of the group is Dhamma 'Study' Group, so I am not trying to argue that study is a bad thing. I do appreciate the work of those that become scholars of the Pali texts, for they help to preserve these teachings for the rest of us. ------------------------------------ Don't worry, you have never given the impression of being anti-study or anything like that. I am the one who has been giving the wrong impression. There are other people here who explain the same things I am trying to explain but in a less ham-fisted way. You just happen to have got stuck with me. :-) Ken H #70897 From: "Robert" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:51 pm Subject: Re: a question avalo1968 Hello Ken H, I didn't think your reply sounded gruff - I was surprised more in the sense of realizing I wasn't in Kansas anymore. I'm sure your explanations have been fine - it just takes a while before the light goes on with me. Thank you for your efforts, Robert A --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert A, > > ---------- > RA: > I was surprised when I read your reply: > ---------- > > Sorry if it sounded a bit gruff. > > - Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (23) #70898 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for the reply: L: "I don't understand. What do you find objectionable in these views?" Scott: If you don't mind I'd rather just discuss Dhamma out here, Larry. I'd prefer not to be any more critical than I have been. It seems evident to me what the problem is, but many people find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's work to be excellent, and I'm no expert. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just prefer being more constructive. If its not an intrusive suggestion, I'd be happy to just outline my concerns off-list, for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. #70899 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:31 pm Subject: Re: a question rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > >> > Robert A: > I did not know that the concept of practice was controversial. When > I use the word 'practice' what I am referring to is how my being > acquainted with the Dhamma has changed the way I live my life. To > me, that is Buddhist practice - my knowledge of the precepts and how > I keep them, the meditation I do in the course of my day, how I > express the teachings of the Buddha through generosity and patience > to the extent that I can. I'm afraid that I don't see how the fact > that there are only dhammas would argue against living my life in > this way. To me that is always the key question for any teaching - > how does it change the way you live your life and relate to the > experience of your life? > >+++++++++++\ Dear Robert These threads on my website might be worth reading. http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29 http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=87 Robert #70900 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "I'd be happy to just outline my concerns off-list, for your consideration." L: Pish-posh just spit it out. These words aren't slings and arrows. Larry #70901 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:42:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Thanissaro Bhikkhu: " "...Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." Hi Larry and Scott One thing that may be objectionable is the above extract. Does not the Venerable fully contradict himself within the confines of a single sentence? I'd say yes. What's the difference between a concept (idea) and a view? If anything, a view is more likely to be freer of entanglements ... if it is right-view. Seriously, the quote above says nothing meaningful (or meaningfully correct.) TG #70902 From: "Robert" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:39 pm Subject: Re: a question avalo1968 Hello Robert, Thank you for the links. Robert A. > >+++++++++++\ > Dear Robert > These threads on my website might be worth reading. > http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29 > http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=87 > Robert > #70903 From: han tun Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:22 pm Subject: Daana Corner (43) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, We have come to the last essay compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala). It is being presented in 7 parts. The following is 1 of 7 parts. Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) ------------------------------ [This is a translation of an older document — the description of the Bodhisatta's practice of giving by the medieval commentator, Acariya Dhammapala. This has been extracted from his Treatise on the Paramis, found in his commentary to the Cariyapitaka (the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha), translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi in The Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of Views: The Brahmajala Sutta and Its Commentaries (BPS, 1978), pp. 289-96, pp. 322-23.] The perfection of giving is to be practiced by benefiting beings in many ways — by relinquishing one's happiness, belongings, body and life to others, by dispelling their fear, and by instructing them in the Dhamma. Herein, giving is threefold by way of the object to be given: the giving of material things (amisadana), the giving of fearlessness (abhayadana), and the giving of the Dhamma (dhammadana). Among these, the object to be given can be twofold: internal and external. The external gift is tenfold: food, drink, garments, vehicles, garlands, scents, unguents, bedding, dwellings, and lamps. These gifts, again, become manifold by analyzing each into its constituents, e.g., food into hard food, soft food, etc. The external gift can also become sixfold when analyzed by way of sense objects: visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and non-sensory objects. The sense objects, such as visible forms, become manifold when analyzed into blue, etc. So too, the external gift is manifold by way of the divers valuables and belongings, such as gems, gold, silver, pearls, coral, etc.; fields, land, parks, etc.; slaves, cows, buffaloes, etc. When the Great Man (the Bodhisatta) gives an external object, he gives whatever is needed to whomever stands in need of it; and knowing by himself that someone is in need of something, he gives it even unasked, much more when asked. He gives sufficiently, not insufficiently, when there is something to be given. He does not give because he expects something in return. And when there is not enough to give sufficiently to all, he distributes evenly whatever can be shared. But he does not give things that issue in affliction for others, such as weapons, poisons, and intoxicants. Nor does he give amusements which are harmful and lead to negligence. And he does not give unsuitable food or drink to a person who is sick, even though he might ask for it, and he does not give what is suitable beyond the proper measure. To be continued. metta, Han #70904 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:08 pm Subject: Guarding the Sense Doors buddhatrue Hi All, An article related to the importance of guarding the sense doors: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070421/hl_hsn/911dreamsstudysuggeststvcove rageboostedstress Metta, James #70905 From: abcd Date: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Conventional / Ultimate wisdomcompas... hi all i have read satipatthana sutta and anapansati sutta, and summary of other suttas, dhammapada, and but not in a way of reading only. i do vipassana meditation, so i thought i m qualified to learn and share in this group. but i feel if one contemplates on /practices mahasatipatthana sutta, anapansati sutta, contemplation of anicca, dukkha and anatta, contemplation of panchupadan khanda, and paticcsamupada, for regular period constantly, along with Sila, this much is enough, as i have seen that subtle realities start surfacing by themselves effortlessly. and once that starts we can go and verify in other sutta and contemplate more or go more deeper into that very thing and get further direction. actually only satipatthana+meditation is enough if we do it properly, and this thing has been said by buddha himself in satipatthana sutta. for me important thing is to see the reality and not read it 'only'. the reason being that we are caught in words and their interpretations and miss the bus. important thing is to see, i believe. but having said that , i dont undervalue the importance of reading sutta, it has limited advantage, but give more priority to seeing, so sutta is a help for me in seeing, and not otherway round. well all these are my personal opinion, every one is free to choose one's own method/way depending upon one's inclinations. i wish all cross the samsara successfully in least possible time. with best wishes and metta nidhi #70906 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Scott, On 22/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just prefer being more > constructive. If its not an intrusive suggestion, I'd be happy to > just outline my concerns off-list, for your consideration. > Rest assured Scott, that in posting what I did I was not championing any particular commentator. I, for one, would certainly not be offended by well-argued criticism of any commentator. Just thought it may be useful to know, for the sake of the discussion. Herman #70907 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:12 am Subject: Mental Purity x 3! bhikkhu5 Friends: Good for All are The 3 Kinds of Right Mental Action! The Blessed Buddha once said: How, Cunda , is purity of mental action threefold? 1: Herein, someone is without avarice, acquisitiveness, & greedy envy. Whatever another person possesses of goods & property, he does not long & yearn for it: Oh may I get what that other person has! 2: He is free from ill-will, he harbours no angry thoughts in his mind! Rather he thinks: Oh, may these beings be free from hate & ill-will, and may they lead a happy & easy life free from all trouble & harm! 3: He possesses right understanding and this unshakable right view: Gifts, donations, and offerings are not worthless. There is a fruit and kammic result of all advantageous & disadvantageous actions! There is this world, and there is the next world. There are duties towards father and mother. There are spontaneously reborn beings. There are in this world recluses and monks of right & perfect living, who have themselves understood and directly realized both this very world and the next, and are able to explain them both.... This is the threefold mental purity, Cunda ! Source (edited extract): Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikaya AN 10:176 http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm More on Right View (SammÄ? Ditthi): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_is_Right_View.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Straight_View.htm and leaving Wrong View: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Leaving_Wrong_View.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #70908 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:42 am Subject: Re: Quanta are Unnecessary Re: [dsg] Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Howard, It's a good idea to chase up the medics, I think. I carried some nasty cough around for a while last year, and ended up with pneumonia. It took about 4 days for the antibiotics to kick in. I have never been so sick! With hindsight, I should have gone to see the doc much earlier. Herman #70909 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta sarahprocter... Hi TG, Howard, Nina & all, --- TGrand458@... wrote: >H:In any case, I'm glad that what you wrote does > not > indicate a > change in your perspective on the Tipitaka. > --------------------------------------------- > > > > TG: Ouch! Maybe if it was Nina's or Sarah's birthday, but otherwise > no. > LOL ..... S: LOL indeed TG! As it happens, it was Nina's birthday a couple of weeks ago (Best Wishes, Nina!) and will be mine in less than two weeks, so how about finding us a nice Abhidhamma commentary passage you like as well? I'm sure there are some:-) Howard, sorry to hear about your cold/asthma/bronchitis. I really sympathise. As you know, I have a tendency for the same, always induced by a cold or flu and often when we're travelling, such as in India with a group. Exhausting and very slow, uncomfortable and difficult to recover from, I know. I admire the way you've continued posting and reflecting on Dhamma throughout. Fortunately, just home and fit and healthy this time, so far! It'll take a couple of days to catch up with chores, jet-lag and reading of the list.... Will speak soon.... Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, the copies of 'Perfections' were here waiting for us. When we saw Alan W they weren't quite ready, so we couldn't pick them up. Looks beautiful! Many thanks to you and Lodewijk. =================== #70910 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question nilovg Dear Rob A, I appreciate very much your sympathetic post. You also emphasize right speech and this is important. When there is harsh speech we lack metta. The Buddha teaches us that we should see others as our children, that is metta. I appreciate your insistence on applying the dhamma in your life. Rob K has given you helpful links. You may find them very long, but the idea is to read them little by little. You could print them out. They can be discussed, for example, one point at a time. As Ken said, we should study the Dhamma each in our own tempo. I find right speech most important, but I fail, and then it seems that I am like a different personality from when I speak with metta. Here on the list we can think first, but in life the word escapes us before we know it. Citta or consciousness motivates speech and cittas change so fast. It helps to learn more about different cittas and their conditions. That is why I think Rob K's links can be a help to all of us. This I think is what the Abhidhamma is all about: our practice in daily life. Not everybody is inclined to study all details, but the main principles which you also find in the suttas, are, as I see it, indispensable for our daily life. Nina. Op 22-apr-2007, om 6:39 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > how I > > > express the teachings of the Buddha through generosity and > patience > > > to the extent that I can. I'm afraid that I don't see how the > fact > > > that there are only dhammas would argue against living my life in > > > this way. To me that is always the key question for any > teaching - > > > how does it change the way you live your life and relate to the > > > experience of your life? #70911 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta nilovg Dear Sarah, welcome home. Glad about the Perfections. We are going to my brother in France May1-15, and Lodewijk said sending of the books by us to those who indicated that they wanted them will have to be delayed somewhat. We have quite a number of books here. Nina. Op 22-apr-2007, om 9:46 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Nina, the copies of 'Perfections' were here waiting for us. #70912 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:47 am Subject: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? nilovg Dear TG, It is good you speak out your mind. I can try to correct some misunderstandings which also others may have. As to the fact that you are put off my certain renderings, I can feel with you, because also Lodewijk is put off by expressions like: there are only ultimate realities. ---------- Quote: I explained that this is normal when considering the countless past lives full of ignorance we have had. What is forty years? Nothing. -------- TG: Although I believe in rebirth, past lives, etc., as more or less pointed out in the Suttas, its merely a "belief," I do not KNOW it for sure. It often appears to me that you accept a lot of things that you may not know as certainty and claim that as actual fact. -------- N: I feel the fact of past and future lives is basic and taught in the whole Tipitaka. Without this fact how could there be kamma of the past producing result now, how could there be the Dependent Origination which deals with past, present and future lives? The four noble Truths that includes a Path leading to the end of the cycle? what is the meaning of cycle? What else but the sequences of lives all conditioned by ignorance? If I would not see the sense of all this and I would not have firm confidence in this, I might as well not study the teachings and turn to some other belief. --------- TG: I would actually be somewhat embarrassed to say to someone else in no uncertain terms what you have stated above. As a listener to such a statement, it would turn me off and also turn me off to Buddhism had I not know anything about Buddhism. Perhaps you have direct first hand meditative knowledge of past lives and in that case I am wrong. --------- N: I do not have abhi~n~nas, I cannot recall past lives. I also know that it is by the attainment of the stages of insight that there is direct knowledge of what kamma and vipaaka are, and I do not claim this. But there is something else. By listening, considering the teachings more one can acquire more confidence in what is taught, even though one has not reached stages of insight. Confidence can grow. I should add to anything I say: as I have learnt, but that is understood and such repetition is very cumbersome. I just try to render and explain as best as I can what I learnt and above all: to share what I find valuable. My confidence does not at all imply an idea of: my great knowledge. In fact, every time I am in Thailand I realize more that I know so little. Last time Kh Sujin said: the more you listen the more difficult the Dhamma becomes. The reason is that you begin to see how intricate and subtle the Dhamma is. ------- TG: At any rate, this is the same type of pattern I see when abhidhamma commentarial positions are with certainty credited as the Buddha's own statements, even though they are not. They are just interpretations you and other have made and are so sure of yourselves, that you think the Buddha stated them. This to me is dangerous waters for a "truth seeker." ------- N: We are all truth seekers, it is a struggle to persevere and realize the truth of Dhamma. Only the sotaapanna has eradicated doubt. As to the Abhidhamma, this is a wide subject. You could read the links Rob K just gave to Rob A. Only one week before my trip and I have to round off discussions. ******* Nina. #70913 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:36 am Subject: Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > -------- > N: I feel the fact of past and future lives is basic and taught in > the whole Tipitaka. Without this fact how could there be kamma of the > past producing result now, how could there be the Dependent > Origination which deals with past, present and future lives? The four > noble Truths that includes a Path leading to the end of the cycle? > what is the meaning of cycle? What else but the sequences of lives > all conditioned by ignorance? If I would not see the sense of all > this and I would not have firm confidence in this, I might as well > not study the teachings and turn to some other belief. > --------- This is very nicely stated and logically put! It doesn't matter or not if one cannot "know directly" past lives, Buddhism doesn't make any sense at all without the fact of rebirth. If one accepts the Four Noble Truths as the truth, he/she must also accept the fact of rebirth. Buddhism isn't just a "feel good now" philosophy. BTW, if you could present the KS approach (listen to the Dhamma and let panna do the rest) with the same flawless logic you have used in this above argument, you could easily win me over :-). Metta, James #70914 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/22/07 2:53:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wisdomcompassion@... writes: > hi all > i have read satipatthana sutta and anapansati sutta, and summary of other > suttas, dhammapada, and but not in a way of reading only. i do vipassana > meditation, so i thought i m qualified to learn and share in this group. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Wonderful, Nidhi. I strongly support not merely reading. I am a regular meditator as well. From things I have seen you write, I suspect that you meditate in the style taught by S.N.Goenka. I gained much from attending a Goenka retreat, though I hasten to add that his interpretation of what constitutes meditation for the cultivation of "vipassana" is but one of many interpretations. Also, you should be made aware, I think, that besides there being many on this list who meditate, there are also a good number who not only do not meditate but are actually opposed to it. This is something to keep in mind when conversing with folks here: A good number do not meditate, some having given up on it, and some never having meditated. --------------------------------------------- > > but i feel if one contemplates on /practices mahasatipatthana sutta, > anapansati sutta, contemplation of anicca, dukkha and anatta, contemplation of > panchupadan khanda, and paticcsamupada, for regular period constantly, along > with Sila, this much is enough, as i have seen that subtle realities start > surfacing by themselves effortlessly. ----------------------------------------- Howard: This is interesting. You write "contemplates on/practices". Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you taking these (contemplating & practicing) as synonyms or as alternatives or as complementary? Also, by 'contemplating' do you mean deeply thinking about, or do you have something else in mind? A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma practice, in addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the Dhamma and deeply considering it? Is that what you have in mind by practice also? I would suspect not quite, inasmuch as you are a "vipassana meditator". ------------------------------------------ > > and once that starts we can go and verify in other sutta and contemplate > more or go more deeper into that very thing and get further direction. actually > only satipatthana+meditation is enough if we do it properly, and this thing > has been said by buddha himself in satipatthana sutta. > > for me important thing is to see the reality and not read it 'only'. the > reason being that we are caught in words and their interpretations and miss the > bus. important thing is to see, i believe. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, so here I understand you to be saying that contemplating and practice are complementary. That is my perspective. -------------------------------------- > > but having said that , i dont undervalue the importance of reading sutta, > it has limited advantage, but give more priority to seeing, so sutta is a help > for me in seeing, and not otherway round. > > well all these are my personal opinion, every one is free to choose one's > own method/way depending upon one's inclinations. i wish all cross the samsara > successfully in least possible time. > > with best wishes and metta > nidhi > > ===================== With metta, Howard #70915 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Larry and Herman, Okay, okay. S: "...I'd be happy to just outline my concerns off-list, for your consideration." L: "Pish-posh just spit it out. These words aren't slings and arrows." H: "Rest assured Scott, that in posting what I did I was not championing any particular commentator. I, for one, would certainly not be offended by well-argued criticism of any commentator. Just thought it may be useful to know, for the sake of the discussion." Scott: While I'm hoping to learn more from you, Herman, about 'well-argued criticism', it was your 'Pish-posh', Larry, that convinced me - brilliant! I believe you're the first to ever exhort me in such a fashion. If you use this in spoken word, I'm going to form a sect with you as our Leader. The text: 1) "...Although the concept 'not-self' is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." 2) "...Thus although the person on the Path must make use of Right View he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of release. For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no 'subject' or 'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience or thing experienced. There is simply the experience in & of itself." 3) "...Whether or not these four arguments are in fact true to the Buddha's teachings, it is important to remember his primary aim in presenting the doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those who put it to use can gain release from all suffering & stress." In the first segment, I disagree a) that 'not-self' is a 'concept', b) that a concept of any kind can be 'a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments and clingings...', and c) that 'the view that there is no self' is (i) a view, and (ii) an ontological or metaphysical one. In the second segment, I disagree a) that Right View, as 'not-self', is something that can be 'used' by a person, and furthermore, b) 'on the Path' or not, experience occurs in the same way and by the same means. In the third segment, I disagree that 'not-self' was merely a teaching device employed by the Buddha, which is how I read the statement. Anatta is, in my opinion, a real characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. While ideas about anatta can be conceptualised and thought about, it is not thinking about anatta that does the disentangling (rather it likely creates more tangles). In relagating anatta to the level of ontological or metaphysical premise, is to strip it of any actuality. Right View (pa~n~na) cannot be 'used' by any one for any purpose. This is because I consider that the actuality of anatta renders the 'use' of any dhamma by a 'person' to be impossible. This is due to there being no control over any dhamma. Right View arises and can condition other dhammas but Right View cannot be picked up by anyone to be used as a tool. 'The Path' is not something anyone is on, it is a moment of consciousness. I don't think that the ongoing momentary functioning of dhammas is altered by lower levels of the Path. 'Experience' would be the same, understanding would be stronger. I think that talk about 'no construing' and 'simply the experience' is just window dressing. To say that anatta is pedagogical is to totally misunderstand anatta. Have at it, lads. Sincerely, Scott. #70916 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and TG, Nina, and Jon also) - In a message dated 4/22/07 3:46:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Hi TG, Howard, Nina &all, > > --- TGrand458@... wrote: > > >H:In any case, I'm glad that what you wrote does > >not > >indicate a > >change in your perspective on the Tipitaka. > >--------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >TG: Ouch! Maybe if it was Nina's or Sarah's birthday, but otherwise > >no. > >LOL > ..... > S: LOL indeed TG! As it happens, it was Nina's birthday a couple of weeks > ago (Best Wishes, Nina!) and will be mine in less than two weeks, so how > about finding us a nice Abhidhamma commentary passage you like as well? > I'm sure there are some:-) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: My belated birthday wishes to you, Nina - a very young lady, whatever years have passed! Happy upcoming birthday to you, too, Sarah, and also to Jon, whose birthday is this Thursday, I think, the day after mine. (Am I right, Jon?) Two stubborn Taureans! LOLOL! (Of course, I prefer to say "intransigent" instead of "stubborn"! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard, sorry to hear about your cold/asthma/bronchitis. I really > sympathise. As you know, I have a tendency for the same, always induced by > a cold or flu and often when we're travelling, such as in India with a > group. Exhausting and very slow, uncomfortable and difficult to recover > from, I know. I admire the way you've continued posting and reflecting on > Dhamma throughout. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Sarah! :-) ---------------------------------------------- > > Fortunately, just home and fit and healthy this time, so far! > > It'll take a couple of days to catch up with chores, jet-lag and reading > of the list.... > > Will speak soon.... > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Nina, the copies of 'Perfections' were here waiting for us. When we > saw Alan W they weren't quite ready, so we couldn't pick them up. Looks > beautiful! Many thanks to you and Lodewijk. ====================== With metta, Howard #70917 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:02 am Subject: Rupas, Conclusion, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Conclusion The study of the different kinds of rúpa will help us to understand more clearly the various conditions for the arising of bodily phenomena and mental phenomena. Gradually we shall come to understand that all our experiences in life, all the objects we experience, our bodily movements and our speech are only conditioned nåma and rúpa. In the planes of existence where there are nåma and rúpa, nåma conditions rúpa and rúpa conditions nåma in different ways. The rúpas that are sense objects and the rúpas that can function as sense-doors are conditions for the different cittas arising in processes which experience sense objects. In order to develop understanding of nåma and rúpa it is necessary to learn to be mindful of the nåma or rúpa appearing at the present moment. Only one object at a time can be object of mindfulness and in the beginning we may find this difficult. The study of rúpas can help us to have more clarity about the fact that only one object at a time can be experienced through one of the six doors. Visible object, for example, can be experienced through the eye-door, it cannot be experienced through the body-door, thus, through touch. Seeing- consciousness experiences what is visible and body-consciousness experiences tangible object, such as hardness or softness. Through each door the appropriate object can be experienced and the different doorways should not be confused with one another. When we believe that we can see and touch a flower, we think of a concept. We can learn to see the difference between awareness of one reality at a time and thinking of a concept. A concept or conventional reality can be an object of thought, but it is not a paramattha dhamma, an ultimate reality with its own inalterable characteristic . It may seem complicated to be mindful of one reality at a time, but realities such as visible object, hardness or sound are impinging on the senses time and again. When we have understood that they have different characteristics and that they present themselves one at a time, we can learn to be mindful of them. We should remember that at the moment of mindfulness of a reality understanding of that reality can be developed. Right understanding should be the goal. There is no self who understands. Understanding is a cetasika, a type of nåma; it understands and it can develop. ******* Nina. #70918 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:08 am Subject: Perfections N, no 15 nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 4 THE PERFECTION OF RENUNCIATION Renunciation, nekkhamma, is another perfection the Buddha fulfilled during his lives as a Bodhisatta. We read in the commentary to the Cariyapitaka the following definition of renunciation: Renunciation has the characteristic of departing from sense pleasures and existence; its function is to verify the unsatisfactoriness they involve; its manifestation is the withdrawal from them; a sense of spiritual urgency is its proximate cause. The Bodhisatta recognized the unsatisfactoriness in sense pleasures and he contemplated the benefits of renunciation. In many lives he went forth from the household life into the homeless life. Renunciation is not only leading the life of an ascetic, it means above all renunciation from akusala. We read in the commentary to the "Dialogues of the Buddha" (commentary to the Sangiti sutta, Digha Nikaya III, 215) that "all good states are nekkhamma-dhãtu", they are the element (dhátu) of renunciation. At the moment of kusala citta one renounces from akusala. The perfection of renunciation has to be developed together with satipatthãna so that there eventually can be complete renunciation from all defilements and also from existence. The arahat who has eradicated all defilements does not cling to rebirth, for him there are no more conditions to be reborn. In the train to Bodhgaya Bhante Dhammadhara read to us the "Silavimamsa-Jãtaka" (no. 330). It is said that a hawk seized a piece of meat and was pecked at by other birds who also wanted it, until he let go of it. Then another bird seized it who was harassed in his turn until he let go of it, and then the same happened to other birds who seized that piece of meat. Whoever let go of it was left in peace. The Bodhisatta said: These desires of ours are like pieces of meat. To those that grasp at them is sorrow, and to those that let go is peace. In the same Jãtaka we read about another example of the sorrow caused by clinging. A female slave Pingala had made an appointment with her lover and was waiting for him, but he did not turn up. So long as she was waiting and hoping for his arrival she was restless and could not sleep peacefully. Hope brings sorrow and the absence of hope brings peace is the lesson taught by this example. We discussed the application of this Jãtaka in daily life. We have many expectations which are all forms of attachment, lobha. We expect life to be pleasant but it cannot be real happiness. We have expectations from our friends, we want to be liked by them and we need attention from them. Don’t we often start a conversation with others just in order to receive attention from them? Bhante Dhammadhara reminded us that this is a whole area of our life we hardly ever consider. Such moments of clinging usually pass unnoticed, but when there is mindfulness of them they can be known as they are: only conditioned realities which are not self. If we want to renounce from akusala there should first be renunciation from the clinging to self. This will not be achieved by thinking about renunciation, but only by right understanding of the present moment. ******** Nina. #70919 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? nilovg Dear James, thanks for your kind words. This point will take more time, also winning you over :-)) Perhaps when I write more on sati. Nina. Op 22-apr-2007, om 13:36 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > BTW, if you could present the KS approach (listen to the Dhamma and > let panna do the rest) with the same flawless logic you have used in > this above argument, you could easily win me over :-). #70920 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta moellerdieter Hi Howard, All I like to join with all the good birthday wishes incl. yours .. if I am right , that must be next Wednesday ? ;- ) with Metta Dieter #70921 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? upasaka_howard Hi, James & Nina - In a message dated 4/22/07 7:37:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Nina, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > >-------- > >N: I feel the fact of past and future lives is basic and taught in > >the whole Tipitaka. Without this fact how could there be kamma of > the > >past producing result now, how could there be the Dependent > >Origination which deals with past, present and future lives? The > four > >noble Truths that includes a Path leading to the end of the cycle? > >what is the meaning of cycle? What else but the sequences of lives > >all conditioned by ignorance? If I would not see the sense of all > >this and I would not have firm confidence in this, I might as well > >not study the teachings and turn to some other belief. > >--------- > > This is very nicely stated and logically put! It doesn't matter or > not if one cannot "know directly" past lives, Buddhism doesn't make > any sense at all without the fact of rebirth. If one accepts the > Four Noble Truths as the truth, he/she must also accept the fact of > rebirth. Buddhism isn't just a "feel good now" philosophy. > > BTW, if you could present the KS approach (listen to the Dhamma and > let panna do the rest) with the same flawless logic you have used in > this above argument, you could easily win me over :-). > > Metta, > James > > ========================== I agree with both of you on this matter. In particular, Nina, I exactly share your sentiment "If I would not see the sense of all this and I would not have firm confidence in this, I might as well not study the teachings and turn to some other belief." In fact, if there were, for each of us, but one lifetime, being born out of nothing, then enjoying (or tolerating) up to 100+ years of "life", and then followed by nothing, what would be the point of the Dhamma? The up-to-100+ years go by in a flash. (Young folks take heed!) So, simply handle them as best one can and that's that! What problem would there be to solve that wouldn't be solved by the alleged annihilation coming at the end of the one and only lifetime? The end of dukkha would come on its own, and it would be, exactly, death! With metta, Howard #70922 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 4/22/07 9:17:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: > Hi Howard, All > > I like to join with all the good birthday wishes incl. yours .. if I am > right , that must be next Wednesday ? ;- ) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, thanks, my friend! :-) ---------------------------------------- > > with Metta Dieter > =================== With metta, Howard #70923 From: "Robert" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: a question avalo1968 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your insights and encouragement. I am working on Robert K's links. I am sure I will find them helpful. When I first come to an online group, such as did a few days ago to DSG, it is always interesting to see how the particular themes of discussion on that group show me the places I am stuck in most stark relief, and in this way, DSG has been of great value. With Appreciation, Robert A. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob A, > I appreciate very much your sympathetic post. You also emphasize > right speech and this is important. > When there is harsh speech we lack metta. The Buddha teaches us that > we should see others as our children, that is metta. I appreciate > your insistence on applying the dhamma in your life. <....> #70924 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > In fact, if there were, for each of us, but one > lifetime, being born out of nothing, then enjoying (or tolerating) up to 100+ > years of "life", and then followed by nothing, what would be the point of the > Dhamma? The up-to-100+ years go by in a flash. (Young folks take heed!) So, > simply handle them as best one can and that's that! What problem would there be to > solve that wouldn't be solved by the alleged annihilation coming at the end of > the one and only lifetime? The end of dukkha would come on its own, and it > would be, exactly, death! >++++++ Dear Howard, james , Nina, Right, I can never understand why anyone would be interested in Dhamma if they believe in just one life. Robert #70925 From: connie Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:53 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) nichiconn Dear Friends, In the last episode, Khema had been reborn in the Taavati.msa realm. "Tato cutaa yaamamaga.m, tatoha.m tusita.m gataa; tato ca nimmaanarati.m, vasavattipura.m tato. "Yattha yatthuupapajjaami, tassa kammassa vaahasaa; tattha tattheva raajuuna.m, mahesittamakaarayi.m. "Tato cutaa manussatte, raajuuna.m cakkavattina.m; ma.n.daliina~nca raajuuna.m, mahesittamakaarayi.m. "Sampatti.m anubhotvaana, devesu manujesu ca; sabbattha sukhitaa hutvaa, nekakappesu sa.msari.m. "Ekanavutito kappe, vipassii lokanaayako; uppajji caarudassano, sabbadhammavipassako. Passing away from there, I went to the Yaama realm. From there I went to the Tusita realm, and from there the Nimmaanarati realm; from there, the dwelling place of Vasavattii. Wherever I was reborn, thanks to that deed, I ruled there as chief queen of kings [of those deva realms]. Passing away from there, in human lives, I ruled as the chief queen of a king who was a wheel-turning monarch and of kings ruling a country. I enjoyed prosperity among devas and men. I was happy everywhere, journeying on for many aeons. Ninety-one aeons ago, there was a Leader named Vipassii who was born, pleasant to behold, clearly seeing all phenomena. "Tamaha.m lokanaayaka.m, upetvaa narasaarathi.m; dhamma.m bha.nita.m sutvaana, pabbaji.m anagaariya.m. "Dasavassasahassaani, tassa viirassa saasane; brahmacariya.m caritvaana, yuttayogaa bahussutaa. "Paccayaakaarakusalaa, catusaccavisaaradaa; nipu.naa cittakathikaa, satthusaasanakaarikaa. "Tato cutaaha.m tusita.m, upapannaa yasassinii; abhibhomi tahi.m a~n~ne, brahmacaariiphalenaha.m. "Yattha yatthuupapannaaha.m, mahaabhogaa mahaddhanaa; medhaavinii siilavatii, viniitaparisaapi ca. I went up to that Leader of the World, the Charioteer of Men, and heard him proclaim the Doctrine. Then I went forth to the homeless state. I lived the holy life for ten thousand years in the teaching of that Hero, intent on meditation and of great learning. Skilled in the division of causes and skilled in the four [noble] truths, I was a subtle, brilliant speaker, complying with the teachings of the Teacher. When I died there, I was reborn in the Tusita realm. I was renowned there, of superior knowledge as a result of having led the holy life. Wherever I was reborn, I was wealthy, of great wealth, intelligent, virtuous, and had a disciplined assembly. ==== to be continued, connie #70926 From: "colette" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:22 am Subject: Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? ksheri3 Good Morning TG and Nina, I'd like to comment on this: > > TG: At any rate, this is the same type of pattern I see when abhidhamma > commentarial positions are with certainty credited as the Buddha's > own statements, > even though they are not. colette: this type of Lobha, misinterpetation, of the Illusion we call REALITY occurs everywhere all of the time (see Citta: it rises and falls at the same time). This is a good topic, subject, concept, to meditate on. Meditating on this specific topic will also reinforce the knowledge of the fundamental buddhist priciples and doctrine in YOUR consciousness -- although I haven't studied it much yet I believe it has to do with FERMENTATION. I believe that you will find through meditation on this topic that it is an individual that starts "the hype", the false notion, WRONG VIEW. A little further meditation may bring you to the consciousness that at one time you were that person and may still be that person. It's an individual thing that only you can determine, figure out. ------------------------ They are just interpretations you and other > have > made and are so sure of yourselves, colette: now we get into the uncertain of this thing we call life, living. A fundamental part of buddhism I found unbelievable to notice at the begining of my real deep study of it was that there actualy is information out there for the neophyte concerning DELUSIONS, my past experience in the esoteric allows me to see Dion Fortune's phraseology "Phantasms". Now stay with me here! Your mind sees, pictures, an illusion, and THEN actually cognizes the illusion. This cognition sets into motion the fatal mistake, for lack of better terminology. Now the mind is off running after hallucinations, jousting at windmills and such. Experience is one of the greatest teachers if not the greatest. when you experience something then you imprint a mental construct of the thing experienced. This is what you'll be forced to use, apply as your reflection. Experience allows you to consider the differentiations involved in the mental construction of the thing. This way you can stay conscious as to the validity of the and any cognition. "are so sure of yourselves," colette: a lot of this is guesswork at first until you begin to see and experience the actual dharma, dhamma. Certainty takes a lot of time to develope which also direcly means CONFIDENCE in yourself, lack of DOUBT. Maybe we can say FAITH. -------------- that you think the Buddha stated > them. This > to me is dangerous waters for a "truth seeker." COLETTE: THROUGH EXPERIENCE you learn that the truth is a very transient thing before you begin to really recognize that the truth actually is a dual thing: Relative and Ultimate TRUTH. Danger, Ha! The actual, real, danger is not trying, to allow fear to restrain you: that, my friend, is the perfect definition of CLINGING. Clinging to fear and clinging to hallucinations can only manifest a losing hand. > ------- > N: We are all truth seekers, it is a struggle to persevere and > realize the truth of Dhamma. colette: I like the answers you've been giving, shows a lot of experience, dwelling on the topics, subjects. Perservere = ? Realize = ? Where exactly can we find DESIRE? A runner can never cross the finish line if the runner never starts. Only the sotaapanna has eradicated doubt. > As to the Abhidhamma, this is a wide subject. You could read the > links Rob K just gave to Rob A. colette: I obtained my Abhidharma from the Kandy Buddhist Publishing Society. thanx for the thoughts. Have fun on the trip. toodles, colette #70927 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable jonoabb Hi Larry LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > J: "It is certainly not vipaka, to my understanding." > > L: If being run over by a car is kamma, so be it. > I was not saying that being run over by a car is kamma. I was referring to your comment, "And if you are a chauffeur that is not quite as agreeable as being the owner." That difference in experience of hardness would be one of mind-door perception, not of vipaka, as I see it. > According to my own > understanding you, being an upstanding responsible citizen, are the > expert on all things vipaka: > > CMA p. 172 "The Sammohavinodanii states that the distinction between the > intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average > man (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is found > desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men > such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and > merchants." " > I read this as meaning the agreeable and disagreeable are what are so to most people, i.e. not to people who have unusual predilections for particular sense-door objects. > L: Could you give me an example of undesirable visible data and explain > why it is undesirable? > A too-bright light would be an example of an undesirable visible object. It is undesirable for the same reason that a too-loud (or grating) sound would be. Jon #70928 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 4/22/07 10:56:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, connieparker@... writes: > I went up to that Leader of the World, the Charioteer of Men, and heard > him proclaim the Doctrine. Then I went forth to the homeless state. > I lived the holy life for ten thousand years in the teaching of that > Hero, intent on meditation and of great learning. > Skilled in the division of causes and skilled in the four [noble] > truths, I was a subtle, brilliant speaker, complying with the teachings of > the Teacher. > ======================== If the foregoing is not to be taken as mere legend, how do you think it is to be understood? With the 10,000 years lasting over multiple lifetimes? And whether multiple lifetimes or a single one, would that be on this planet Earth, or in another star system altogether, or even in some heaven realm? My inclination is to give it a figurative reading, but I am open to alternatives. With metta, Howard #70929 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate lbidd2 Hi Scott, I think the main point of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments is that we not only cling to self view, we also cling to views about there being no self. I know, from time to time, I certainly do. Clinging to views is the first clinging to be dropped and it would be good to recognize it when it arises. We can cling to any kind of view, even right view. The decision to translate anatta as "not self" rather than "no self" is an attempt to point to the present moment, where anatta is found. Below I respond to some of your concerns but I think we could recognize that my comments and your comments are both views. Clinging is optional. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Larry and Herman, > > Okay, okay. > > S: "...I'd be happy to just outline my concerns off-list, for your > consideration." > > L: "Pish-posh just spit it out. These words aren't slings and arrows." > > H: "Rest assured Scott, that in posting what I did I was not > championing any particular commentator. I, for one, would certainly > not be offended by well-argued criticism of any commentator. Just > thought it may be useful to know, for the sake of the discussion." > > Scott: While I'm hoping to learn more from you, Herman, about > 'well-argued criticism', it was your 'Pish-posh', Larry, that > convinced me - brilliant! I believe you're the first to ever exhort > me in such a fashion. If you use this in spoken word, I'm going to > form a sect with you as our Leader. > > The text: > > 1) "...Although the concept 'not-self' is a useful way of > disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to > suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many > metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." > > 2) "...Thus although the person on the Path must make use of Right > View he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of release. > For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no > 'subject' or 'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience > or thing experienced. There is simply the experience in & of itself." > > 3) "...Whether or not these four arguments are in fact true to the > Buddha's teachings, it is important to remember his primary aim in > presenting the doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those > who put it to use can gain release from all suffering & stress." > > In the first segment, I disagree a) that 'not-self' is a 'concept', b) > that a concept of any kind can be 'a useful way of disentangling > oneself from the attachments and clingings...', and c) that 'the view > that there is no self' is (i) a view, and (ii) an ontological or > metaphysical one. ------------------------- L: a) Somewhere in Vism. there is a note to the effect that all three tilakkhana are concepts. This presents a bit of a problem that, to my mind, is not entirely resolved. A resolution is offered, but I don't remember what it is. b) well, there's jhana, which takes a concept as object, but, more close to home, haven't the concepts that we fling around at dsg and of course the sacred texts led to at least a little disentangling? c) you don't think there are opinions about 'no self'? -------------------------- > > In the second segment, I disagree a) that Right View, as 'not-self', > is something that can be 'used' by a person, and furthermore, b) 'on > the Path' or not, experience occurs in the same way and by the same means. --------------------------- L: a) I think "used" can be analyzed as a prompted consciousness. b) we might possibly say the difference between the experience of "a person on the path" and and "one who has attained the goal" ( a path moment) is the difference between prompted and unprompted consciousness. There are other factors involved, most notably a change of lineage consciousness, but it's hard to say it is the same kind of experience. ---------------------------- > > In the third segment, I disagree that 'not-self' was merely a teaching > device employed by the Buddha, which is how I read the statement. ----------------------------- L: I read it as saying the Buddha taught anatta in order to lead beings to nibbana, which he did. ---------------------------- > > Anatta is, in my opinion, a real characteristic of all conditioned > dhammas. While ideas about anatta can be conceptualised and thought > about, it is not thinking about anatta that does the disentangling > (rather it likely creates more tangles). In relagating anatta to the > level of ontological or metaphysical premise, is to strip it of any > actuality. > > Right View (pa~n~na) cannot be 'used' by any one for any purpose. > This is because I consider that the actuality of anatta renders the > 'use' of any dhamma by a 'person' to be impossible. This is due to > there being no control over any dhamma. Right View arises and can > condition other dhammas but Right View cannot be picked up by anyone > to be used as a tool. > > 'The Path' is not something anyone is on, it is > a moment of consciousness. I don't think that the ongoing > momentary functioning of dhammas is altered by lower levels of the > Path. 'Experience' would be the same, understanding would be > stronger. I think that talk about 'no construing' and 'simply the > experience' is just window dressing. > > To say that anatta is pedagogical is to totally misunderstand anatta. > > Have at it, lads. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > L: Thanks for expressing your views. Larry #70930 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections N, no 10 jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon (and Howard), > > On 20/04/07, jonoabb wrote: > >> When discussing the meaning of the words spoken by the Buddha, the >> consciousness may be kusala or it may be akusala. I don't think it >> matters. What matters is the attempt to communicate as best we can >> the meaning of the words spoken by the Buddha as understood by us. >> > > You wrote to Howard > > "What we take for well-intentioned effort to bring about kusala is > really akusala of some form or other." > > Surely then the intention of having dhamma discussions is also akusala? > To my understanding, the mere intention to do an act that, if done, would be a kusala act is not itself kusala. However, an appreciation of the value of kusala would be kusala (a form of samatha) as would the actual preparation of the carrying out of an act of kusala. Wanting to have more kusala and less akusala is unlikely, I think, to involve much kusala if any. Likewise wanting to replace the presently arising dosa (say) with metta. But I speak for myself and not for others. > What you didn't say to Howard, but you do say here, is that it doesn't > matter whether consciousness is kusala or akusala. Which I can > appreciate, because it means we can safely dispense with the > Dhammasangani :-) > Have you taken me out of context by any chance? ;-)) Just for the record, I was trying to explain, in reply to a comment of yours, that a kusala (i.e. kusala-only) consciousness was not a prerequisite to participation in a discussion about the teachings. Jon #70931 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Larry) - In a message dated 4/22/07 11:27:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > A too-bright light would be an example of an undesirable visible > object. It is undesirable for the same reason that a too-loud (or > grating) sound would be. > ======================== But, Jon, it seems to me that it isn't the visible object or the intense sound per se that is undesirable, but the bodily sensation resulting (informally, the physical pain) that is. In other cases, it may be mental associations that are disliked. But I don't think the sights and sounds themselves are anything but neutral. With metta, Howard #70932 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable lbidd2 Hi Jon, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Larry > > LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > > J: "It is certainly not vipaka, to my understanding." > > > > L: If being run over by a car is kamma, so be it. > > > > I was not saying that being run over by a car is kamma. I was referring > to your comment, "And if you are a chauffeur that is not quite as > agreeable as being the owner." That difference in experience of > hardness would be one of mind-door perception, not of vipaka, as I see it. ---------------------------- L: I think we are getting our stories scrambled a little, but with regard to discriminating between owner and chauffeur it could be an investigation consciousness. Do you see any difference in kamma vipaka between a king and his servant? (Kings and servants anxiously await your decision.) ----------------------------- > > > According to my own > > understanding you, being an upstanding responsible citizen, are the > > expert on all things vipaka: > > > > CMA p. 172 "The Sammohavinodanii states that the distinction between the > > intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average > > man (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is found > > desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men > > such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and > > merchants." " > > > > I read this as meaning the agreeable and disagreeable are what are so to > most people, i.e. not to people who have unusual predilections for > particular sense-door objects. ------------------------ L: I agree. How do people determine what is agreeable? Does this determination change from time to time? Does it vary between different groups of people? ------------------------ > > > L: Could you give me an example of undesirable visible data and explain > > why it is undesirable? > > > > A too-bright light would be an example of an undesirable visible > object. It is undesirable for the same reason that a too-loud (or > grating) sound would be. ------------------------- L: I think this might relate to the earth element in light and sound and an unpleasant feeling associated with body consciousness of earth element. But what about a sour note? Would you classify a sour note as disagreeable? I would say it depends on context. The exact same note could be perfect in a certain kind of music. This is simply a matter of consensus values. > > Jon > Larry #70933 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path moellerdieter Hi Sukinda , I continue.. you wrote : ' No I don't agree with this idea of "different approach", sorry. Putting aside who I am and what I do, in the end there are only conditioned dhammas, *all* with the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta and this is what I need to realize.' 'I am not sure if the reference to the individuals here is ariyans, monks or everyone in general. Indicating "those who has attained neither internal tranquility of awareness" seems to point it more to the general. But it doesn't matter, since it is true that there are jhana attainers, dry vipassana attainers, those who attain neither and those who attain both. It is also true that all levels of kusala is 'good and worthy of pursuit' if and when possible. Even an ariyan who has attained through dry-insight, he could and should be encouraged to develop other forms of kusala; insight can't be expected to arise all the time after all. So with those who have attained neither. I agree with the above, so what is the problem...? Are you saying that all this is a matter of choice? D: No, I say that is a matter of type /character ... as you may know the Abhidhamma quite well , I wonder whether you studied the Puggalapannatti . There is a nice essay The Jhanas in Theravada .. by Bhikkhu Henepola Gunaratana..please see http://www.budsas.org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas06.htm Seven Types of Disciples The sevenfold typology is originally found in the Kitagiri Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (M.i,477-79) and is reformulated in the Puggalapannatti of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This typology classifies the noble persons on the paths and fruits into seven types: 1. the faith-devotee (saddhanusari), 2. the one liberated by faith (saddhavimutta), 3. the body-witness (kayasakkhi), 4. the one liberated in both ways (ubhatobhagavimutta), 5. the truth-devotee ( dhammanusari), 6. the one attained to understanding (ditthipatta), and 7. the one liberated by wisdom (pannavimutta). Suk: Your understanding seems to be that the factors of the N8FP is about developing these eight limbs separately. D: No, I agree with Nyanatiloka , which I believe is what you see to be 'mainstream' view quote from his dictionary refering to 'Magga' As many of those who have written about the Eightfold Path have misunderstood its true nature, it is therefore appropriate to add here a few elucidating remarks about it, as this path is fundamental for the understanding and practice of the Buddha's .teaching. First of all, the figurative expression 'path' should not be interpreted to mean that one has to advance step by step in the sequence of the enumeration until, after successively passing through all the eight stages, one finally may reach one's destination, Nibbana. If this really were the case, one should have realized, first of all, right view and penetration of the truth, even before one could hope to proceed to the next steps, right thought and right speech; and each preceding stage would be the indispensable foundation and condition for each succeeding stage. In reality, however, the links 3-5 constituting moral training (sila), are the first 3 links to be cultivated, then the links 6-8 constituting mental training (samadhi), and at last right view, etc. constituting wisdom (pañña). It is, however, true that a really unshakable and safe foundation to the path is provided only by right view which, starting from the tiniest germ of faith and knowledge, gradually, step by step, develops into penetrating insight (vipassana) and thus forms the immediate condition for the entrance into the 4 supermundane paths and fruits of holiness, and for the realization of Nibbana. Only with regard to this highest form of supermundane insight, may we indeed say that all the remaining links of the path are nothing but the outcome and the accompaniments of right view. Regarding the mundane (lokiya) eightfold path, however, its links may arise without the first link, right view. Here it must also be emphasized that the links of the path not only do not arise one after the other, as already indicated, but also that they, at least in part, arise simultaneously as inseparably associated mental factors in one and the same state of consciousness. Thus, for instance, under all circumstances at least 4 links are inseparably bound up with any kammically wholesome consciousness, namely 2, 6, 7 and 8, i.e. right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration (M. 117), so that as soon as any one of these links arises, the three others also do so. On the other hand, right view is not necessarily present in every wholesome state of consciousness. unquote Suk: The understanding that goes around here and which to me seems to be the correct one, is that these eight factors refer to "mental factors" arising at the moment of Path consciousness when Nibbana is the object, (perhaps the reason why they are referred to as 'Noble' to begin with?). D: you are talking about the Noble One's Path /state , which is not yet our 'field ', isn't it? Stressing from above : 'only by right view which, starting from the tiniest germ of faith and knowledge, gradually, step by step, develops into penetrating insight (vipassana) and thus forms the immediate condition for the entrance into the 4 supermundane paths and fruits of holiness, and for the realization of Nibbana. ' Suk: During mundane moments, which is when the 'practice'/satipatthana happens, five or six(including one of the three virati mental factors) of these arises, and *this* constitute Bhavana or development. I do not wish to go into more details about this at this point, but I would like to ask you this; "if to be taken separately, at the absence of Right View, how are the other factors developed? What determines that they do?" D: Repeating from above : ' Regarding the mundane (lokiya) eightfold path, however, its links may arise without the first link, right view.' with Metta Dieter #70934 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for your reply: The text: 1) "...Although the concept 'not-self' is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." 2) "...Thus although the person on the Path must make use of Right View he or she goes beyond all views on reaching the goal of release. For a person who has attained the goal, experience occurs with no 'subject' or 'object' superimposed on it, no construing of experience or thing experienced. There is simply the experience in & of itself." 3) "...Whether or not these four arguments are in fact true to the Buddha's teachings, it is important to remember his primary aim in presenting the doctrine of not-self in the first place: so that those who put it to use can gain release from all suffering & stress." L: "I think the main point of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments is that we not only cling to self view, we also cling to views about there being no self. I know, from time to time, I certainly do. Clinging to views is the first clinging to be dropped and it would be good to recognize it when it arises. We can cling to any kind of view, even right view. The decision to translate anatta as "not self" rather than "no self" is an attempt to point to the present moment, where anatta is found." Scott: I think that there is an important distinction to be made between clinging (upaadaana) and clung-to (upaadi.n.na). The point may be made that clinging to views is akusala, and this is true. I think the more salient point, though, is that a view (di.t.thi) regarding anatta differs from anatta-proper as a characteristic of unconditioned dhammas. Samma-di.t.thi would not condition throwing the baby out with the bathwater, such as stating that anatta is taught only to warn about clinging to views. ------------------------- Me: "In the first segment, I disagree a) that 'not-self' is a 'concept' L: a) Somewhere in Vism. there is a note to the effect that all three tilakkhana are concepts. This presents a bit of a problem that, to my mind, is not entirely resolved. A resolution is offered, but I don't remember what it is. Scott: In Visuddhimagga, XXI, Note 4 (p.846): "'These modes, [that is the three characteristics,] are not included in the aggregates because they are states without individual essence (asabhaava-dhammaa); and they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences (pa~n~natti-visesaa) that are reason for differentiation in the explaining of dangers in the five aggregates, and which are allowable by common usage in respect of the five aggregates,'(Pm.824)." Scott: This is perfect for the purposes of teasing out the way to understand conventional versus ultimate in discourse. I think the asabhaava-dhammaa are realities upon which conceptual differences (pa~n~natti-visenaa) are constructed. One cannot say, for example, of apo-dhaatu, that it is concept merely because it cannot be directly experienced. Or that the derived ruupaa are conceptual, not also paramattha-dhammaa. See here, in Visuddhimagga, VIII, Note 62, (p.786): "'...Just as, when a man who is looking for a snake discovers (experiences) its abode, the snake is, as it were, already discovered (experienced) and caught, owing to the ease with which he will then be able to catch it with charms and spells[?!], so too, when the object, which is the abode of the happiness, is experienced (discovered), then the happiness itself is experienced (discovered) too, owing to the ease with which it will be apprehended in its specific and general characteristics. 'By his penetration of its characteristics': by penetration of the specific and general characteristics of happiness. For when the specific and general characteristics of anything are experienced then that thing is experienced according to reality', (Pm.276)." Me: "b)...that a concept of any kind can be 'a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments and clingings...'" L: "b) well, there's jhana, which takes a concept as object, but, more close to home, haven't the concepts that we fling around at dsg and of course the sacred texts led to at least a little disentangling?" Scott: Yes, but jhaana (the abiding), while suppressing defilements for a time by virtue of being consciousness on a different plane, does nothing to alter the constituents of the so-called 'stream', such as does the Path. I think I see where you are coming from here. Yes we fling concepts hither and yon at DSG Me: "c) that 'the view that there is no self' is (i) a view, and (ii) an ontological or metaphysical one." L: "c) you don't think there are opinions about 'no self'?" Scott: For sure there are. I just don't think these alter the reality of the characteristic. -------------------------- Me: "In the second segment, I disagree a) that Right View, as 'not-self', is something that can be 'used' by a person, and furthermore, b) 'on the Path' or not, experience occurs in the same way and by the same means." --------------------------- L: "a) I think "used" can be analyzed as a prompted consciousness. b) we might possibly say the difference between the experience of "a person on the path" and and "one who has attained the goal" ( a path moment) is the difference between prompted and unprompted consciousness. There are other factors involved, most notably a change of lineage consciousness, but it's hard to say it is the same kind of experience." Scott: I think you show evidence of understanding the difference between conventional designations and ultimate realities in what you say above, but I doubt that this same can be said for the ideas put forth in the text above. I'd like to hear more about prompted and unprompted consciousness in this regard. ---------------------------- Me: "In the third segment, I disagree that 'not-self' was merely a teaching device employed by the Buddha, which is how I read the statement." ----------------------------- L: I read it as saying the Buddha taught anatta in order to lead beings to nibbana, which he did. Scott: Fair enough. Thanks for discussing. Sincerely, Scott. ---------------------------- #70935 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:40 am Subject: Vibhanga: Analysis of Knowledge (Nina's and Sarah's B'day Present) TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Nina In order to respond to Sarah's birthday request, I randomly skimmed the Vibhanga and found this quote. I am interested in comments from you two and or others... My English translation has this on page 429. Analysis of Knowledge #785 through #792. I'm going to summarize this section to save time. "All wisdom sometimes is past; sometimes is future; sometimes is present." It continues to list -- "wisdom that has a past object; wisdom that has a future object; and wisdom that has a present object." Then... "All wisdom is sometimes internal; sometimes external; sometimes internal and external." It continues to list -- "wisdom that has internal object; wisdom that has external object; wisdom that has both internal and external object. TG's comment... These categories correspond to the Suttas. It seems to me for wisdom to have past or future object, it needs to be partially conceptually based. This would also be the case with external object based wisdom. Do you agree? If this is the case, it seems some of the wisdom the Buddha taught is NOT based on knowing the present moment; but rather, insight into the nature of phenomena whether that knowledge arise due to awareness of the present moment, or by other means. Happy Birthday! TG #70936 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vibhanga: Analysis of Knowledge (Nina's and Sarah's B'day Present) nilovg Dear TG, The omniscience of the Buddha encompassed past, future and present. He could penetrate the true nature of whatever he directed his attention to. Nina. Op 22-apr-2007, om 19:40 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > If this is the case, it seems some of the wisdom the Buddha taught > is NOT > based on knowing the present moment; but rather, insight into the > nature of > phenomena whether that knowledge arise due to awareness of the > present moment, > or by other means. #70937 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] good wishes to Howard. nilovg Hi Howard, thanks for your good wishes. But for you there are special celebrations: your birthday and your weddingday. Was it forty years? Best wishes also to Rita, and I am sure you have special festivities instead of the cancelled cruise. Also best wishes for recovery from your sickness. Nina and Lodewijk. Op 22-apr-2007, om 14:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > My belated birthday wishes to you, Nina - a very young lady, whatever > years have passed! #70938 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vibhanga: Analysis of Knowledge (Nina's and Sarah's B'day Present) TGrand458@... Hi Nina In a message dated 4/22/2007 1:07:23 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear TG, The omniscience of the Buddha encompassed past, future and present. He could penetrate the true nature of whatever he directed his attention to. Nina. Op 22-apr-2007, om 19:40 heeft _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) het volgende geschreven: > If this is the case, it seems some of the wisdom the Buddha taught > is NOT > based on knowing the present moment; but rather, insight into the > nature of > phenomena whether that knowledge arise due to awareness of the > present moment, > or by other means. TG: I don't understand this answer. The Buddha has instructed others in many suttas to be aware of these things. Its has nothing to do with "a Buddha's omniscience" IMO. It is the way he teaches to instruct others to develop insight. The Satipatthana deals with internal and external; and there are several suttas in Samyutta that deal with using the past or future objects, as well as present, as grounds to develop insight. TG TG #70939 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] good wishes to Howard. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 4/22/07 3:52:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > thanks for your good wishes. > But for you there are special celebrations: your birthday and your > weddingday. Was it forty years? Best wishes also to Rita, and I am > sure you have special festivities instead of the cancelled cruise. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Nina, from both of us! You are very sweet. Yes, our 40th anniversary. We *were* going to celebrate it by that marathon Mediterranean cruise with friends this month and would probably have ended up cancelling it anyway at the last minute from this "cold" or whatever it is. ;-) The actual anniversary isn't until August 20, and now we're planning to celebrate it around that time, taking both sons and their families on vacation with us somewhere in the U.S., possibly in Charleston, North Carolina or Savannah, Georgia or New Orleans, Louisiana. -------------------------------------------- > Also best wishes for recovery from your sickness. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Nina. That reminds me: I recall that you had had some health concerns. How are you doing? And Lodewijk, too - doing well, I hope! ------------------------------------------ > Nina and Lodewijk. ======================= With metta, Howard #70940 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "Thanks for discussing." L: My pleasure. Thanks for bringing it up. Larry #70941 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? egberdina Hi RobK, > Dear Howard, james , Nina, > Right, I can never understand why anyone would be interested in > Dhamma if they believe in just one life. > Robert > What would change for you when you come to the realisation that rebirth had ended for you? Herman #70942 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? egberdina Hi Howard, On 23/04/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > I agree with both of you on this matter. In particular, Nina, I > exactly share your sentiment "If I would not see the sense of all this and I would > not have firm confidence in this, I might as well not study the teachings and > turn to some other belief." In fact, if there were, for each of us, but one > lifetime, being born out of nothing, then enjoying (or tolerating) up to 100+ > years of "life", and then followed by nothing, what would be the point of the > Dhamma? Well, regardless of whether rebirth goes on ad infinitum, or comes to an end at some point, one point of the Dhamma will always remain that existence is empty of any point whatsoever. The up-to-100+ years go by in a flash. (Young folks take heed!) So, > simply handle them as best one can and that's that! What problem would there be to > solve that wouldn't be solved by the alleged annihilation coming at the end of > the one and only lifetime? The end of dukkha would come on its own, and it > would be, exactly, death! I'll ask you the same question as I asked RobK. What would change when you realise there was to be no more rebirth for you? Kind Regards Herman #70943 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate lbidd2 Hi TG, I would say TB is making a distinction between engaging the present moment or speculative philosophical views which do not have an immediate experience as object. Then, in engaging the present moment, he makes another distinction between using conceptual reasoning such as "this can't be self because it is impermanent" and the immediate nonconceptual recognition that it is not self. (That might stretch into another of TB's paragraphs.) He is trying to point out a difference between translating anatta as "not self" and "no self". Larry ---------------------- In a message dated 4/21/2007 7:42:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Thanissaro Bhikkhu: " "...Although the concept "not-self" is a useful way of disentangling oneself from the attachments & clingings which lead to suffering, the view that there is no self is simply one of many metaphysical or ontological views which bind one to suffering." Hi Larry and Scott One thing that may be objectionable is the above extract. Does not the Venerable fully contradict himself within the confines of a single sentence? I'd say yes. What's the difference between a concept (idea) and a view? If anything, a view is more likely to be freer of entanglements ... if it is right-view. Seriously, the quote above says nothing meaningful (or meaningfully correct.) TG #70944 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/22/2007 5:44:21 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG, I would say TB is making a distinction between engaging the present moment or speculative philosophical views which do not have an immediate experience as object. Then, in engaging the present moment, he makes another distinction between using conceptual reasoning such as "this can't be self because it is impermanent" and the immediate nonconceptual recognition that it is not self. (That might stretch into another of TB's paragraphs.) He is trying to point out a difference between translating anatta as "not self" and "no self". Larry Hi Larry As Ronald Reagan would use to say....(TB's analysis) sounds like much ado about nothing. ;-) TG #70945 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Sorry for the delay. I like this: H: "I write the following not to dissuade from discussing the suttas in detail, but only to caution against studying them with a belief that the meaning of the sutta is hidden in the fine detail." Scott: Just to let you know where I'm coming from, when I study the suttas the last thing I want to end up with is what I think the sutta means. I for sure don't think that the meaning is hidden in what I wind up phantasising it is. I like to find out what the paa.li is for what seem to be key terms or phrases, for example, so at least I can see what is 'beneath' the english translation. H: "This is an excerpt from that sutta...It is also an excerpt of many other suttas. It beggars belief that this formulaic statement is a verbatim account of what transpired on each occasion which a sutta remembers. Clearly, if it was understood that the meaning of each sutta lies in the precision of it's remembered detail, no scribe would have dared to add an iota, let alone paragraphs of boiler-plate text." The Pali Text Society sent me a free book, before I could choose my own, and, despite the deadly-sounding title, ('A Philological Approach To Buddhism' by Norman) it was actually quite interesting. In discussing such stereotyped phrases stemming from the oral tradition predating the written, he notes: "Interestingly enough, it has been pointed out that if we examine such stereotyped phrases in one nikaaya and compare them with the phrases in another, we find that the forms which are employed do not necessarily agree - something which leads us to the conclusion, I think, that, as we would expect, once the texts had been distributed among groups to preserve and hand them on to their successors, the precise methods of stereotyping which were employed, in an attempt to make remembering easier, were not generally the same for each set of bhaa.nakas ['speakers']," (p.66). Scott: It seems that, when the Paa.li is examined even these rote phrases differ in ways apparently related to the object of a given discourse. So no, these stereotyped phrases stem from the oral tradition period and are mnemonic devices. The meaning of the non-sterotyped portions of the suttas, I think, is insufficiently apparent by simply reading the english and thinking about it. Norman offers an opinion regarding the committing of the oral tradition to writing: "Writing down also had an effect upon the contents of the Theravaadin canon. There is some doubt about the state of the canon when it was written down. We do not, for example, know whether it was complete, i.e. whether it was in the form in which we find it today, or not, and we may well wonder whether any texts contain anything which would enable us to identify it as material added after the canon had been committed to writing. "As far as I can judge, once the Theravaadin canon had been written down, very little further change was made to it...it is not unreasonable to believe that the writing down of the Theravaadin canon was not due simply to a threatened breakdown in the bhaa.naka system of transmission in Sri Lanka, and the social, political, and economic conditions of the time, as the Paali commentarial tradition suggests, and as I proposed earlier, but also to a need to give authenticity and prestige to the Theravaadin canon vis-a-vis the written texts of other schools," (pp.116-121). H: "Again, this is not to dissuade from the study of texts. But history makes clear that Buddhism has branched into a multitude of streams, based on the interpretations of words here and there, words that were written centuries after they were alledgedly spoken..." Scott: I think that this makes the careful and scholarly study of the suttas even more important. Given that birth in a human plane is rarer than a blind turtle in an endless sea putting her head through a single floating ring, and given that one finds oneself appreciative and open to the teachings of a Buddha while his dispensation persists, one ought to be delicate and seek precision. Rather than dissuade from the study of texts, you have only shown how deeply essential this is. Thanks, Herman. Sincerely, Scott. #70946 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/22/07 7:08:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > I'll ask you the same question as I asked RobK. What would change when > you realise there was to be no more rebirth for you? > > ======================= By the time I had such a realization, everything would have changed for me, as I would be an arahant! My point was a simple one: The Dhamma provides an end to dukkha. If there were no continuation of experience at the end of one's life, there would also be no continuation of dukkha, thereby radically diminishing the importance, and certainly the urgency, of Buddhist practice. With metta, Howard #70947 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nidhi - > > This is something to keep in mind when > conversing with folks here: A good number do not meditate, some having given > up on it, and some never having meditated. > A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma practice, in > addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the Dhamma and deeply > considering it Hi Howard and Nidhi, Howard has inadvertently misrepresented the non-formal-meditators' point of view. If I can speak on their behalf I would like to stress that we do not see Dhamma practice as "something to be deliberately done." It is a conditioned dhamma. Any citta that is accompanied by panna-cetasika, and that takes a conditioned dhamma as its object, is right practice (in accordance with the Dhamma). Generally speaking, satipatthana is the practice, and magga-citta is the goal. In a more specific sense, the early stages of satipatthana are the practice, and the final stages (as well as magga-citta) are the goal. That is, they are 'pativedha' - complete penetration of the teaching." So I think you can see that we do not regard anything (in the ultimate sense) as "something to be done." That includes listening and considering. When known in their paramattha sense, listening and considering are conditioned dhammas - beyond the control of a self. Ken H PS: Howard also wrote: ------ > Also, you should be made aware, I think, that besides there being many on this list who meditate, there are also a good number who not only do not meditate but are actually opposed to it. > ------- Meditation is fine in its own right. It is wrong view that we are opposed to. We are trying to explain that nothing prescribed as "something to be done" could possibly have been taught by the Buddha. KH #70948 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? egberdina Hi Howard, On 23/04/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > ======================= > By the time I had such a realization, everything would have changed > for me, as I would be an arahant! > My point was a simple one: The Dhamma provides an end to dukkha. If > there were no continuation of experience at the end of one's life, there would > also be no continuation of dukkha, thereby radically diminishing the > importance, and certainly the urgency, of Buddhist practice. > I understand what you are saying. But this in no means diminishes that what you wrote above applies to an arahant: In fact, if there were, for each of us, but one lifetime, being born out of nothing, then enjoying (or tolerating) up to 100+ years of "life", and then followed by nothing, what would be the point of the Dhamma? The up-to-100+ years go by in a flash. (Young folks take heed!) So, simply handle them as best one can and that's that! What problem would there be to solve that wouldn't be solved by the alleged annihilation coming at the end of the one and only lifetime? The end of dukkha would come on its own, and it would be, exactly, death! You are basically agreeing that for an arahant there is no point of the Dhamma. Nor is there a point to existence and its concomitant dukkha. There is the realisation that with the ceasing of rebirth, the end of dukkha does come on it's own, and yes, it is by death. As an aside, annihilation does not properly apply here, IMO. There was never a self that was born out of nothing, and something that never was to start with could hardly get annihilated, could it? And the same would apply if talking in terms of consciousness. Consciousness is never a something, it never has existence, so again, it's non arising is not a matter of annihilation. Herman #70949 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: >> You are basically agreeing that for an arahant there is no point of > the Dhamma. Nor is there a point to existence and its concomitant > dukkha. There is the realisation that with the ceasing of rebirth, the > end of dukkha does come on it's own, and yes, it is by death. > > ++++++++++++ Dear Herman The Dhamma is greatly respected by the arahant because it is by following it that he became arahant and is now free of being reborn. This he waits for death patiently , as a good worker waits for his wages, paid for a job well done. Consider how terrible samsara is- even just one aeon is so long. And for more aeons than grains of sand in the ocean we have been continually dying and being reborn. And most of our lives were as animals or hell beings- few as human or gods. The beings who do not see the danger of samsara, who do not realse they will be reborn, are like a blind man walking towards a cliff, happily oblivious to the pain and suffering that is their future. Robert #70950 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate egberdina Hi Scott, On 23/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Scott: Just to let you know where I'm coming from, when I study the > suttas the last thing I want to end up with is what I think the sutta > means. I for sure don't think that the meaning is hidden in what I > wind up phantasising it is. I like to find out what the paa.li is for > what seem to be key terms or phrases, for example, so at least I can > see what is 'beneath' the english translation. > I have always wondered how people "know" what the meaning of Pali words should be. How does one get from a Pali word to an English understanding with any semblance of certainty of not having contributed something that wasn't there? This is not as fodder for disputation, but I just have no idea how anyone today can claim certainty about these things. Not to mention that the discourses weren't even given in Pali. I have some first hand knowledge of learning English from scratch as a teenager with a Dutch mother-tongue, and I know that that was a process of trial and error. I tried, made errors, and I could only be corrected by those fluent in English. Who are the Pali authorities that will correct us? > > H: "Again, this is not to dissuade from the study of texts. But > history makes clear that Buddhism has branched into a multitude of > streams, based on the interpretations of words here and there, words > that were written centuries after they were alledgedly spoken..." > > Scott: I think that this makes the careful and scholarly study of the > suttas even more important. > > Given that birth in a human plane is rarer than a blind turtle in an > endless sea putting her head through a single floating ring, and given > that one finds oneself appreciative and open to the teachings of a > Buddha while his dispensation persists, one ought to be delicate and > seek precision. Rather than dissuade from the study of texts, you > have only shown how deeply essential this is. > I think that the pressing nature of having to study the Pali texts would come from a prior decision that these texts contain matters of ultimate importance. To then properly study these texts one would need various Rosetta stones, whose validity again rest on a prior decision that such and such commentaries will be Rosetta stones, and those over there won't. What actually happens is that we are not so much studying the texts, but we have decided to assume the view of a certain tradition. This, to me, would be quite unsatisfactory. Happily, much of the texts are about the way things are. And that is available for investigation and confirmation, which is study of a different kind. No Rosetta stones required, only the willingness to discover thickets of views. Herman #70951 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken & Nidhi - In a message dated 4/22/07 9:00:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Nidhi - > > > > > > > This is something to keep in mind when > >conversing with folks here: A good number do not meditate, some > having given > >up on it, and some never having meditated. > > > > > A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma > practice, in > >addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the > Dhamma and deeply > >considering it > > > Hi Howard and Nidhi, > > Howard has inadvertently misrepresented the non-formal-meditators' > point of view. If I can speak on their behalf I would like to stress > that we do not see Dhamma practice as "something to be deliberately > done." > -------------------------------------- Howard: Not all non-meditators have a perspective as extreme as you, Ken, who, despite acting volitionally all the time somehow believe that volition is illusion. It is the one cetasika you strike from your lists. --------------------------------------- It is a conditioned dhamma. Any citta that is accompanied by > > panna-cetasika, and that takes a conditioned dhamma as its object, is > right practice (in accordance with the Dhamma). > > Generally speaking, satipatthana is the practice, and magga-citta is > the goal. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Goal? A goal presumes intention. There must be no goals according to you, Ken, as there is no intention. -------------------------------------- In a more specific sense, the early stages of satipatthana > > are the practice, and the final stages (as well as magga-citta) are > the goal. That is, they are 'pativedha' - complete penetration of the > teaching." ---------------------------------------- Howard: How do any of these stages come about, Ken? Without intention? Ifwithout intention, then by sheer dumb luck. The Buddha spoke an awful lot about something that you believe doesn't exist, Ken. If only he had you to inform him that any intention is illusion based on atta-belief! ------------------------------------------ > > So I think you can see that we do not regard anything (in the > ultimate sense) as "something to be done." That includes listening > and considering. When known in their paramattha sense, listening and > considering are conditioned dhammas - beyond the control of a self. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Why do you raise "self" when no one here believes in self? Raiising the issue of self as ameans to refute volitional action is to turn the Buddha against himself. Self is the bath water and volition the baby.You seem to think that the baby must be thrown out with the bath water. --------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > PS: Howard also wrote: > ------ > > Also, you should be made aware, I think, that besides there > being many on this list who meditate, there are also a good number > who not only do not meditate but are actually opposed to it. > > ------- > > Meditation is fine in its own right. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Really? Why? And do you suppose that meditation is a random occurrence, unwilled and without specific requirements? ---------------------------------------- It is wrong view that we are > > opposed to. We are trying to explain that nothing prescribed > as "something to be done" could possibly have been taught by the > Buddha. ------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! That is so utterly absurd as to be laughable. One need only read a few random suttas to see the absurdity of it. ------------------------------------------ > > KH > > ==================== With metta, Howard #70952 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, pinnacle of dhamma? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Ken, parenthetically at one point) - In a message dated 4/22/07 10:02:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > But this in no means diminishes that what you wrote above applies to an > arahant: > > In fact, if there were, for each of us, but one > lifetime, being born out of nothing, then enjoying (or tolerating) up to > 100+ > years of "life", and then followed by nothing, what would be the point of > the > Dhamma? The up-to-100+ years go by in a flash. (Young folks take heed!) So, > simply handle them as best one can and that's that! What problem would > there be to > solve that wouldn't be solved by the alleged annihilation coming at the end > of > the one and only lifetime? The end of dukkha would come on its own, and it > would be, exactly, death! > > You are basically agreeing that for an arahant there is no point of > the Dhamma. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Not at all. The point of the Dhamma would have already been made and realized for the arahant, and now s/he can make that point to many others. The arahant has already achieved the fruition of Dhamma practice in its fullest, and has already fully realized freedom and done what had to be done. (Whoops, Ken! Note the phrase "done what had to be done".) ---------------------------------------- Nor is there a point to existence and its concomitant> > dukkha. There is the realisation that with the ceasing of rebirth, the > end of dukkha does come on it's own, and yes, it is by death. ------------------------------------------- Howard: The living arahant already is already entirely free of suffering (dukkha, sense #1). Clinging to dhammas would still produce suffering, making dhammas unsatisfying (dukkha, sense #2), but the arahant does not cling, seeking no satisfaction in any dhamma. S/he has realized the ungraspable nature of all dhammas, leaving him/her utterly at peace. ----------------------------------------- > > As an aside, annihilation does not properly apply here, IMO. There was > never a self that was born out of nothing, and something that never > was to start with could hardly get annihilated, could it? And the > same would apply if talking in terms of consciousness. Consciousness > is never a something, it never has existence, so again, it's non > arising is not a matter of annihilation. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Whether consciousness arises again or never arises again is of no concern to the arahant, who already is free and traceless. ------------------------------------------- > > Herman > ===================== With metta, Howard #70953 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: H: "I have always wondered how people "know" what the meaning of Pali words should be. How does one get from a Pali word to an English understanding with any semblance of certainty of not having contributed something that wasn't there? This is not as fodder for disputation, but I just have no idea how anyone today can claim certainty about these things. Not to mention that the discourses weren't even given in Pali." Scott: How then, to deal with what we have of the Buddha's teachings, and in the form we have them? Do you suggest the texts are bankrupt? I don't think Pali is as mysterious and unknown as you seem to indicate. Is it? H: "I have some first hand knowledge of learning English from scratch as a teenager with a Dutch mother-tongue, and I know that that was a process of trial and error. I tried, made errors, and I could only be corrected by those fluent in English. Who are the Pali authorities that will correct us?" Scott: I think, again, that we must make do. I'm not sure of the point of this particular argument. There are enough Pali scholars and there is enough agreement, I would think (no proof though). H: "I think that the pressing nature of having to study the Pali texts would come from a prior decision that these texts contain matters of ultimate importance. To then properly study these texts one would need various Rosetta stones, whose validity again rest on a prior decision that such and such commentaries will be Rosetta stones, and those over there won't. What actually happens is that we are not so much studying the texts, but we have decided to assume the view of a certain tradition." Scott: This is apparently consistent. It seems to imply that nothing of the texts is to be trusted. H: "This, to me, would be quite unsatisfactory. Happily, much of the texts are about the way things are. And that is available for investigation and confirmation, which is study of a different kind. No Rosetta stones required, only the willingness to discover thickets of views." Scott: These texts which are referred to above, I wonder which ones they are? And where do they come from? And how did they come to be in the form they are such that they are read and understood to be about 'the way things are'? And what Rosetta stones were used? And who decided to use those particular ones? If I recall, the Rosetta stone was only a fragment of three or four dead languages and allowed for a reconstruction of them in order to reconstitute them. I don't think Pali was ever as near the brink of extinction as to require such a thing. If, as it seems from the above argument, it is impossible to be certain of anything regarding the current Theravaadin canon, how then can it be said that one can learn 'the way things are' from these texts and go about investigating and confirming it? Doesn't this amount to saying that the Dhamma is not knowable, due to the ambiguous condition of the texts, *and* that the Dhamma is knowable by application to these same ambiguous texts, which one can then investigate and confirm? Sincerely, Scott. #70954 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) buddhatrue Hi Howard, Nidhi, Ken H., and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken & Nidhi - > > This is something to keep in mind when > > >conversing with folks here: A good number do not meditate, some > > having given > > >up on it, and some never having meditated. Along these lines, the argument is often used in this group of "I used to be a meditator", as if it is support for a non-meditation approach to the Dhamma. This is a fallacious argument called a "Statement of Conversion": • Statement Of Conversion: the speaker says "I used to believe in X". This is simply a weak form of asserting expertise. The speaker is implying that he has learned about the subject, and now that he is better informed, he has rejected X. So perhaps he is now an authority, and this is an implied Argument From Authority. "X" has not actually been countered unless there is agreement that the speaker has that expertise. In general, any bald claim always has to be buttressed. For example, there are a number of Creationist authors who say they "used to be evolutionists", but the scientists who have rated their books haven't noticed any expertise about evolution. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html Unless Ken H., Sarah, and others who use this argument can prove that they were an expert in meditation (being a meditation teacher or recognized by other meditation teachers as being expert), the fact that they have rejected meditation practice is meaningless. It is not an argument in favour of anything except for the likelihood that they failed at meditation practice. Metta, James #70955 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >> A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma practice, in > addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the Dhamma and deeply > considering it? Dear Howard, Who would those people be? If there are any who think that why wouldn't they say so, after all Nina, Sarah etc always stress awareness of dhammas as being crucial. One question: these people, the vipassana meditators, do all of them have right view? Robert #70956 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupas Ch 7, no 4. sarahprocter... Dear Htoo (& Nina), I'm also interested to hear your further feedback on 'space' to Nina's comments below (#70542). A very complex topic. This is one post I wrote relatively recently on it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64490 Again, lots more under 'Space' in U.P. for anyone to read. Metta, Sarah > >Nina: Dear Htoo, > > thank you for your good questions. > > To answer 1: I do not understand: for the first time. > > no 2: there is also a concept space: outer space and also space as > > a meditation subject of samatha. > > no 3: space as the pariccheda ruupa is a paramattha dhamma. It is > > in the list of 28 rupas. It separates the kalapas of rupas. > > no 4: Why would the Buddha teach it if it could not be experienced? > > It is an object to be experienced through the mind-door. It can be > > experienced at the stage of insight that is sammasana ~naa.na, > > understanding groups, as Kh Sujin explained. Then kalapas of rupas > > can be experienced and also space that separates them. > > For me difficult to understand, but awareness can become more and > > more refined. Now we have a very coarse idea of hardness when > > touching, but in fact there are many processes of experiencing > > hardness and it arises in a kalapa. > > Nina. > > Op 12-apr-2007, om 10:48 heeft htootintnaing het volgende geschreven: > > > >> 1. Can space appear as an aaramma.na for the first time in viithi? > >> 2. Can it be a concept? > >> 3. Is it a true paramattha dhamma? > >> 4. In which viithi vara does space appear as aaramma.na? #70957 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free will? sarahprocter... Hi James S,(& other new members*) I liked your question on free-will and further comments. Nina and others have already given helpful responses. So just briefly, --- James Stewart wrote: >> Previously I had independently accepted a free will independent of > Atta I suppose, but now find that to be an impossible position. .... S: Yes, I think so too. ... >Still, I > have yet to reconcile the lack of a free will with moral choice. How > does one come to choose to make skillful choices without a free will > anyways? ... S: The point is that 'one' doesn't choose anything. There are conditioned dhammas which perform various functions according to particular conditions only. This doesn't mean that 'skillful choices' are not made. But it does mean that there is no atta, no 'free-will' involved in the making. ... >How can we say there is no self, and at the same time deny a > deterministic universe? What has the Abhidhamma to say of this issue? .... S: It's always a difficult topic. Now, there is wise considering and reflecting on dhammas. Such reflection is in itself a condition for 'skilfull actions' to follow. Yes, the reflection and the actions are conditioned, by many, many complex factors. However, they are not pre-determined by any God, universe or just by past kamma at all. The power of present awareness and wisdom is very important. Pls let us know if you still have further comments on this or other topics. Did you see the posts saved under 'Free-will' & 'Anatta - Control?' in "Useful Posts" in the files section of DSG? Thanks again for your questions and contributions here. Where do you live James? Metta, Sarah *p.s All new members - pls remember to trim your messages. When replying to other posts, just keep enough of them for context - no need to re-quote in full. Assume they've been read already. ============= #70958 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: PerfectionsN, no 6. sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, Good to see your messages which Nina f/w to the list. This was one: #70546 > > Van: "htootintnaing" > > Real things are real. For example man is man. Man cannot be > > abolished. Concept is concept. > > > > Man was born. He lived. And he died. > > > > Man did exist. Concept exists. .... S: It only 'exists' as an idea, in our world of thinking. it doesn't ever exist as a dhamma which arises and falls away, with a characteristic which can be directly known and understood. .... > > > > It is sa.msaraa (round) that comes to man and rotates. > > > > There are 3 rounds. > > > > 1. round of defilements > > 2. round of actions > > 3. round of results > > > > All these 3 rounds have to be stopped to arrive (sacchikara.nattha- > > ya) nibbaana. > > > > Still there is man. Man born,lives and dies. This is universal. .... S: What is this 'universal' man that 'is'? How is it experienced? ... > > > > Example_: > > > > Movie and the screen. > > > > Movie is samsaraa and the screen is man. > > > > Just food for thought that I present these words. .... S: And just as we take the movie and screen for really existing, so we do 'man' and all the stories conjured up about seeing and visible object and other realities (paramattha dhammas) appearing now, surely? ... > > > > Did The Buddha preached the word 'paramattha dhamma'? > > If yes, where in three of baskets and in which portion? .... S: See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/9847 (this is the post of Ven Dhammanando's (when a lay-man) which Nina referred to. Also, see posts saved under 'paramattha' and 'Exists' in 'Useful Posts' in the files. I think it would be helpful to pursue this topic if you're able to do so. Pls f/w your messages through any DSG members if it's difficult for you to post directly. Metta, Sarah ============ #70959 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:02 am Subject: The Seven Supreme Benefits! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Seven Benefits of the Abilities? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five abilities . What five? The Ability of Faith . The Ability of Energy . The Ability of Awareness . The Ability of Concentration . The Ability of Understanding . When these five abilities have been developed & cultivated, then seven supreme fruits and excellent benefits may be expected… What are these seven fruits and benefits? 1: One attains final knowledge early in this very life. If not then; 2: One attains final knowledge at the time of death. If not then; 3: One having cut the 5 lower chains attains NibbÄ?na in between; 4: One attains NibbÄ?na upon landing in the pure abodes. If not then; 5: One attains NibbÄ?na in this heaven without effort. If not then; 6: One attains NibbÄ?na in this heaven with some effort. If not then; 7: One is bound Upstream , heading towards the Akanittha realm. When, bhikkhus, these five mental abilities have been developed and cultivated, these seven sublime fruits and benefits may be expected. Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:237] section 48: The Abilities: 66. Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #70960 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Larry), A good and important discussion. I liked your post #70352. As you say: --- Scott Duncan wrote: > That being said, in the text of Sammohavinodani: > > "43. Although those of wrong view, on seeing such exalted objects as > the Enlightened One or the Order, or a great shrine and so on, shut > their eyes and feel grief (domanassa), and on hearing the sound of the > Law they stop their ears, nevertheless their eye-consciousness, > ear-consciousness, etc. are only profitable [kamma-] result." > > To me, this is clear as to the temporal 'locus' of the experience of > kamma-result. It is at the moment of seeing or hearing, etc. This is > either kusala or akusala independent of later feeling, which is, I > think, the conditioned dhamma. The feeling does not correspond to the > moment of result. It arises later and by conditions, I think, other > than kamma-paccaya and vipaaka-paccaya. ... S: Of course they are all conditioned dhammas. I wouldn't say 'the feeling does not correspond to the moment of result' as that is one condition, but you're right that the feeling referred to (the domanassa in this case) arises later, by other conditions. This would primarily be pakatupanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support condition), i.e. the accumulations to have unpleasant feeling with aversion on account of such objects as I understand. Look f/w to catching up on your later discussions and the Vism corner too, Larry. Metta, Sarah ======== #70961 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry sarahprocter... Dear Ven Dhammanando,(& Han), --- Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > Also, thank you for your further comments on 'pubbakicca' #69880. > > Also, very interesting. Is there an introductory section to the > > Theragaathaa commentary which includes the kind of detail you referred > > > to? > > No, it comes from the commentary's concluding summary. .... S: Thank you. How long is this concluding summary? It sounds interesting. ... > I agree with what Han wrote and with what he quoted from Ledi Sayadaw. > De Silva overlooks the fact that when someone gives a gift to a bhikkhu > with the intention that it be for the whole Sangha, the particular > bhikkhu to whom the gift is given is not himself the intended recipient > but is merely a spokesman or delegate acting on the intended > recipient's behalf. That being so, his personal good or bad conduct has > no impact on the degree of merit. When this is taken into account there > isn't any contradiction between the Dakkhi.naavibhanga and the > statements about daana in other suttas. .... S: So we all agree here on this. It seemed a strange comment coming from Lily de Silva who would have known all about Sanghika dhamma and so on. Han, thx for your further Dana Corner extracts. There doesn't seem to have been much controversy about them! I must say, I didn't find the Walshe ones so helpful. I liked the way Lily's were so 'action-packed' with sutta refs for us to consider and discuss. Do you have any comments on any of the more recent ones from Walshe's or Nina's articles? Metta, Sarah ======== #70962 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry sarahprocter... Dear Han & Htoo, (Han, thx for f/w Htoo's message to us:-)) --- han tun wrote: > --- htootintnaing wrote: > > > Dear Han, Sarah and all, > > > > Thanks for this discussions on daana. Han gave a > > good reference. .... S: I'm not sure what this was referring to... .... > > Anyway daana is the first dhamma that The Buddha > > preached to > > the public. The public did not know naama, ruupa > > etc. But they > > did know offering. .... S: Was it always 'the first dhamma that the Buddha preached to the public'? .... > > Offering or daana (deti, denti,...--> daana ) is the > > requisite > > for final attainment of the highest bhaavanaa. > > > > Daana is the initial practice. .... S: I'm not sure we can quite put it like this....Doesn't daana grow with bhaavana? We discussed all the different motives for daana, the highest kinds of daana and so on before. As for being the 'requisite' or proximate cause, I think this is said of each of the paramis in turn? More on this under 'How are they synthasized' in 'A treatise on the Paramis', comy to the Cariya Pitaka, transl. by B.Bodhi and on-line. .... > > Bodhisatta did started with daana paaramii. .... S: We read about the reasons daana is stated at the beginning, but I'm not sure if it's quite correct to say 'started with daana paaramii'? ... > > When doing a daana or offering there are three > > things that > > the donor or offerer directs his or her mind. > > > > They are the donee or receiver, the things that are > > to be > > given and finally the donor or offerer himself or > > herself. > > > > When there is wrong view then there clings to one of > > these three > > as self and then the daana is not a true daana. > > > > If one is thinking on donee or receiver whether he > > is an arahat > > or not then there might arise wrong view. > > > > There are many side-ways when doing a daana. .... S: Good to see Htoo's additional comments. Metta, Sarah p.s what are 'side-ways'? Does this mean 'angles'? ============ #70963 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) nilovg Hi Howard and Nidhi, -------- Howard: Op 22-apr-2007, om 14:42 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Also, you should be made aware, I think, that besides there being many > on this list who meditate, there are also a good number who not > only do not > meditate but are actually opposed to it. --------------- N: Opposed to meditation? This need some differentiation which I would like to add. First of all the word meditation is interpreted differently by different people. It can refer to vipassana or to samatha and each of these have a different method and a different aim. Samatha as described in the Tipitaka and in detail in the Visuddhimagga is a high form of kusala and praised by the Buddha. How could anyone be opposed to samatha when it is true samatha: the temporary subduing of defilements. Not all meditation subjects of samatha lead to jhana and several of these can be wholesome recollections in daily life, such as mindfulness of death, the foulness of the body, mettaa, the recollection of the Buddha's virtues. There are different opinions as to the development of samatha and these were and are discussed on this list time and again. As for me, I would like to refer to a link of Kh Sujin's book, Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, p. 290, 292: (end quote). N: It is mental development to lfind out when there is kusala citta with pa~n~naa and when akusala citta. It is a learning process. Everyone should find this out for himself. It takes sincerity and humbleness to admit when one has clinging to a notion of quietness, of being undisturbed. Nina. #70964 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina's little book on the Perfections 1. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, > > I wrote a few articles on the perfections, inspired by khun Sujin's > words when I was on a pilgrimage in India, many yesr ago. > ----- > The Perfections leading to enlkightenment. April 1980. .... S: It's good to read these words and articles again.... >In Calcutta I > joined a group of Thai friends who had organised this journey. Two > monks, Bhante Dhammadhara and Bhante Guttasila, had come from > Thailand together with Sujin Boriharnwanaket and other Thai friends. > Sarah (from England) and Pinna (from Singapore) had also joined this > group which consisted of nineteen people. .... S: This in itself was a reminder for me. It seems like yesterday and yet some of those people have long since passed away or are very sick...Our time will come too. Yes, this is the reminder of birth, old age and death which you referred to in your discussion with Han about 'garlands' of good deeds while we have the chance. .... > Before the unconditioned reality, nibbãna, can be experienced the > conditioned phenomena which arise in daily life have to be known as > they really are. Do we see phenomena as they really are? What appears > at this moment? Is there seeing? Is there a notion of "I see” We do > not create our seeing, it arises because of its own conditions. It > performs the function of seeing just for a moment and then it falls > away immediately, we cannot cause it to stay. Seeing which arises > because of conditions is beyond control, it is not self. The object > seeing sees is only visible object, that which appears through the > eyes. We do not see people and things, these do not appear through > the eyesense. People and things are concepts we form up in our mind. .... S: On our flight back to Hong Kong from England, I slept in snatches and listened to the various edited dhamma discussions in between. Sometimes a few words would stand out such as: 'long, long stories about visible object' and how 'we all live alone in our worlds of thinking'. Whether we are reading and reflecting on suttas, doing our daily chores, sitting on an aeroplane or whatever, there are just long, long stories about visible object and other realities. We think we live in a world of people and things, but really it's just a world of thinking about these things now. I'm very behind on my reading in the various corners - look forward to catching up on these over the next couple of weeks. Metta, Sarah p.s I hope you and Lodewijk have a good trip and we'll look forward to your notes of discussions. ============ #70965 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) wisdomcompas... hi howard thanks alot for ur response. yes u are right i learnt meditation from s.n. goenka reteat, but i myself had doubts about his interpretations of words and also about insight . so i started reading sutta, and my doubts were soon clarified. but i still go there at regular intervals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------> Also, you should be made aware, I think, that besides there being many > on this list who meditate, there are also a good number who not only do not > meditate but are actually opposed to it. This is something to keep in mind when > conversing with folks here: A good number do not meditate, some having given > up on it, and some never having meditated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------- well i have expressed my views with clarity. everybody is one's own master of one's destiny. but good that i came to know about this. it would help me in future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------- > This is interesting. You write "contemplates on/practices". Could you > clarify what you mean here? Are you taking these (contemplating & practicing) > as synonyms or as alternatives or as complementary? Also, by 'contemplating' > do you mean deeply thinking about, or do you have something else in mind? > A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma practice, in > addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the Dhamma and deeply > considering it? Is that what you have in mind by practice also? I would > suspect not quite, inasmuch as you are a "vipassana meditator". ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ -------- by contemplation and practice i mean meditation. i think first we have to start with directing our mind (i mean effort without desire of result) then the truth reveals itself. so to me contemplation/practice is directing the mind towards a particular thing and then it becomes meditation by itself. i call it experiment/contemplation/deepthinking/mediation/practice, but by all these words i mean the same, that is going to the root of thing (in one's own mind) with patience and perseverance. if one is interested deeply the truth can't hide itself, it comes up for sure. so i try to read sutta for intellectual clarity, and then try to experiment with myself. to me morality is foundation, reading sutta is for intellectual clarity, but all these are the steps that one takes for actually "seeing". i would say eightfold path/ sila is not enlightenment, but rather it is for enlightenment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ -------Okay, so here I understand you to be saying that contemplating and > practice are complementary. That is my perspective. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---- yes, because buddha himself is not present so we have to read sutta for direction and for clearing the doubts, but main thing is seeing one's own emotional, intellectual, physical reality, in as much depth and clarity as possible. and that is possible only in meditation and satipatthana. with best wishes nidhi #70966 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:32 am Subject: what is enlightenment wisdomcompas... dear friends, i have been reading some posts on this list and i think that most people here are intellectually very sharp in understanding dhamma. i would like to invite views on understanding of what actually is enlightenment. with metta nidhi #70967 From: "wisdomcompassion" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) wisdomcompas... hi howard ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------- I gained much from attending a Goenka retreat, though I hasten to add that his interpretation of what constitutes meditation for the cultivation of "vipassana" is but one of many interpretations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------- can u elaborate ur views on what constitutes meditation for cultavation of vipassana. with metta nidhi #70968 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vibhanga: Analysis of Knowledge (Nina's and Sarah's B'day Present) sarahprocter... Hi TG, Thx for the gift! --- TGrand458@... wrote: > My English translation has this on page 429. Analysis of Knowledge > #785 > through #792. <...> > "All wisdom sometimes is past; sometimes is future; sometimes is > present." > > It continues to list -- "wisdom that has a past object; wisdom that has > a > future object; and wisdom that has a present object." > > Then... > > "All wisdom is sometimes internal; sometimes external; sometimes > internal > and external." > > It continues to list -- "wisdom that has internal object; wisdom that > has > external object; wisdom that has both internal and external object. > > > TG's comment... These categories correspond to the Suttas. It seems to > me > for wisdom to have past or future object, it needs to be partially > conceptually based. .... S: In this section ('Threefold Expositon'), at a quick glance all kinds of wisdom appear to be included, i.e cintaamayaa pa~n~na, sutamayaa pa~n~na (with concepts as objects) and so on. Not just vipassana panna. Also wisdom with jhanas (which again have concepts as objects).... So, my first point is that we always have to look at contexts and see what kinds of wisdom are being referred to. In the development of satipatthana and vipassana (and of course, at moments of path and fruition consciousness) only realities are objects. Now, back to your quote. I agree that if we are referring to our wisdom, then if the object is past or future, it's definitely a concept. However, as Nina indicated, the wisdom of a Buddha or key disciples (with all abhinnas) is different. Past dhammas are penetrated/reviewed as if they were present dhammas (na-vatabba again, Scott, I understand). Just looking at the brief passages in the Vibhanga on its own, I couldn't have said if this is what is being referred to here, however, though I would assume so. (There can also be wisdom accompaning thoughts of past or future where the object is a concept as you say and recall with jhanic powers of past lives without any development of vipassana, where concepts are again the object). ..... >This would also be the case with external object > based wisdom. Do > you agree? .... S: It may just be referring to wisdom of external objects such as visible objects or sound (from outside the body). Tangible objects can be internal (of the body) or external (outside the body). Whether touching the hardness of this body or the table, the reality is just hardness, so it's merely a conceptual differentiation for clarification only. .... > If this is the case, it seems some of the wisdom the Buddha taught is > NOT > based on knowing the present moment; but rather, insight into the nature > of > phenomena whether that knowledge arise due to awareness of the present > moment, > or by other means. .... S: It seems to me that the Buddha taught about all kinds of wisdom or understanding. All understandings are dhammas which share particular characteristics of penetrating their object, being panna cetasika etc. However, whereas insight wisdom penetrates the present dhamma to varying degrees, other kinds of wisdom do not. So, insight wisdom always refers to the knowing of the present dhamma (in the cases mentioned of the Buddha's and key disciples penetration of past dhammas, it is as if they were present dhammas). For other kinds of wisdom, such as that developed in samatha & jhana, it is the nimitta or jhana-arammana which is understood in a way as to condition calm and so on. The wisdom in such cases is present wisdom (of course!), but as concepts don't arise or fall away, I agree we cannot say it is based on 'knowing the present moment' (or rather 'present dhamma'). .... > Happy Birthday! .... S: Thanks! Perhaps next year it'll be an Abhidhamma commentary:-). Oh, that sounds ungrateful, lol!! Meanwhile, perhaps we can pursue this (slowly, on my part). Metta, Sarah ======= #70969 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is enlightenment sarahprocter... Dear Nidhi, I've been enjoying you posts - questions and comments. --- wisdomcompassion wrote: > i > would like to invite views on understanding of what actually is > enlightenment. .... S: Could we say it is the 'awakened' or 'developed' wisdom which penetrates and understands the nature of conditioned dhammas and thus, the unconditioned dhamma too? See Nyantiloka's dictionary under 'Bodhi' (awakenment, enlightenment, supreme knowledge): http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/bodhi.htm "(Through Bodhi) one awakens from the slumber or stupor (inflicted upon the mind) by the defilements (kilesa) and comprehends the Four Noble Truths (sacca)" (Com. to M 10)." Metta, Sarah p.s I'd be interested if you'd tell us a little about yourself such as where you live and how you come to have such a keen interest in the Dhamma. ========= #70970 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:00 am Subject: Wonderful Meditation [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) buddhatrue Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > As for me, I would like to refer to a link of Kh Sujin's book, Survey > of Paramattha Dhammas, p. 290, 292: > on one object, and the citta is not accompanied by paññå, there is > wrong concentration, micchå-samådhi. At such moments one is attached > to having the citta firmly fixed on one object. Thanks for sharing the words of K. Sujin that inspire you; please allow me to share some words from Ajahn Thate which inspire me: "Practice meditation the same way farmers grow rice. They're in no hurry. They scatter the seed, plow, harrow, plant the seedlings, step by step, without skipping any of the steps. Then they wait for the plants to grow. Even when they don't yet see the rice appearing, they're confident that the rice is sure to appear some day in the future. Once the rice appears, they're convinced that they're sure to reap results. They don't pull on the rice plants to make them come out with rice when they want it. Anyone who did that would end up with no results at all. The same holds true with meditation. You can't be in a hurry. You can't skip any of the steps. You have to make yourself firmly confident that, "This is the meditation word that will make my mind concentrated for sure." Don't have any doubts as to whether the meditation word is right for your temperament, and don't think that, "That person used this meditation word with these or those results, but when I use it, my mind doesn't settle down. It doesn't work for me at all." Actually, if the mind is firmly set on the meditation word you're repeating, then no matter what the word, it's sure to work — because you repeat the word simply to make the mind steady and firm, that's all. As for any results apart from that, they all depend on each person's individual potential and capabilities." http://what-buddha-taught.net/Ajahn_Thate_Buddho.htm Metta, James #70971 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for your input, welcome back. "43. Although those of wrong view, on seeing such exalted objects as the Enlightened One or the Order, or a great shrine and so on, shut their eyes and feel grief (domanassa), and on hearing the sound of the Law they stop their ears, nevertheless their eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. are only profitable [kamma-] result." S: "Of course they are all conditioned dhammas. I wouldn't say 'the feeling does not correspond to the moment of result' as that is one condition, but you're right that the feeling referred to (the domanassa in this case) arises later, by other conditions. This would primarily be pakatupanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support condition), i.e. the accumulations to have unpleasant feeling with aversion on account of such objects as I understand." Scott: Right, they are all conditioned dhammaa. And again, right, the domanassa, for example, which arises later relates to the moment of result by other conditions - as you note, pakatupanissaya-paccaya. Can we say that this particular feeling (the domanassa), though, is not related to the moment of result in the same way as the feeling accompanying the moment of result itself? That is, not by, say, kamma-paccaya, vipaaka-paccaya, or other conditions of that moment? It is that feeling, conascent with the vipaaka-citta, that I was wondering about. That's the one I thought defined agreeable or disagreeable. I'm afraid I'm almost no further ahead on this. In the above - the moment of hearing the Dhamma - wouldn't this be agreeable in all cases? How would micca-di.t.thi effect this experience? That is, at what point in the process would this dhamma (micca-di.t.thi) have its effect? It would seem to me that this would be during impulsion, which is later. You add this in post #9986: "Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s. aasava), clingings (s. upaadaana), one of the three modes of perversions (s. vipallaasa). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s. Dhs.; Tab I." Scott: I cited CMA (p.172) where it was noted: "According to Abhidhamma philosophy, the distinction in the quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual temperament and preferences of the experiencer." Scott: This is clear. When citing the Sammohavinodanii regarding the matter of the 'intrinsically desirable and undesirable', however, the authors choose to use the portion which states, seemingly in contradiction to the above: "It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average men..." Scott: This is confusing, to me, since in the Sammohavinodanii, the above phrase seems to be clarified by quoting the Elder Tipi.taka Cuula-Abhaya (note that the phrase begins with 'but'): "But the Elder Tipi.taka Cuula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to [kamma-] result (vipaaka) only, not according to impulsion (javana)...Only by way of [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable. For [kamma-] resultant consciousness cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen." Scott: It will be great when you clear this all up in your next post! Sincerely, Scott. #70972 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry hantun1 Dear Sarah (and Ven Dhammanando Bhikkhu, Nina), Sarah: Han, thx for your further Dana Corner extracts. There doesn't seem to have been much controversy about them! I must say, I didn't find the Walshe ones so helpful. I liked the way Lily's were so 'action-packed' with sutta refs for us to consider and discuss. Do you have any comments on any of the more recent ones from Walshe's or Nina's articles? ---------- Han: I must thank *you* for giving me the opportunity to present Daana Corner. No, I also do not see much controversy about the later articles. I agree with you that Lily’s article was ‘action-packed’ with many suttas. Later on, when we have time, we can come back to some of the suttas for discussion. I also agree with you that Walshe’s article was not very helpful. But then, in all fairness, it was only a very short one. As regards Nina’s article, there are many useful points which are really note-worthy. At first, I thought of highlighting those passages. But I thought if I did that, I might only be dotting her i’s and crossing her t’s, and might be accused of being biased because I like her writings! Respectfully, Han #70973 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry hantun1 Dear Sarah, After sending me his last post, Htoo did not contact me again. I tried to reach him by direct e-mail, but I did not get any response. He might be reading our conversation from some place. I do not want to answer any questions based upon his writing. I would rather let him respond your questions by himself. Respectfully, Han #70974 From: "rahula_80" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:17 am Subject: Desire rahula_80 Hi, It has been some tie since I posted here. There is an issue that trouble me off and on. If Arahant or the Buddha do not have any desire, wouldn't they be just sitting there doing nothing? This is because they do not have any desire to eat, move, teach, stand up or to do anything at all. Can someone help me to see the light from the perspective of the Pali Suttas? Thanks, Rahula #70975 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:23 am Subject: Daana Corner (44) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, We have come to the last essay compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala). It is being presented in 7 parts. The following is 2 of 7 parts. Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) ------------------------------ Again, when asked, he gives to householders things appropriate for householders, and to monks things appropriate for monks. He gives to his mother and father, kinsmen and relatives, friends and colleagues, children, wife, slaves, and workers, without causing pain to anyone. Having promised an excellent gift, he does not give something mean. He does not give because he desires gain, honor, or fame, or because he expects something in return, or out of expectation of some fruit other than the supreme enlightenment. He does not give detesting the gift or those who ask. He does not give a discarded object as a gift, not even to unrestrained beggars who revile and abuse him. Invariable he gives with care, with a serene mind, full of compassion. He does not give through belief in superstitious omens: but he gives believing in kamma and its fruit. When he gives he does not afflict those who ask by making them do homage to him, etc.; but he gives without afflicting others. He does not give a gift with the intention of deceiving others or with the intention of injuring; he gives only with an undefiled mind. He does not give a gift with harsh words or a frown, but with words of endearment, congenial speech, and a smile on his face. Whenever greed for a particular object becomes excessive, due to its high value and beauty, its antiquity, or personal attachment, the Bodhisatta recognizes his greed, quickly dispels it, seeks out some recipients, and gives it away. And if there should be an object of limited value that can be given and a suppliant expecting it, without a second thought he bestirs himself and gives it to him, honoring him as though he were an uncelebrated sage. Asked for his own children, wife, slaves, workers, and servants, the Great Man does not give them while they are as yet unwilling to go, afflicted with grief. But when they are willing and joyful, then he gives them. But if he knows that those who ask for them are demonic beings — ogres, demons, or goblins — or men of cruel disposition, then he does not give them away. So too, he will not give his kingdom to those intent on the harm, suffering, and affliction of the world, but he would give it away to righteous men who protect the world with Dhamma. This, firstly, is the way to practice the giving of external gifts. To be continued. metta, Han #70976 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/23/07 1:05:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >> A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma practice, > in > >addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the > Dhamma and deeply > >considering it? > Dear Howard, > Who would those people be? If there are any who think that why wouldn't > they say so, after all Nina, Sarah etc always stress awareness of > dhammas as being crucial. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I will not be naming names. Where've you been, Robert? ;-) First if all, I have said "a number" and not "all". Secondly, the "awareness" you speak of them stressing is not something they speak of as intentionally cultivated, but as merely a condition which, IF it should arise, is wholesome and will lead to good results. The general position of the non-meditators here who do not openly say that nothing at all can be done willfully, a position of a few, is that listening to and deeply contemplating the Dhamma is all that needs to be done, with all good fruits automatically proceeding from that. If neither of these is your position, Robert, well, why not just say so and go into detail as to how you disagreee with these positions, thereby showing that you are not among those I refer to. ------------------------------------------------- > > One question: these people, the vipassana meditators, do all of them > have right view? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I, incidently, don't consider that the Buddha taught "vipassana meditation". I understand the Buddha to have taught multifaceted cultivation, involving such mental activities as maintaining ongoing mindfulness, guarding the senses so as to protect the mind and act morally, and formally engaging (primarily) in a type of in-tandem meditation that cultivates both calm and wisdom. The practice of anapanasati is an example of such. As to your question, of course my answer is "no". Do all raquetball players play well? Some don't have proper instruction. Some don't practice at all. Some don't practice enough. Some don't have sufficient capacity to be good at racquetball, at least not at present.Those latter folks would do well to build their capacity for that demanding activity by good health practices, moderate exercise, and proper eating. ------------------------------------------- > Robert > ===================== With metta, Howard #70977 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) scottduncan2 Dear All, Re: J: "Unless Ken H., Sarah, and others who use this argument can prove that they were an expert in meditation (being a meditation teacher or recognized by other meditation teachers as being expert), the fact that they have rejected meditation practice is meaningless. It is not an argument in favour of anything except for the likelihood that they failed at meditation practice." This would be, according to A List of Fallacious Arguments: "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.) Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality: Turing thinks machines think. Turing lies with men. Therefore, machines don't think." Scott: Ken H., Sarah and others think meditation practise is useless. Ken H., Sarah and others failed at their meditation practise. Therefore, meditation practise is useful. Also, an implication might be that only experts in 'meditation' can argue in its favour, which cannot be the case. Sincerely, Scott. #70978 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free will? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and all) - In a message dated 4/23/07 3:26:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi James S,(& other new members*) > > I liked your question on free-will and further comments. Nina and others > have already given helpful responses. > > ====================== People seem to mean differing things by "free will". When push comes to shove, I think that most, upon introspection, will discover that they mean an apparent randomness (and arbitrariness) to willing, so that "one" can will randomly [Note the common expression "at will"], with that willing arising without prior condition. A little more careful analysis will, I believe, show two things, however: 1) the alleged unconditioned "freeness" of the willing is a fiction, with desire being an obvious one (just one) of many requisite conditions and that desire in turn arising due to many prior and concomitant conditions, and 2) random willing itself would not even be desirable! (Something is willed for a *reason* - always, and "we" would have no interest in it otherwise.) With metta, Howard #70979 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 4/23/07 1:05:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... > writes: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > >> A number of the non-meditators here consider Dhamma practice, > > in > > >addition to behaving morally, to consist only of listening to the > > Dhamma and deeply > > >considering it? > > Dear Howard, > > Who would those people be? If there are any who think that why wouldn't > > they say so, after all Nina, Sarah etc always stress awareness of > > dhammas as being crucial. > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I will not be naming names. Where've you been, Robert? ;-) > First if all, I have said "a number" and not "all". Secondly, the > "awareness" you speak of them stressing is not something they speak of as > intentionally cultivated, but as merely a condition which, IF it should arise, is > wholesome and will lead to good results. The general position of the > non-meditators here who do not openly say that nothing at all can be done willfully, a > position of a few, is that listening to and deeply contemplating the Dhamma is all > that needs to be done, with all good fruits automatically proceeding from > that. If neither of these is your position, Robert, well, why not just say so and > go into detail as to how you disagreee with these positions, thereby showing > that you are not among those I refer to. > ------------------------------------------------- > Dear Howard Where have I been? Well I read only a few posts every week on dsg but I have written over a thousand posts and have made my thoughts fairly clear. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/13931 In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote ""Eating the congee (rice porridge) could have been a (minor) condition for the attainment at that time. In one section of the tipitaka a monk was close to nibbana and it was after getting the right food (fish in this case) that his faculties were balanced and he attained enlightenment . In the satipatthana sutta atthakatha it says that the wisdom factor of enlightenment is dependent on: "Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects. The main factors are hearing, considering and applying the Dhamma but we see other minor aspects (may)help. Once the Buddha stopped a discourse and asked that a beggar be fed first as he knew that the beggar was ready to attain - but would be distracted if he was hungry and not properly consider the Dhamma. On the other hand some monks attained arahatship only while being eaten by a tiger, or while having a severe painful illness - these things spurred their understanding."" end post Thus several things are helpful and are conditions for the bodhipakiya dhamma. Robert #70980 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/23/07 6:15:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wisdomcompassion@... writes: > hi howard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ > --------- > > I gained much from attending a > Goenka > retreat, though I hasten to add that his interpretation of what > constitutes > meditation for the cultivation of "vipassana" is but one of many > interpretations. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ > --------- > > can u elaborate ur views on what constitutes meditation for cultavation > of vipassana. > > with metta > > nidhi > =============================== Let me say instead what I consider idiosyncratic about Mr Goenka's perspective. There are two odd aspects to it. The lesser of the two is his using 'vedana' to refer to bodily sensations. That is not what vedana is. Vedana is the mental activity of affectively "tasting" any sense-object (as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral). Bodily sensations are rupas, not occurrences of vedana. The more serious of the two is his position that vipassana is exactly clear awareness of bodily sensations (and noting their vedanic nature). Now, meditative cultivation of this is actually a combination of cultivating kayanupassana and vedanupassana. These are very important aspects of vipassana cultivation, but unless they are expanded to include the other two foundations of mindfulness (as laid out in the Kayanagotasati Sutta, the Anapanasati Sutta, and the Satipatthana Sutta), the practice will only take one so far. Now, mindfulness of the body when carried all the way, implements awareness of all four foundations of mindfulness. Mr. Goenka's approach is a marvelous starting point and will, on its own, accomplish very, very much, but it is not the whole of what constitutes "vipassana meditation". There is a third point to be made that suggests to me a bit of arrogance on the part of Mr.Goenka. He calls his particular body-sweeping technique "vipassana". Actually, it is not vipassana (which is really seeing with insight) nor is it it the sole means of cultivating vipassana. There are numerous approaches, and numerous implementations of the teachings of the Satipatthana Sutta. One such, for example, is the approach of starting by attending to the breath (as Goenka does) until piti and sukha arise in the body, and then, as described by the Buddha in numerous suttas, expanding attention to these and other sensations in the body as a whole, and finally, non-selectively, to *all that arises* through all six sense doors. With metta, Howard #70981 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Nidhi - In a message dated 4/23/07 6:13:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wisdomcompassion@... writes: > hi howard > > thanks alot for ur response. yes u are right i learnt meditation from > s.n. goenka reteat, but i myself had doubts about his interpretations of > words and also about insight . so i started reading sutta, and my doubts > were soon clarified. but i still go there at regular intervals. > > ========================== Thank you for your clear and detailed reply. I found it to be wise and offering much to learn from. I particularly liked the depth of the following: - - - - - - - - - "by contemplation and practice i mean meditation. i think first we have to start with directing our mind (i mean effort without desire of result) then the truth reveals itself. so to me contemplation/practice is directing the mind towards a particular thing and then it becomes meditation by itself. i call it experiment/contemplation/deepthinking/mediation/practice, but by all these words i mean the same, that is going to the root of thing (in one's own mind) with patience and perseverance. if one is interested deeply the truth can't hide itself, it comes up for sure. so i try to read sutta for intellectual clarity, and then try to experiment with myself." - - - - - - - - - - With metta, Howard #70982 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:26 am Subject: Perfections N, no 16 nilovg Dear friends, When there is seeing there can be awareness of it in order to know it as a reality which experiences visible object. Seeing sees visible object, everything which appears through the eye-sense. Visible object is not a person. We may understand in theory that we do not see people, only visible object, but we still believe that we see people. If there can be awareness of visible object and it is known as just visible object, not a person, we will come to understand the difference between the world of absolute truth, of namas and rupas, and the world of concepts and ideas. Before we heard the Dhamma we only paid attention to the world of concepts, but through the Dhamma we can learn the absolute truth. We can learn through direct experience that seeing sees visible object, not a person, that hearing hears sound, not the voice of someone. Through satipatthãna there will eventually be less clinging to the world of concepts, the world of people, of self. Renunciation can only be a perfection if there is also the development of satipatthana. We discussed during this journey our feeling of being dependent on others which is a form of clinging. We are apt to be too dependent on our teachers of Dhamma and we expect too much from them. It is beneficial to listen to the person who explains the Dhamma in the right way but we have to consider ourselves what we heard again and again, we have to develop right understanding ourselves, nobody else can do that for us. In that way we will become independent. The perfection of renunciation can be developed by monks as well as by layfollowers. Those who have accumulations for monk-hood can go forth into the homeless life. One may have the intention to practise renunciation, one may lead a life of fewness of wishes, but if there is no development of right understanding one will continue to cling to the self. How could there then be true, sincere renunciation? If the monk observes Vinaya and also develops satipatthana he practises true renunciation and he is fulfilling his task of preserving the Dhamma. If one not only knows the Dhamma in theory but also applies the Buddha’s teachings in one’s life one can explain the Dhamma to others more clearly. The observance of the Vinaya should not be separated from the development of satipatthãna, there can be mindfulness of nãma and rupa with the observance of each rule. During our pilgrimage we had many opportunities to appreciate the monk’s life. Bhante Dhammadhara told me that in his temple the monks usually drank plain water, no coffee, tea or other beverages, and he said that he was glad to learn to be contented with plain water. Sarah had received a fund from one of our Thai friends to be spent during this journey for the monks’ needs. While we were making a boat trip on the Ganges river near Varanasi and looking at the people who were bathing themselves in the holy water of the Ganges, vendors who sold Buddhist rosaries approached our boat. Sarah wanted to buy rosaries for the monks, but Bhante Dhammadhara told her that he only wanted a rosary for his teacher and not for himself, because that would be an extra burden. He did not want to accumulate possessions. If one develops the virtue of fewness of wishes together with satipatthana one’s renunciation can reach perfection. ******* Nina. #70983 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:28 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 149, 150, and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 149, 150. Intro: in the following sections the Visuddhimagga deals with the types of ruupa that arise at the same time as rebirth-consciousness and that are also produced by kamma. In some cases the ruupa that is sex, bhaava-ruupa, is produced by kamma at the moment of rebirth, and in some cases sex is not produced. This is the meaning of the words . Also sex can be seen as twofold; as femininity and as masculinity. The ruupas produced by kamma at birth do not arise alone, they arise in groups of ruupas, kalapas. Those produced by kamma consist of at least nine ruupas: the eight inseparable ruupas (the four great elements and colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence) and also life faculty, jiivitindriya. When a sense organ or sex is produced by kamma it arises in a group of ruupas together with the nine ruupas just mentioned and thus there is a decad. More details are given in the following sections. ----------- Text Vis.: 149. Herein, The mixed is double, sexed and not, And that with sex is double too; The least decads the first has got Respectively are three and two. 150. 'The mixed is double, sexed and not': that rebirth-linking consciousness, which, leaving aside the immaterial becoming, arises here mixed with materiality, is twofold as 'with sex' and 'without sex', because it arises in the fine-material sphere without the sex called femininity faculty and masculinity faculty, and because-- leaving aside the rebirth-linking of one born as a eunuch--it arises in the sense- sphere becoming together with that [twofold] sex. ---------- N: The Tiika states that also the beings born at the beginning of a cycle are born without sex. Those beings are spontaneously arisen. In the Agga~n~na sutta (D. III, no 27) this has been explained. Beings spontaneously arisen are < mind-made, feeding on rapture, self- luminous, traversing the air...> Then craving for the savoury earth arose for them. Their self-luminance faded away. As they took more solid food, their bodies became more solid, the differences in their comeliness became more manifest, and then the characteristics of femininity and masculinity appeared. Men and women started to become attracted to each other. As we read in the Vis. text, the ruupa which is sex does not arise in the aruupa-brahma planes. Birth in those planes is the result of aruupa-jhaana, developed by those who saw the disadvantages of ruupa. There are no ruupas in those planes. As to the ‘fine-material sphere’, the ruupa brahmaplanes, birth in those planes is the result of ruupa-jhaana, developed by those who saw the disadvantages of clinging to sense objects. They have eye- sense and earsense, but not the other senses and not sex. The T.A. (Co to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, p. 251) states; < ...the two sexual conditions [N: bhaava ruupas] do not occur there since gross greed for sense-objects, which brahmas do not have is their decisive support.> ------------- Text Vis.: 'And that with sex is double too': there also that with sex is twofold because it arises in association with either the female or the male sex. --------- N: The ruupa that is sex, bhaavaruupa, is two fold: the ruupa that is femininity and the ruupa that is masculinity. ------------ Conclusion: Why are so many details given about the ruupas produced by kamma and about the planes of existence where particular ruupas arise or are absent? The reason is to show conditions in detail for the phenomena that arise. Whatever arises in our life, such as being born as a woman or a man, is conditioned. All such details help us to see that there is no person who could create any naama or ruupa. Ignorance conditions sa.nkhaara, akusala kamma and kusala kamma, which includes ruupa-jhaana and aruupa-jhaana. There are many varieties and intensities of kamma and these produce their appropriate results in the form of rebirth-consciousness arising together with ruupas that are also produced by kamma, or rebirth- consciousness without ruupa. Or, in the case of the asa~n~na-satta plane, kamma produces ruupa pa.tisandhi, no naama. ************** Nina. #70984 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:22 am Subject: Rupas, Conclusion 2 nilovg Dear friends, Right understanding is developed in different stages of insight and it is useful to know more about the first stage. When the first stage of insight has been reached, paññå, understanding, distinguishes the characteristic of nåma from the characteristic of rúpa. In theory we know that nåma experiences something and that rúpa does not experience anything, but when they appear there is in the beginning not yet direct understanding of their different characteristics. We may, for example, cling to an idea of “I am feeling hot”. What is there in reality? There is nåma that experiences heat and there is rúpa that is heat, but we tend to think of a “whole”, a conglomeration of different phenomena: of a person who feels hot. Then nåma cannot be distinguished from rúpa. It is true that, when there is the experience of heat, also the rúpa that is heat is present. However, only one reality at a time can be object of mindfulness. Sometimes there can be mindfulness of nåma, and sometimes of rúpa, and this depends on conditions. When one reality at a time is object of mindfulness, there is at that moment no thinking of “self” or “my body”. Gradually understanding can develop and then clinging to self will decrease. Rúpas impinging on the five senses are experienced through the sense- doors as well as through the mind-door . Nåma cannot be experienced through a sense-door, but only through the mind-door. Each of the sense-objects that is experienced through the appropriate sense-door is also experienced through the mind-door. We may understand that seeing sees visible object, but the experience of visible object through the mind-door is hidden. The processes of cittas pass very rapidly and when understanding has not been developed it is not clearly known what the mind-door process is. At the first stage of insight paññå arising in a mind-door process clearly realizes the difference between the characteristic of nåma and the characteristic of rúpa, and at that stage it is also known what the mind-door is. When understanding develops it will come to that stage. The study of nåma and rúpa can clear up misunderstandings about the development of understanding and about the object of understanding. Reading about nåma and rúpa and pondering over them are conditions for the development of right understanding of the realities presenting themselves through the six doors. ******* Nina. #70985 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Re: > > J: "Unless Ken H., Sarah, and others who use this argument can prove > that they were an expert in meditation (being a meditation teacher or > recognized by other meditation teachers as being expert), the fact > that they have rejected meditation practice is meaningless. It is > not an argument in favour of anything except for the likelihood that > they failed at meditation practice." > > This would be, according to A List of Fallacious Arguments: > > "Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): > > attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. I'm glad that you read the web site I linked. However, your logic really breaks down at this point. I never attacked the person; I attacked the argument. If those who claim to be converted meditators can prove that they were experts in meditation, then their claims carry some weight; if they cannot prove that they were experts in meditation, then their claims don't carry any weight. You need some more practice in debate. :-) Metta, James #70986 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Desire upasaka_howard Hi, Rahula - In a message dated 4/23/07 8:18:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rahula_80@... writes: > Hi, > > It has been some tie since I posted here. There is an issue that > trouble me off and on. > > If Arahant or the Buddha do not have any desire, wouldn't they be just > sitting there doing nothing? This is because they do not have any > desire to eat, move, teach, stand up or to do anything at all. > > Can someone help me to see the light from the perspective of the Pali > Suttas? > > Thanks, > Rahula > ============================== You might consider the folllowing two entries from Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > chanda: intention, desire, will.1. As an ethically neutral psychological > term, in the sense of 'intention', it is one of those general mental factors ( > cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the moral quality of which > is determined by the character of the volition (cetana, q.v.) associated > therewith. The Com. explains it as 'a wish to do' (kattu-kamyata-chanda). If > intensified, it acts also as a 'predominance condition' (s. paccaya 3).2. As an > evil quality it has the meaning of 'desire', and is frequently coupled with > terms for 'sensuality', 'greed', etc., for instance: kama-cchanda, 'sensuous > desire', one of the 5 hindrances (s. nivara?a); chanda-raga, 'lustful desire' > (s. kama). It is one of the 4 wrong paths (s. agati).3. As a good quality it is > a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) and occurs, e.g. in the formula of > the 4 right efforts (s. padhana): "The monk rouses his will (chanda? janeti) > ...." If intensified, it is one of the 4 roads to power (s. Iddhipada ). and > kiriya (or kriya)-citta: 'functional consciousness' or 'kammically > inoperative consciousness', is a name for such states of consciousness as are neither > kammically wholesome (kusala), nor unwholesome (akusala), nor kamma-results > (vipaka); that is, they function independently of kamma. Thus are also called > all those worldly mental states in the Arahat which are accompanied by 2 or > 3 noble roots (greedlessness, hatelessness, undeludedness), being in the > Arahat kammically neutral and corresponding to the kammically wholesome states of > a non-Arahat (s. Tab. 1-8 and 73-89), as well as the rootless > mirth-producing (hasituppada) mind-consciousness-element of the Arahat (Tab. 72); further, > that mind-element (mano-dhatu) which performs the function of advertence ( > avajjana) to the sense object (Tab. 70), and that mind-consciousness-element ( > manoviñña?a-dhatu) which performs the functions of deciding (vo??hapana) and > advertence to the mental object (Tab. 71). The last-named 2 elements, of > course, occur in all beings. > > An arahant wills and acts based on wisdom and compassion, entirely free of sense of self and of desire and clinging. His/her chanda and actions are not kamma,and they leave no kammic residue. With metta, Howard #70987 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:41 am Subject: Re: A Meditation Tip 3 sukinderpal Hi Dieter, Let's see how many pages this one will be. :-) ================================= Dieter: > we seem to be worlds apart , both thinking from eachother to take the poisonous snake with a wrong grip.. ( á simile the Buddha used to describe the wrong approach of the teaching) . Suk: I see this to be when; one is taken in by `knowledge' of Dhamma mistaking the theory and any reasoning based on this for understanding. However, when what is read is understood as being applicable to the present moment, any failure to this happening may be seen subsequently as a reminder of the need to listen, study and consider more. This then would not imo be an instance of holding the snake by the wrong end. However, wrong view can and does continue to arise, but this is another problem. ================================== Dieter: > S: 'I most likely have the least knowledge amongst members of this group, of Suttas and any other part of the Texts, and also a very bad power of recall.' > D: my first thought - sorry if it sounds bluntly - was that you come from an academic position with a lack of understanding the Dhamma by heart . Suk: I don't consider any lack of Textual knowledge, inability to recall and quote or even lack of skill in thinking logically about the various Dhamma concepts to be a handicap. And I am still not sure what you mean by "understanding the Dhamma by heart". ================================== Dieter: > The Maha Satipatthana Sutta starts ( after the introduction) with: > 'There , the monk dwells in contemplation of the body, the feelings , the mind , and the mind objects, ardent , clearly conscious and attentive , after putting away wordly greed and grief' (tansl. Nyanatiloka).. Suk: One important distinction made by some of us here is that the entire Teachings should be seen as "descriptive" rather than being "prescriptive", yes including the Mahasatipatthana and the Anapanasati Suttas. In other words we don't think the Buddha gave any recommendations to "do" anything. Dhammas after all, arise because of conditions. No one can stop any dhammas from arising if the conditions are in place. Having arisen, no one can direct any dhamma to `be', let alone to `do' and no one knows what is going to arise next. This law applies whether or not samatha/jhana is seen as necessary for vipassana, therefore any ideas about creating suitable conditions or choosing to take the path of dry or wet vipassana is in fact misplaced anyway. If read in terms of `description', the above, "dwells in contemplation of the body……" can be seen as pertaining to instances of satipatthana, "clearly conscious and attentive" to sampajanna (I think), "putting away worldly greed and grief" can be seen as the non- arising of akusala cittas by virtue of the arising of satipatthana, so I see no conflict. ================================= Dieter: that is practise of 7th step of the Noble Path. > One cannot substitute that practise by perspectives of the commentaries /Abhidhamma. Suk: Or in fact the commentaries help put `Sammasati' in its right perspective, giving it the proper and greater meaning it deserves ;-). Namely that it is a reference to a mental factor arising with other mental factors each performing their individual functions in assisting the other towards the goal of release. Or do you think that Samma sati can arise without the Samma vayama, Samma sankappa, Samma ditthi and Samma samadhi? And yes, an instance of these mental factors arising together, *is the practice*! ================================ Dieter: > These have been worked out to support the understanding of the teaching as laid down by the Buddha Dhamma/Vinaya , certainly not to start with ... Suk: By now you should see why I don't think that this is so. The Buddha *couldn't* have taught what all these meditation teachers have said that he has, namely to "sit down and meditate". ================================ Dieter: > You are ' making a point of the need to correctly understand at the intellectual level first' , but what the intellect accept to be logic , may be hearsay or a bias when not accompanied by experience, i.e. insight. Suk: It has often been pointed out here on DSG, that "pariyatti" or "intellectual understanding" of the Dhamma, is a reference to a level of *understanding*/panna. It is not mere knowledge through remembrance and logical deduction/reasoning. If this were so, then one would have to include those who study Buddhism as an academic subject into the fold of `Dhamma students'. Students of Dhamma are interested in Dhamma as it applies to their day to day, moment to moment experiences. And they realize and *do* make the distinction between "intellectual" and "direct" understanding and how the latter being of far greater value. At this point I'd like to repeat here, that A. Sujin teaches "practice / patipatti" and the importance of practice. Much of what she says is geared towards encouraging her students to understand the present moment realities. But I for one, having so much avijja and tanha arising all the time and so little panna, have almost no understanding of this level ever arising. But I do appreciate it and all the rest of what she says about the need to continue developing right understanding at the intellectual level first, including the part about the possibility of `wrong understanding' leading to `wrong practice'. This latter being what I think most Buddhists to have. Most if not all religions and many non-religions stress the distinction between `theory' and `practice'. In fact the whole idea of `formal education' is about `study' to then be able to `apply'. So this requires no great insight. Perhaps the `understanding' is in the fact that this line of thought is *not* in fact applicable to the development of wisdom. ;-) The development of wisdom being about study of conditioned and ephemeral realities and not of `concepts' and `selves', this very `seeking to apply' becomes the object/subject of understanding. That which is studied and that which does the study arises together in a moment to then fall away together instantly. Hence instead of being carried away by ideas about `conventional practices' which necessarily involve concepts of `self and situations', the student of Dhamma knowing better, is interested in practice/patipatti in the ultimate sense. He grows to understand that in fact there being only dhammas, all conditioned and equally anicca, dukkha and anatta, ideas of particular place, time, posture and any `doing' does not hold when it comes to the development of understanding. What after all is *understanding* Dhamma about if not in part that they arise and fall *now*?! But this is not easy, and I admit to still being very far, even saccannana, from this. But I do grow more and more convinced and confident that this is the direction that a proper study of dhamma takes. One grows on towards such an understanding and away from any ideas about `doing' and `applying'. It is only tanha and/or miccha ditthi which drives us to do something else. In fact even to prompt oneself to "look now" is likely to be conditioned by tanha. Wanting to `catch' realities is still "wanting" and this is accompanied by avijja. This is why I could never have enough reminders such as ones Ken H. gives, namely that "there is only the Dhamma of this moment". Others may prefer to think about `formal practice', feeling irritated by his remarks. Some in reaction come up with proliferations about the concept of "emptiness" etc, not realizing that it is the very ignorance and non-arising of Right View of presently arisen dhammas which is the reason why those ideas are taken seriously to begin with. =========================== Dieter: > The Buddha told us, not simply to believe , but to check his teaching like a goldsmith would do to check 'the genuineness of gold and silver'. > We are supposed to accept what we ourselves have recognised to be true, to be good. Suk: We start with `some' level of understanding, and I think that in itself is the test and proof. True, this would be of a very low degree initially, i.e. at some level of `intellectual understanding'. But surely, one is not expected to believe `blindly' are we? Some say that one tests the Teachings when involved in some kind of `directed practice'. But what if the initial understanding was wrong to begin with? Do we not risk ending up believing in some projection? True there may be instances of Saddha seemingly more dominant than any understanding, but some understanding must be there, no? After all saddha in Dhamma is in direct proportion to panna, isn't it? And is believing the instructions given by a meditation teacher this kind of saddha? I don't think so. Saddha in Dhamma must be related to what the Buddha has taught, and how many mediators have ever questioned the methods and programs taught in light of any understanding of Dhamma? As you know, many start and continue with the instructions given by meditation teachers and question not so much if those teachers are right, but their own capacity to follow correctly. Is such a set up encouraging of the Truth- Dhamma or is it just to "follow"? In fact the best that most meditators end up doing when not satisfied is to "follow" someone else, another meditation method. Self View is a perversion, Dhamma understanding can't be had if on one side this is being encouraged. ================================= Dieter: S: "what according to you are the conditions for samatha/jhana starting from the first baby steps?" > > D: the first steps : sit down and contemplate with a calm mind e.g. what is said in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta.. there are now MP3 recordings in the net available ...the question is whether it is possible for you to listen ... (?) Suk: No!! The need to find a quiet place away from distraction and sit with a mediation object comes as a result of a high level of understanding (of the samatha kind). For the rest of us, the whole idea will only be the object of tanha papanca and ditthi papanca, and possibly also mana papanca. So thanks, but no thanks. :-) I know this above may sound `theoretical' and may impress upon you as an instance of holding a poisonous snake. Or even what you mean by "lacking understanding by heart"? To me however, it is the reason I wish to discuss the `first steps', because I believe that this must be "now", `what' and `how much' does one understand the present moment. ========================== Dieter: > ' so, what say you' ? ;-) Suk: I won't be surprised if you will soon refrain from asking me this kind of question. ;-) But I'll understand, so be free from any obligations to respond. :-) Metta, Sukinder Ps: I saw your other post, but being very behind in my reading; you will have to wait quite awhile for a response to that one. #70988 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:40 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) nichiconn dear friends, continuing with the Apadaana verses for Queen Khema: "Bhavaami tena kammena, yogena jinasaasane; sabbaa sampattiyo mayha.m, sulabhaa manaso piyaa. "Yopi me bhavate bhattaa, yattha yattha gataayapi; vimaaneti na ma.m koci, pa.tipattibalena me. "Imamhi bhaddake kappe, brahmabandhu mahaayaso; naamena ko.naagamano, uppajji vadata.m varo. "Tadaa hi baaraa.nasiya.m, susamiddhakulappajaa; dhana~njaanii sumedhaa ca, ahampi ca tayo janaa. "Sa"nghaaraamamadaasimha, daanasahaayikaa pure; sa"nghassa ca vihaarampi, uddissa kaarikaa maya.m. Therefore, through making an effort in the teaching of the Conqueror, every attainment that is pleasing to the mind is easily obtained by me. Wherever I went, whoever was my husband did not treat me with contempt because of the power of my attainment. In this auspicious year, Ko.naagamana, the Brahmaa Kinsman of Great Fame, Best of Speakers was born. At that time, I was a child in a very successful family. Three women, Dhana~njaanii, Sumedhaa, and I, friends in a giving, gave a park for the Order in the town, and we had a monastery built for the Order. "Tato cutaa maya.m sabbaa, taavati.msuupagaa ahu.m; yasasaa aggata.m pattaa, manussesu tatheva ca. "Imasmi.myeva kappamhi, brahmabandhu mahaayaso; kassapo naama gottena, uppajji vadata.m varo. "Upa.t.thaako mahesissa, tadaa aasi narissaro; kaasiraajaa kikii naama, baaraa.nasipuruttame. "Tassaasi.m je.t.thikaa dhiitaa, sama.nii iti vissutaa; dhamma.m sutvaa jinaggassa, pabbajja.m samarocayi.m. "Anujaani na no taato, agaareva tadaa maya.m; viisavassasahassaani, vicarimha atanditaa. "Komaaribrahmacariya.m, raajaka~n~naa sukhedhitaa; buddhopa.t.thaananirataa, muditaa satta dhiitaro. When we died there, we all went to the Taavati.msa realm, and we obtained preeminence because of our fame among men. Also in that era, the Brahmaa Kinsman of Great Fame, Kassapa by name, the Best of Speakers, was born. At that time, the Great Sage's servant was the ruler named Kikii, who was the king of Kaasi in the great city of Baraa.nasii. I was the eldest of his daughters, Samanii of great fame. Having heard the Doctrine of the Best of Conquerors, I had a strong inclination to go forth. At that time, our father did not give us permission [to go forth], [so] we seven daughters grew up in comfort as princesses, and unwearying, we follwed the holy life as virgins for twenty thousand years in our home, delighting in the service of the Buddha with appreciative joy. "Sama.nii sama.naguttaa ca, bhikkhunii bhikkhudaayikaa; dhammaa ceva sudhammaa ca, sattamii sa"nghadaayikaa. "Aha.m uppalava.n.naa ca, pa.taacaaraa ca ku.n.dalaa; kisaagotamii dhammadinnaa, visaakhaa hoti sattamii. "Kadaaci so naraadicco, dhamma.m desesi abbhuta.m; mahaanidaanasuttanta.m, sutvaa ta.m pariyaapu.ni.m. "Tehi kammehi sukatehi, cetanaapa.nidhiihi ca; jahitvaa maanusa.m deha.m, taavati.msamagacchaha.m. We were Samanii, Sama.naguttaa, Bhikkhunii, Bhikkhudaayikaa, Dhammaa, Sudhammaa, and, the seventh, Visaakhaa. One day, the Sun of Men taught the wonderful Doctrine. I heard the Great Discourse on Origination and I learned it [by heart]. As a result of those virtuous deeds and of my resolve and purpose, when I abandoned my human body, I went to the Taavati.msa realm. === to be continued, connie #70989 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:40 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) nichiconn Hi, Howard, > I went up to that Leader of the World, the Charioteer of Men, and heard > him proclaim the Doctrine. Then I went forth to the homeless state. > I lived the holy life for ten thousand years in the teaching of that > Hero, intent on meditation and of great learning. > Skilled in the division of causes and skilled in the four [noble] > truths, I was a subtle, brilliant speaker, complying with the teachings > of > the Teacher. > ======================== Howard: If the foregoing is not to be taken as mere legend, how do you think it is to be understood? With the 10,000 years lasting over multiple lifetimes? And whether multiple lifetimes or a single one, would that be on this planet Earth, or in another star system altogether, or even in some heaven realm? My inclination is to give it a figurative reading, but I am open to alternatives. connie: I'm inclined to take it more literally & think it's saying she came to the teachings late in that lifetime. I think the Buddha at that time lived 80000 years, which makes the lifespan then about 100000. Speaking generally, isn't 'the lifespan' supposed to be some kind of indicator of how morally advanced or degenerate 'the world' is at the time... like now we're in some age of decline and somehow, after this Buddha's relics go up in flames and we descend into darkness, something happens to make us better overall so that lives are long again when the next Buddha shows up. ;) Don't ask me how long a moment is, please! I just figure a lifetime is a lifetime... I might think a flea's is short, but it's still a whole lifetime long to the flea. anyway, the daughter and baby are visiting today, so... later, connie #70990 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:06 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > Howard: If the foregoing is not to be taken as mere legend, how do you > think > it is to be understood? With the 10,000 years lasting over multiple > lifetimes? > And whether multiple lifetimes or a single one, would that be on this > planet > Earth, or in another star system altogether, or even in some heaven realm? > My inclination is to give it a figurative reading, but I am open to > alternatives. > > connie: I'm inclined to take it more literally & think it's saying she > came to the teachings late in that lifetime. I think the Buddha at that > time lived 80000 years, ______ Dear Howard and Connie It is standard Dhamma. Here is one sutta Digha Nikaya 26 Cakkavatti Sutta http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha- Nikaya/Digha3/26-cakkavatti-sihanada-p.html Robert #70991 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - At the end of your post, Connie, you write "the daughter and baby are visiting today, so... later." That's great! Have a terrific time! :-) I am inserting a comment below, but you can answer any time in the future - or not at all (my comment isn't very important). In a message dated 4/23/07 11:52:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, connieparker@... writes: > connie: I'm inclined to take it more literally &think it's saying she > came to the teachings late in that lifetime. I think the Buddha at that > time lived 80000 years, which makes the lifespan then about 100000. > Speaking generally, isn't 'the lifespan' supposed to be some kind of > indicator of how morally advanced or degenerate 'the world' is at the > time... like now we're in some age of decline and somehow, after this > Buddha's relics go up in flames and we descend into darkness, something > happens to make us better overall so that lives are long again when the > next Buddha shows up. > ;) Don't ask me how long a moment is, please! I just figure a lifetime is > a lifetime... I might think a flea's is short, but it's still a whole > lifetime long to the flea. > anyway, the daughter and baby are visiting today, so... > later, > connie > ========================= There seems to be no geological evidence or any other sort of evidence for homo sapiens ever having 100,000-year lifetimes on this planet, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe it. I also see no particular pragmatic virtue in believing it, but I see no particular harm either. To each his/her own. :-) With metta, Howard #70992 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (52) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Connie) - In a message dated 4/23/07 12:08:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear Howard and Connie > It is standard Dhamma. > Here is one sutta > Digha Nikaya 26 > Cakkavatti Sutta > > http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha- > Nikaya/Digha3/26-cakkavatti-sihanada-p.html > Robert > ==================== Well, quite a massive corpus of Pali, Robert. Of course, it is of zero use to me without English content. But, in any case, if this is a sutta that claims 100,000-year lifetimes for human beings on this planet, it is a sutta I do not believe. Call me an infidel! LOLOL! With metta, Howard #70993 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 5 student step - moellerdieter Hi Sukinda , All, the question you raised about the condition for tranquillity /Samatha ..etc. , seems to be of interest by other members too as I noticed when I read present postings .. hopefully you find my last comment regarding different approaches / 'The 7 types' useful After refering to the baby step of the condition (i.e. listening), I think we find a more advanced answer - which you probably expected anyway- in Samyutta Nikaya XII 23 (translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) : extract: snip .. craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering), suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)." with Metta Dieter #70994 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:15 am Subject: Virtue avalo1968 Hello DSG, In most discussions of Buddhist teachings, if the question would be asked - Why practice virtue? - the answer would be something along the lines that this practice brings non-harming, joy, calm, is helpful to meditation practice, and leads to good rebirth. As I have been reading the postings on this group, there seems to be some question about the usefulness of meditation and also whether states of mind can be thought of as 'good' - is calm good and agitation not good? So, I would be very interested is the opinions of the regular members of this group on the subject - why practice virtue? Thank you Robert A. #70995 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:41 am Subject: what is sati, to Niddhi nilovg Dear Niddhi, thank you for your post. ---------- Niddhi: but i at times dont think of leg but understand as leg moving. in buddhas words "pajanati" there are surely moments when "I" ness is there as my leg, but there are rare moments as well when we are aware of leg as leg. -------- Nina: the objects of satipatthana are not legs, arms, body, table etc. We call these concepts, pa~n~natti, they are objects of thinking. They are collections of things. The object of sati of satipatthana is one nama or rupa at a time appearing through one of the senses or the mind-door. At this moment it seems to us that our legs, our arms, our body is still there, we think of an idea of our body. When we still think of leg we take it as my leg that is there, the leg does not fall away. When we learn to be aware of for example just hardness or heat when touching our leg, these can be known as rupa, and later on the arising and falling away of rupa can be realized by insight. --------- Nidhi: as long as effort is concerned, i think that to start with we have to make an effort and then things become effortless. otherwise buddha must not have taught satipatthana. but effort must be right effort, that is the purpose of study i believe. ------- Nina: it is correct that there must be right effort, effort that accompanies right understanding of the eightfold Path. We can make efforts, but we should know that also effort is a conditioned nama, it is not my effort. Nina. #70996 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:25 am Subject: Self and Other (Re: [dsg] what is sati, to Niddhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/23/07 1:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > We can make > efforts, but we should know that also effort is a conditioned nama, > it is not my effort. > ======================== I agree with that, in that effort, like anything else, is impersonal, there being no core or personal identity associated with it. In fact, there is no identity in anything, for no dhamma exists as its own thing, depending utterly on what is other than it for its very existence. Yet, it is not a mistake to distinguish between your effort, Nina, and mine! More generally, it is not a mistake to distinguish between namarupic streams, even though they are interdependent. Neither "you" nor "I" is a graspable reality, but it is no error to distinguish these, and no error to distinguish the elements of one from the elements of the other. Interrelationships hold among the elements of one that do not hold among the elements of the other, and they are not shared. While there is interaction, there is no intermixing. In that sense they are personal. In a sense, then, it is not utter illusion to distinguish you from me and yours from mine. I directly experience my thinking and emotions and knowings, but not yours, and the same is true for you. Any comments of this, Nina? Anyone else? With metta, Howard #70997 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina's little book on the Perfections 1. nilovg Dear Sarah (and Howard), thanks for your good wishes for our trip. I sure take material along to discuss with Lodewijk, such as: what is sati. He is still searching for an answer. Good you refer again to stories, can't have enough! It means more and more to me. Like Varanasi and continuing the story after the experience of a sense object. Such experience is extremely short, but how long continues our thinking. It helps when dealing with people and situations. Speaking of a story, Howard kindly asked after my health. Tomorrow I hear the result of some heart tests (but they seemed good). The doctor is someone who sees patients like objects of science, that is all. But I try not to be involved with stories about him, also his not so good temper when he sees Lodewijk coming along! In the ultimate sense there is hearing, seeing, thinking. As Kh Sujin said: they are just dhammas. Such a saying is full of meaning. We cannot do anything about dhammas that appear and we never know what appears the next moment. So many surprises in life. I hope you write more on the story of life. Nina. Op 23-apr-2007, om 9:36 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Whether we are reading and reflecting on suttas, doing our daily > chores, > sitting on an aeroplane or whatever, there are just long, long stories > about visible object and other realities. We think we live in a > world of > people and things, but really it's just a world of thinking about > these > things now. #70998 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:22 pm Subject: Re: Self and Other (Re: [dsg] what is sati, to Niddhi) nilovg Hi Howard, This reminds me of discussions with Lodewijk about: there is no person. It is true that there are different individuals, but these are fleeting, ephemeral phenomena. It is certainly necessary to distinguish this individual from that one, different accumulated experiences, different inclinations. That is why Lodewijk said: the language is not right when you say: there is no Nina, no Lodewijk. He believes in the truth of anatta, but thinks the way it is expressed needs care. On the other hand, when one is familiar with citta, cetasika and rupa, one can also take it as a forceful reminder: where is this person we name Lodewijk? He is still there but do not think he is there forever. Even now all the rupas of his body fall away, from head to toe. And the cittas change even faster. But we forget. It is the way you take it. Nina. Op 23-apr-2007, om 20:25 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I directly experience my thinking > and emotions and knowings, but not yours, and the same is true for > you. > Any comments of this, Nina? Anyone else? #70999 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:28 pm Subject: Re: Wonderful Meditation [dsg] Re: Conventional / Ultimate (Nidhi) nilovg Hi James, I appreciate it that the teacher knows: no hurry. Impatience will not work. Further I will not say much. Nina. Op 23-apr-2007, om 13:00 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > they > all depend on each person's individual potential and capabilities.