#75800 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 9:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nidive Hi Howard, > Howard: It is wholesome thinking. (And thinking is real enough.) There can't be anything that is 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' with just thinking without the theme of thinking. There is only just thinking that goes no where. Swee Boon #75801 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 9:12 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views nidive Hi Tep, > T: I will also elaborate and give sutta quotes to support the > proposed study. Just let me know if you are interested. I will be reading & taking note of this study if it materialises. Swee Boon #75802 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 9:37 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nidive Hi Tep, > T: It might sound like I disagreed with you, but actually I did not. > Taking breathing as an example of a "concept". The Buddha and the > Arahant disciples never referred to the breaths as such. Yet they > effectively and successfully used anapanasati to achieve great > benefits. That's why I wrote "many monks graduated with the > Arahantship degree without the knowledge about concepts". Indeed, many monks graduated thus without the knowledge of 'concepts' vs 'realities'. They may not even have heard of the Abhidhamma in the Buddha's days. I think Sariputta is one of them who graduated without Abhidhamma knowledge, is it not? > T: If conepts are not real, do not exist; then it is funny that > those monks used illusions to attain arahantship. Funny indeed! And unthinkable! > > If concepts don't exist, what then is skillful resolves? > > Good question ! You should have asked Nina, Sarah, Scott, Howard, > KenH and the whole Abhidhamma gang of DSG. I think they will tell you that concepts are capable of conditioning attachment, aversion & delusion by way of some obscure Abhidhammic principle even though concepts don't really exist as realities in principle. It sounds too unbelievable (purely illogical) and requires a giant leap of blind faith to believe in it. Better to stick to what is taught in the suttas. Swee Boon #75803 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge (atta and anatta) nilovg Dear Scott, Op 1-sep-2007, om 15:56 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > But usually we are absorbed in the story we think of and find that > very important." > > Scott: Exactly. I see it as you do; you express it well. The story > is so compelling... ------- N: I agree, but it is not all the time compelling. When seeing, there is no thinking. When we are learning about the dhammas appearing through the six doors, we are intent on those dhammas and that is different from thinking of people and events. But we cannot direct anything. Nina. #75804 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:19 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I indriyabala Hi, all - This thread consists of three parts. But please do not wait till I am done if you want to comment or ask questions. I prefer having questions and answer them now, so that I can benefit from your feedback right away. According to Nyanatiloka, the "self" or atta that is rejected by the Buddhist Anatta Doctrine is "a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance". This is the same definition of self in the Vism. Nyanatiloka: "Anattaa: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattaa doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. Nyanatiloka: "This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls." ........... T: One of the most familiar quotes from the Vism. that I have seen in DSG posts is also found in Nyanatiloka Dictionary. "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbaana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." "Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII, 117). T: I agree completely with the Vism that there is no such "ego- entity, soul or any other abiding substance" in all conditionally arisen phenomena, since 'sabbe dhamma anatta'. Of course, there is no such a permanent "self" or "soul" in existence. Every Buddhist believes that because several suttas deny such a soul as a reality. For example, see SN 44.10, MN 148, MN 22. ................ SN 44.10 : "How is it, lord, that the Exalted One gave no answer to the question of the Wanderer Vacchagotta?" "If, Aananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there a self?,' I had replied to him: 'There is a self,' then, Aananda, that would be siding with the recluses and brahmins who are eternalists. "But if, Aananda, when asked: 'Is there not a self?' I had replied that it does not exist, that, Aananda, would be siding with those recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists. "Again, Aananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there a self?,' had I replied that there is, would my reply be in accordance with the knowledge that all things are impermanent?" MN 148: "If anyone says that the eye (for instance) is self, that is not tenable. The eye's rise and fall (dependent on those of its conditions) is evident, from which it follows that self would rise and fall. That is why, should anyone say that the eye is self, that is not tenable." MN 22: "Bhikkhus, self and self's property being unapprehendable as true and established (saccato thetato: cf. use at MN 2), then would not this view 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent... endure as long as eternity' be the pure perfection of a fool's idea?" — "How not, Lord? It would be the pure perfection of a fool's idea." ............ T: Given that we define "self" as a soul, an ego identity that lasts "as long as eternity", or is temporarily permanent but eventually annihilated, then it is clear that there is no self like that anywhere externally or internally. But did the Buddha give only one meaning for atta ? No, he did not. There are other meanings of atta that can be found in the Tipitaka and Commentary as follows. 1 As "one-self" in the more or less colloquial sense: e.g., attaa hi atatno naatho (Dh. XII, 4/v. 160). 2. As "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body): attapa.tilabha (DN 9/vol. i, 195), attabhaava (AN III, 125/vol. i, 279; DN 33/vol. iii, 231; Dhs. 597). 3. Self as a "subtle metaphysical entity" : atthi me attaa (MN 2/vol. i, 8), ruupa"m attato samanupassati (MN 44/vol. i, 300), attaanudi.t.thi (DN 15/vol. ii, 22), attavaadupaadaana (MN 11/vol. i, 66), su~n~nam idam attena vaa attaniyena vaa (MN 106/ vol. ii, 263), rupam bhikkhave anattaa (SN XXII,59/vol. iii, 66), etc. T: More detail is given in Bhikkhu Nanamoli's "Anattaa According to the Theravaada". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html#thera vada ......... T: Ven. Nanmoli gave a very important comment about the self of Category 3. as follows: Nanamoli: "The characteristic of Not-self (anatta-lakkha.na) deals with the third, the unidentifiable entity that is conceived and sought and made the subject of a certain class of views, namely, self- views (attaanudi.t.thi)." T: Think about that! An important implication is that the Buddha, when talked about self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta, did not refer to the soul or ego identity, the kind of self that the Visuddhimagga is based on. Therefore, when you quote the Vism on no-self you should be aware that such no-self does not relate to the not-self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta; it is related to self-views that are influenced by upadana in the khandhas. T: Within the category 2, the Buddha further defined three kinds of atta in DN 9 Potthapada Sutta as follows. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html "Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self. And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless acquisition of a self." [Th. Bh.'s translation] T: DN 9 was also translated by Ven.Nanamoli: Nanamoli: The Buddha explains how he uses the word attaa (self) in the second sense, namely, the "person" or "individual" noted above: "There are these three kinds of acquisition of self (atta- patilaabha): gross, constituted of mind, and immaterial... The first has materiality and consists of the four great entities (elements of earth, water, fire, and air), and consumes physical food; the second is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty; the third consists of perception... I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding's perfection... If it is thought that to do that is an unpleasant abiding, that is not so: on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness and a pleasant (blissful) abiding... These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions by which a Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending them." T: The Tathaagata has direct knowledges. He communicates without misapprehending the worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, and worldly descriptions simply because He does not have the wrong views and clingings of the worldlings. We should not interpret it to mean that the conventional truth is not a truth, or that there are no one to practice the Dhamma in the world except illusion. To be continued ... Tep === > #75805 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Swee Boon, and "core-DSGers") - In a message dated 9/1/07 8:38:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Good question ! You should have asked Nina, Sarah, Scott, Howard, > KenH and the whole Abhidhamma gang of DSG. > ======================= LOLOL! So now I'm an Abhidhammika! ;-)) [I can't wait to hear the response on that from the others! LOL!] With metta, Howard #75806 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing Vedana nilovg Dear Tep, Op 1-sep-2007, om 16:27 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > In the case of an agreeable object he is intent upon it as foul, or > he connects it with impermanence. That is how he abides perceiving > the repulsive in the unrepulsive." > > The first is samatha (kayagata-sati), and the second is vipassana. ------ N: The goal of samatha is the elimination of attachment, and the goal of vipassana is the eradication of ignorance. The quote of the Patis.given above illustrates this. I saw the translation 'principles' in the Patisambhidamagga , but dhaatus, elements is meant. As to: Why seeing pain in happiness ? Instead of pain I would prefer dukkha untranslated. The falling away of dhammas is their dukkha- ness. When one has realized the noble truth of dukkha, one has directly understood that also happy feeling is dukkha. T: Or, by seeing a person as dhatus, not as a person, we can transcend upadana in the aggregates and avoid aversion. This is an excellent example of how a wise meditator sees the conventional truth and ultimate truth as co-existing with no conflict. S/he simply switches the perception from one domain to another whenever it is advantageous to transcend a wrong view. ------- N: I could add: there is no one who switches, but it all happens when there are the right conditions for it. Listening, understanding what elements are, understanding that elements arise right now. Indeed, we are not intent on satipatthana all the time, we frequently think of persons. But we have also learnt and discussed on the fact that what we take for a person are impermanent elements. Quote from the Elephant's Footprint I wrote about in 'Asoka": < We read that Såriputta said to the monks: “Your reverences, if others abuse, revile, annoy, vex this monk, he comprehends: ‘This painful feeling that has arisen in me is born of ear-contact, it has a cause, not no cause. What is the cause? Ear- contact is the cause.’ He sees that ear-contact is impermanent, he sees that feeling... perception... the habitual tendencies are impermanent, he sees that consciousness is impermanent. His mind rejoices, is pleased, composed and is set on the objects of the element....” The monk who is even-minded when he is vexed by others has developed satipaììhåna to the degree that he realizes “kammassakata ñåùa”. He does not think about other people who annoy him and about the unpleasant object he hears, he realizes directly vipåka which is conditioned by kamma. At that moment there is no world, no other people, no self. > As you say, no conflict between the two kinds of worlds. Understanding of paramattha dhammas greatly helps us in our social life in the conventional world. Nina. #75807 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 9/1/07 12:03:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >Howard: It is wholesome thinking. (And thinking is real enough.) > > There can't be anything that is 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' with > just thinking without the theme of thinking. There is only just > thinking that goes no where. > > Swee Boon > ===================== My answer was in response to your question "what is skillful resolves?" My point was that it is a type of thinking. Thinking is an actual mental operation. It is no less real than hardness, for example. It is irrelevant what the thinking is "about". I'm saying that the activity of thinking is not mere concept itself. With metta, Howard #75808 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:46 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Swee (and Han), - It seems you know more about "concepts" and the DSG discussion about concepts vs. ultimate realities than I. I think I will gather more information about concepts vs. ultimate realities first before getting back to you for more in-depth conversations. Otherwise, KenH may pop out and bite my head off. > Swee: > Indeed, many monks graduated thus without the knowledge of 'concepts' vs 'realities'. They may not even have heard of the Abhidhamma in the Buddha's days. I think Sariputta is one of them who graduated without Abhidhamma knowledge, is it not? > T: Yes, he was. In addition, from what I have read they say the Arahant Sariputta had a one-on-one study of the Abhidhamma with the Buddha, after He had spent 7 days of contemplation on the Higher Dhamma following His Enlightenment. If the story is true, then you and I might as well forget about mastering the Abhidhamma. Two reasons : 1. The Buddha only selected the great Arahant Sariputta, who was well known for his great wisdom which was second only to the Buddha. He did not teach the Abhidhamma to other monks (Sotapanna through Arahants). Why? Because the Abhidhamma is too difficult for other ariya-savakkas. But who are we? 2. Other monks who did not know about the Abhidhamma could graduate with the Arahant Degree down to the Sotapanna Degree. Therefore, our only hope is here in the sutta-pitaka. So, let's spend more time at SD doing more sutta discussion ! {:>)) Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > T: It might sound like I disagreed with you, but actually I did not. > > Taking breathing as an example of a "concept". The Buddha and the > > Arahant disciples never referred to the breaths as such. Yet they > > effectively and successfully used anapanasati to achieve great > > benefits. That's why I wrote "many monks graduated with the > > Arahantship degree without the knowledge about concepts". > > T: If conepts are not real, do not exist; then it is funny that > > those monks used illusions to attain arahantship. > > Funny indeed! And unthinkable! > > > > If concepts don't exist, what then is skillful resolves? > > > > Good question ! You should have asked Nina, Sarah, Scott, Howard, > > KenH and the whole Abhidhamma gang of DSG. > > I think they will tell you that concepts are capable of conditioning > attachment, aversion & delusion by way of some obscure Abhidhammic > principle even though concepts don't really exist as realities in > principle. > > It sounds too unbelievable (purely illogical) and requires a giant > leap of blind faith to believe in it. > > Better to stick to what is taught in the suttas. > > Swee Boon > #75809 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 12:10 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Nina, - Your comments today are special. Nina: I saw the translation 'principles' in the Patisambhidamagga , but dhaatus, elements is meant. T: You're right. Elsewhere I have seen "properties" for dhatus. Nina: -- The goal of samatha is the elimination of attachment, and the goal of vipassana is the eradication of ignorance. -- Instead of pain I would prefer dukkha untranslated. The falling away of dhammas is their dukkha-ness. When one has realized the noble truth of dukkha, one has directly understood that also happy feeling is dukkha. -- Indeed, we are not intent on satipatthana all the time, we frequently think of persons. But we have also learnt and discussed on the fact that what we take for a person are impermanent elements. T: I really appreciate the comments and the flexibility I have recently seen more in your reply. I agree with what you said above. I am also pleased to see the quote from the Arahant Sariputta. N: The monk who is even-minded when he is vexed by others has developed satipaììhåna to the degree that he realizes "kammassakata ñåùa". He does not think about other people who annoy him and about the unpleasant object he hears, he realizes directly vipåka which is conditioned by kamma. At that moment there is no world, no other people, no self. T: That is an excellent example of an ariyan whose focus was beyond the world in that moment-- into the world of pure (ultimate) dhammas. N: As you say, no conflict between the two kinds of worlds. Understanding of paramattha dhammas greatly helps us in our social life in the conventional world. T: Well said, Nina, well said ! Thank you. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > Op 1-sep-2007, om 16:27 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > In the case of an agreeable object he is intent upon it as foul, or > > he connects it with impermanence. That is how he abides perceiving > > the repulsive in the unrepulsive." > > #75810 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 8:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/1/07 2:21:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi, all - > > This thread consists of three parts. But please do not wait till I am > done if you want to comment or ask questions. I prefer having > questions and answer them now, so that I can benefit from your > feedback right away. > > According to Nyanatiloka, the "self" or atta that is rejected by the > Buddhist Anatta Doctrine is "a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or > any other abiding substance". This is the same definition of self in > the Vism. > > Nyanatiloka: "Anattaa: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, > impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence > (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattaa doctrine teaches that neither within > the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, > can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as > a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. > > Nyanatiloka: "This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without > understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether > impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with > which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls." --------------------------------------------- Howard: Let's look at that "... neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance." The "neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them" rules out everything, conditioned and unconditioned. Now what is it that is ruled out? What is ruled out is 1) "anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, [or] soul," i.e., a substantial core within the conventional person - a personal self, and 2) any abiding substance in anything, i.e., a lasting reality underlying any element of experience. We all know about the first but pay little attention to the second. This second is an essential aspect of anatta, but is often presented in the Pali suttas with using the term 'anatta'. For example, in the Uraga Sutta, the Buddha taught the following: - - - - - - - - - - - He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none, — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. - - - - - - - - - - - and - - - - - - - - - - - He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. - - - - - - - - - - - and in the Phena Sutta, he taught the following: - - - - - - - - - - - Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things — life, warmth, & consciousness — form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer. No substance here is found. - - - - - - - - - - - - - And what is the basis for seeing all dhammas as empty of self is dependent origination. There is nothing among the conditioned paramattha dhammas that has own-being/self. And anything that is not a paramattha dhamma is merely imputed upon a basis of paramattha dhammas, including "the person". ------------------------------------------------------ > ........... > > T: One of the most familiar quotes from the Vism. that I have seen in > DSG posts is also found in Nyanatiloka Dictionary. > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbaana is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > > "Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally > arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the > actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he > thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not > understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to > existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, > that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at > rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII, 117). > > T: I agree completely with the Vism that there is no such "ego- > entity, soul or any other abiding substance" in all conditionally > arisen phenomena, since 'sabbe dhamma anatta'. Of course, there is no > such a permanent "self" or "soul" in existence. Every Buddhist > believes that because several suttas deny such a soul as a reality. > For example, see SN 44.10, MN 148, MN 22. > ................ > SN 44.10 : "How is it, lord, that the Exalted One gave no answer to > the question of the Wanderer Vacchagotta?" > > "If, Aananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there a > self?,' I had replied to him: 'There is a self,' then, > Aananda, that would be siding with the recluses and > brahmins who are eternalists. > > "But if, Aananda, when asked: 'Is there not a self?' I > had replied that it does not exist, that, Aananda, would > be siding with those recluses and brahmins who are > annihilationists. > > "Again, Aananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there a > self?,' had I replied that there is, would my reply be in > accordance with the knowledge that all things are > impermanent?" > > MN 148: "If anyone says that the eye (for instance) is self, > that is not tenable. The eye's rise and fall (dependent on those of > its conditions) is evident, from which it follows that self would > rise and fall. That is why, should anyone say that the eye is self, > that is not tenable." > > MN 22: "Bhikkhus, self and self's property being unapprehendable as > true and established (saccato thetato: cf. use at MN 2), then would > not this view 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be > permanent... endure as long as eternity' be the pure perfection of a > fool's idea?" — "How not, Lord? It would be the pure perfection of a > fool's idea." > ............ > > T: Given that we define "self" as a soul, an ego identity that > lasts "as long as eternity", or is temporarily permanent but > eventually annihilated, then it is clear that there is no self like > that anywhere externally or internally. ----------------------------------------- Howard: A soul is an alleged lasting, core of self-existence/own-being within "the person". That there is none such is the anatta teaching as regards personal self. The anatta teaching in general is the absence of essence/core within all things. And for conditioned dhammas, it is dependent origination that is the primary basis for seeing that absence. On the other hand, the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, the ultimate emptiness, is empty of all conditions of all sorts and is beyond all characterization. ------------------------------------------- > > But did the Buddha give only one meaning for atta ? No, he did not. > There are other meanings of atta that can be found in the Tipitaka > and Commentary as follows. > > 1 As "one-self" in the more or less colloquial sense: e.g., attaa hi > atatno naatho (Dh. XII, 4/v. 160). > > 2. As "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body): > attapa.tilabha (DN 9/vol. i, 195), attabhaava (AN III, 125/vol. i, > 279; DN 33/vol. iii, 231; Dhs. 597). > > 3. Self as a "subtle metaphysical entity" : atthi me attaa (MN 2/vol. > i, 8), ruupa"m attato samanupassati (MN 44/vol. i, 300), > attaanudi.t.thi (DN 15/vol. ii, 22), attavaadupaadaana (MN 11/vol. i, > 66), su~n~nam idam attena vaa attaniyena vaa (MN 106/ vol. ii, 263), > rupam bhikkhave anattaa (SN XXII,59/vol. iii, 66), etc. > > T: More detail is given in Bhikkhu Nanamoli's "Anattaa According to > the Theravaada". > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html#thera > vada > ......... > > T: Ven. Nanmoli gave a very important comment about the self of > Category 3. as follows: > > Nanamoli: "The characteristic of Not-self (anatta-lakkha.na) deals > with the third, the unidentifiable entity that is conceived and > sought and made the subject of a certain class of views, namely, self- > views (attaanudi.t.thi)." > > T: Think about that! An important implication is that the Buddha, > when talked about self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta, did not refer > to the soul or ego identity, the kind of self that the Visuddhimagga > is based on. Therefore, when you quote the Vism on no-self you should > be aware that such no-self does not relate to the not-self in the > anatta-lakkha.na sutta; it is related to self-views that are > influenced by upadana in the khandhas. > > T: Within the category 2, the Buddha further defined three kinds of > atta in DN 9 Potthapada Sutta as follows. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html > > "Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross > acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the > formless acquisition of a self. And what is the gross acquisition of > a self? > > Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on > physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is > the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, > complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the > mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition > of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless > acquisition of a self." > [Th. Bh.'s translation] > > T: DN 9 was also translated by Ven.Nanamoli: > > Nanamoli: The Buddha explains how he uses the word attaa (self) in > the second sense, namely, the "person" or "individual" noted above: > > "There are these three kinds of acquisition of self (atta- > patilaabha): gross, constituted of mind, and immaterial... The first > has materiality and consists of the four great entities (elements of > earth, water, fire, and air), and consumes physical food; the second > is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty; the > third consists of perception... I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the > abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the > teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing > ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now > with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of > understanding's perfection... If it is thought that to do that is an > unpleasant abiding, that is not so: on the contrary, by doing that > there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full > awareness and a pleasant (blissful) abiding... These are worldly > usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly > descriptions by which a Tathaagata communicates without > misapprehending them." > > T: The Tathaagata has direct knowledges. He communicates without > misapprehending the worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms > of communication, and worldly descriptions simply because He does not > have the wrong views and clingings of the worldlings. We should not > interpret it to mean that the conventional truth is not a truth, or > that there are no one to practice the Dhamma in the world except > illusion. > > To be continued ... > > > Tep > ========================== With metta, Howard #75811 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 12:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Howard (and Swee) - I am glad that you were entertained ! >Howard: > LOLOL! So now I'm an Abhidhammika! ;-)) [I can't wait to hear the response on that from the others! LOL!] > Yes, you are, Howard, an Abhidhammika -- at least, much more than I and Swee Boon combined ! Tep === #75812 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 8:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 9/1/07 3:17:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Howard (and Swee) - > > I am glad that you were entertained ! > > >Howard: > > LOLOL! So now I'm an Abhidhammika! ;-)) [I can't wait to hear > the response on that from the others! LOL!] > > > > Yes, you are, Howard, an Abhidhammika -- at least, much more than I and > Swee Boon combined ! > > Tep > ======================= Well, I'm either flattered or insulted or just plain confused.(I guess it's the last! LOL!) Actually, I'm the most dreadful of things: one who tries to follow the Buddha's tripartite cultivation/practice teachings. When they bear fruit, and I have every confidence that they will, then I'll know what is what. Until then I'm content to heed the Korean Son master, Seung Sahn, who taught "Just don't know!" ;-) With metta, Howard #75813 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 12:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I indriyabala Hi Howard, - I slowly read and pondered over your comments, but I did not find any conflict. Although there is an Abhidhamma scent that I could smell, yet your input is complementary to my post. Thank you very much for the useful & constructive comments. Tep === #75814 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Summary 2007 International Congress on Women's Role in the Sangha christine_fo... Hello all, I think some members may be interested in an overview of the discussions at this important international conference on the restoration of the Bhikkhuni lineages. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- A Summary Report of the 2007 International Congress on the Women's Role in the Sangha: Bhikshuni Vinaya and Ordination Lineages University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany ~ 18-20 July 2007 Part One: Background Introduction to the Bhikshuni Vows The Importance of Having Bhikshunis The Original Establishment of the Bhikshuni Order Lineages and Differences in Ordination Procedures History of the Disrupted Ordination Lineages Summary of the Main Points of the Papers Difficult Points Concerning the Suggested Manners of Re-establishing the Mulasarvastivada Bhikshuni Ordination Part Two: Day One Opening Addresses, Day One Welcoming Speeches by the Host Institution Rinchen Khandro Chogyal, Director of the Tibetan Nuns' Project Prof. Dr. Lambert Schmithausen, University of Hamburg, Foundation for Buddhist Studies Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, Kalon Tripa of the Tibetan Government in Exile Bhikshuni Dr. Myongsong Sunim, Un-mun Sangha College, South Korea, President of the National Association of Korean Bhikkhunis Bhikshuni Prof. Dr. Karma Lekshe Tsomo, University of San Diego, California, USA, President of Sakyadhita International Association of Buddhist Women Session One, Day One: Foundation of the Bhikshuni Order Bhikkhu Dr. Analayo, University of Marburg, Germany Dr. Ute Hüsken, University of Oslo, Norway Prof. Dr. Oskar von Hinüber, Professor Emeritus, Albert-Ludwigs Universität in Freiburg, Germany Prof. Dr. Gisele Krey, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany Prof. Dr. Noritoshi Aramaki, Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University, Japan Session Two, Day One: Bhikshuni Ordination Bhikkhuni Sik Wei-chun, Taiwan Acharya Geshe Tashi Tsering, Bhikshuni Ordination Researcher, The Department of Religion and Culture, Central Tibetan Administration, Dharamsala, India Prof. Dr. Bhikshuni Heng-ching Shih, Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association, Taipei, Taiwan Bhikshu Dr. Huimin Shih, Taipei National University, Taiwan; President Dharma Drum Buddhist College Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz, Martin-Luther University, Halle, Germany Dr. Shayne Clarke, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Dr. Ann Heirman, Ghent University, Belgium Bhikshuni Inyoung Chung (Bhikshuni Sukdham), Ph.D. Candidate, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA Session Three, Day One: History of the Bhikshuni Order Prof. Dr. Peter Skilling, École française d'Extrême-Orient, Bangkok and Paris Dr. Mettanando Bhikkhu (Dr. Mano Laohavanich), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Damchö Diana Finnegan, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA Prof. Dr. Florin Deleanu, International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, Japan Dr. Ivette Maria Vargas-O'Brian, Austin College, Austin, Texas, USA Dr. Shobha Rani Dash, Otani University, Kyoto, Japan Evening Discussion, Day One Part Three: Day Two Session Four, Day Two: History of the Vinaya Lineages Bhikkhu Sujato, Abbot of the Santi Forest Monastery, Sydney, Australia Dr. Hema Goonatilake, President of the Buddhist Resource Centre, Sri Lanka; formerly University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka Prof. Dr. Le Manh That, Vietnam Buddhist University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Roseanne Freese, U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Prof. Dr. Yu-chen Yi, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan Dr. Hyangsoon Yi, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Prof. Dr. David Jackson, Curator of the Rubin Museum of Art, New York, New York, USA; formally Hamburg University, Germany Prof. Dr. Jan-Ulrich Sobisch, Copenhagen University, Denmark Session Five, Day Two: Polarity between Tradition and Requirements of Modern Times, Part I Prof. Dr. Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany Bhikkhu Dr. Bodhi, Chuang Yen Monastery, Carmel, New York, USA; formerly editor for the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka Prof. Dr. Hae-ju Jeon Sunim, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea Parallel Session Six, Day Two: Polarity between Tradition and Requirements of Modern Times, Part II Bhiksuni Tenzin Palmo, Director of Dongyu Gatsal Ling, Tashi Jong, India Prof. Dr. Janet Gyatso, Harvard University Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Bhikkhuni Wu Yin, Abbess of the Luminary Buddhist International Society, Taiwan; President of the Buddhist Institute of the Hsiang Kuang Temple, Taiwan Bhikkhuni Dr. Dhammananda (aka Prof. Dr Chatsumarn Kabilsingh), Abbess of the Song-dhamma-kalyani Nunnery, Thailand Bhikkhu Kirama Wimalajothi Thera, Director of the Buddhist Cultural Center, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka Prof. Dr. Barend Jan Terwiel, Prof. Emeritus, Hamburg University, Germany Dr. Martin Seeger, University of Leeds, England Bhikshu Thich Quang Ba, Abbot of Van Hanh Monastery, Canberra, Australia, and of Nguyen Thieu Monastery, Sydney, Australia Geshe Lharampa Bhikshu Rinchen Ngudrup, Drolmaling Institute Nunnery, Dharamsala, India Parallel Session Six, Day Two: Polarity between Tradition and Requirements of Modern Times, Part III: Theravada: Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Bangladesh Bhikkhu Prof. Dhammavihari Thera, Sangha Nayaka of the Amarapura Dharmarakshita Sect, Sri Lanka Bhikkhuni Ayya Gunasari, Thanti-Thitsar Vipassana Meditation Center, Riverside, California, USA Dr. Tomomi Ito, Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba City, Japan Dr. Barbara Kameniar, Flinders University, The University of Melbourne, Australia Bhikkhuni Ayya Tathaaloka, Abbess of the Dhammadharini Vihara, Freemont, California, USA Dr. Emma Tomalin, University of Leeds, England Prajna Bangsha Bhikshu, Chief Abbot of World Peace Pagoda, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh Parallel Session Six, Day Two: Polarity between Tradition and Requirements of Modern Times, Part IV: Mahayana: China, Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Thailand Dr. Christie Yu-ling Chang, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan Stefania Travagnin, Ph.D. Candidate, School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London, England Bhikkuni Thich Nu Hue Huong, Deputy Head of the Charity Committee of the Central Vietnamese Buddhist Association, Thong Nhat, Vietnam Thich Nu Hahn Tri (aka Dr. Lani Hunter), Founder of the World Peace Foundation, Freemont, California, USA Ven. Lobsang Dechen, Co-director of the Tibetan Nuns' Project, Dharamsala, India Dr. Kim Gitschow, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA, and Skalzang Lhamo, President of the Zangskar Nuns Association, Karsha, Zangskar, India Master Shi Kuang Seng, First Thai Woman to Receive Dharmagupta Bhikshuni Ordination, Thailand Session Seven, Day Two: Examples for the Revival of the Dual Ordination and Vinaya Training Bhikshuni Myoom Sunim, Rector of the Diamond Vinaya Institute, South Korea; President of the Pongnyongsa Monastic Seminary for Nuns, Suwon, South Korea Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron, Abbess of Sravasti Abbey, Newport, Washington, USA Bhikshu Dr. Hung Sure, Director of the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery, Berkeley, California, USA Bhikkhuni Dr. Karuna Dharma, Abbess of the International Buddhist Meditation Center, Los Angeles, California, USA Bhikkhuni Dr. Kusuma Devendra, Director of Sri Gotami Ashram, Sri Lanka Bhikshuni Chuehmen, South Asia and Theravada Buddhism Coordinator for Fo Guang Shan Monastery, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Lama Choedak Rinpoche, Director of the Sakya International Buddhist Academy, Manuka, Australia Evening Discussion, Day Two Part Four: Day Three and Final Comments by His Holiness Morning Session, Day Three: Welcome and Keynote Speeches Welcoming Speech Bishop Maria Jepsen, First Female Bishop of the Lutheran Church, North Elbian Protestant Church, Germany His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama Afternoon Session, Day Three: Revival of the Bhikshuni Precepts in Tibetan Buddhism Summary of the Delegates' Papers, Presented to His Holiness the Dalai Lama Summary by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche Panel Presentation to His Holiness the Dalai Lama Response by His Holiness the Dalai Lama His Holiness's Further Comments at an Audience for Congress Delegates, 21 July 2007 http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/eb_toc.html_1717379581.html #75815 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 1:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I ksheri3 Good Day Howard, thank you for the great description, I didn't make it all the way through the post but stopped when "my cup was full" and I had to empty some of it to begin again. It may be tough but I'm gonna try to bounce in between your few statements and Tep's larger post that we are both commenting on. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep - > > In a message dated 9/1/07 2:21:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > > Hi, all - > > > > This thread consists of three parts. But please do not wait till I am > > done if you want to comment or ask questions. I prefer having > > questions and answer them now, so that I can benefit from your > > feedback right away. colette: I wish I had said that: preferences where I find it extremely bothersome for people to withhold their comments whether supportive or criticing constructively since then I have to fight the current of the stream of consciousness to pick up on where it is that the comment is directed. It is also a trick of the Wrathful Dieties to stahl for time, re-direct the practioner's attention and focus and concentration. Wrathful Deities can be seen as CLINGING to and DEPENDENT on their lot in the Bardo, no? So, when individuals attempt to mimick certain Deities they show their lack of enlightenment and their myopia, no? --------------------------- > > > > According to Nyanatiloka, the "self" or atta that is rejected by the > > Buddhist Anatta Doctrine is "a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or > > any other abiding substance". This is the same definition of self in > > the Vism. > > > > Nyanatiloka: "Anattaa: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, > > impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence > > (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattaa doctrine teaches that neither within > > the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, > > can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as > > a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. > > > > Nyanatiloka: "This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without > > understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether > > impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with > > which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls." > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Let's look at that "... neither within the bodily and mental phenomena > of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate > sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other > abiding substance." > The "neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor > outside of them" rules out everything, conditioned and unconditioned. Now what > is it that is ruled out? What is ruled out is 1) "anything that in the > ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego- entity, [or] soul," > i.e., a substantial core within the conventional person - a personal self, and > 2) any abiding substance in anything, i.e., a lasting reality underlying any > element of experience. > We all know about the first but pay little attention to the second. > This second is an essential aspect of anatta, but is often presented in the Pali > suttas with using the term 'anatta'. For example, in the Uraga Sutta, the > Buddha taught the following: > - - - - - - - - - - - > He who does not find core or substance > in any of the realms of being, > like flowers which are vainly sought > in fig trees that bear none, > â€" such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. > - - - - - - - - - - - > > and > > - - - - - - - - - - - > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," > â€" such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. > - - - - - - - - - - - > > and in the Phena Sutta, he taught the following: > > - - - - - - - - - - - > Form is like a glob of foam; > feeling, a bubble; > perception, a mirage; > fabrications, a banana tree; > consciousness, a magic trick â€" > this has been taught > by the Kinsman of the Sun. > However you observe them, > appropriately examine them, > they're empty, void > to whoever sees them > appropriately. > > Beginning with the body > as taught by the One > with profound discernment: > when abandoned by three things > â€" life, warmth, & consciousness â€" > form is rejected, cast aside. > When bereft of these > it lies thrown away, > senseless, > a meal for others. > That's the way it goes: > it's a magic trick, > an idiot's babbling. > It's said to be > a murderer. > No substance here > is found. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > colette: Howard, that was the main point: your reply above and your examples which support your theories. Since this is the first time I've encountered these writings I'll reserve comment on them and just have to "play through" YOUR depictions/definitions as the means to feel, have a sense consciousness of, the writings. ------------------------------------------------------------ > And what is the basis for seeing all dhammas as empty of self is > dependent origination. colette: by this point of reading I had already felt the questions concerning SVABHAVA germinating and arising. Allow me to put forth my limited knowledge of the term SVABHAVA: self existent, stand alone entity, (without a past or future), THEREF0RE it does no relate INTO the definition of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION. Does that sound good enough or can you elaborate further on my simplistic view? -------------------------- > there is nothing among the conditioned paramattha dhammas > that has own-being/self. colette: here you show your depth and understanding of the dhammas which I cannot have at this time since I've only been studying what little I get from the time I get on the net and that IS NO WHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT OF ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE WHICH YOU EXHIBIT. I particularly like how you phrased the sentence since by applying the word "conditioned" you clearly isolated the aspect of the Point of View you are speaking of. I can now return to Abhidhamma and define "CONDITIONED" as well as a few other suttas, etc, to define the same word, but then it is put into play with "paramattha" which I have next to no experience realizing in the sense of this foreign words applications. "...has own-being/self" is that not the definition of SVABHAVA? ------------------------------------ And anything that is not a paramattha dhamma is merely > imputed upon a basis of paramattha dhammas, including "the person". > ------------------------------------------------------ colette: can I use the word "built" for "imputed" since it seems that you are suggesting a person IS DOING the imputing and thus creating a delusion or false view? Good Reply, thanx. toodles, colette #75816 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (07) hantun1 Dear Nina, > Nina: If we do not at least begin to have more understanding that one object is experienced through one doorway at a time, we are infatuated by the 'stories' about this or that person, this or that event. Then it is very difficult to have equanimity and we can notice that it does not arise on command. Satipatthana leads to understanding conditions which are beyond control. Gradually we may learn that whenever there is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or the experience of objects through the bodysense, it is vipaakacitta produced by kamma. As I wrote in 'Asoka', the monk who follows the Buddha's teaching can accept any kind of vipåka with evenmindedness. We still like pleasant objects and dislike unpleasant objects, but right understanding leads to being less enslaved. Han: Very true. Thank you very much for your kind advice. Respectfully, Han #75817 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 3:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (06) hantun1 Dear Phil (Nina), I thank you very much for your concern about my presenting the book. Now that I have downloaded the book from the web-site it is very easy for me to present. So I will continue the presentations. But I would appreciate very much if you could kindly contribute to the subject from time to time. I thank you also for your kind words. The feeling is mutual. I also feel that your posts stimulate and energize me. Respectfully, Han > Sorry that I won't be able to help Han and all in > presenting the book or leading discussions. #75818 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 3:57 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Han, and others: Trying to get into the groove of the discussion so far: Han's question: "How I can reconcile "when an object is repulsive one can see it as unrepulsive (MN 152)" with "pleasant feelings should be known as painful (SN 36.5)"? Scott: Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' would then have it own experiential concomitant. SN 36,5 refers to dukkha in relation to pleasant feeling, as far as I can tell, which is due to the fact that the object undergoes change or has the characteristic of impermanence. Sincerely, Scott. #75819 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Tep and Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanations. They are very deep and I will have to take time to digest them What I have in mind in asking this question is: (1) When I have an unpleasant feeling by looking at an unpleasant object, for example a person in distress, I would like to radiate metta and karuna towards him, and at the same time I would think that he is the heir of his own kamma and I cannot do much about it. In that way, the initial unpleasant feeling may be diminished and equanimity may start to arise in me. But I may not be able to experience the initial unpleasant feeling as pleasant. (2) When I see a pleasant object, I will have a pleasant feeling; that is sure, because I am still a puthujjana. But I have to realize that this pleasant feeling is impermanent and when it is gone I will be left with unpleasant feeling. So, in experiencing both unpleasant feeling and pleasant feeling, the solution is satipatthaana and understanding of paramattha dhammas. With this background, I will study carefully the explanations and advice provided by Tep and Nina. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #75820 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Scott, I saw your post after I have posted my message in reply to Tep and Nina. I thank you very much for your comments too. Yes, I think establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati) is very important. This is one reason why I have selected first the Perfection of Equanimity in my presentation in the Perfections Corner. Respectfully, Han --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Tep, Han, and others: > > Trying to get into the groove of the discussion so > far: > #75821 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 6:46 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Scott and Han and others, - Thank you for suggesting another answer to Han's question. Scott: Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' would then have it own experiential concomitant. T: I do not follow exactly what you are saying, Scott. MN 152 and Patism tell us that only the arahants are capable of "avoiding both the repulsive and unrepulsive, abide in equanimity, mindful and fully aware". Scott: SN 36,5 refers to dukkha in relation to pleasant feeling, as far as I can tell, which is due to the fact that the object undergoes change or has the characteristic of impermanence. T: What about a painful feeling (dukkha vedana), doesn't it undergo change and have the characteristic of impermanence too? I think SN 36.5 recommends a different prescription for each of the three feelings. For example, aniccanupassana is prescribed for treatment of the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings. But I may have read the suttas wrong. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Han, and others: > > Trying to get into the groove of the discussion so far: > #75822 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Han, - Please allow me to give a few comments. Han: What I have in mind in asking this question is: (1) When I have an unpleasant feeling by looking at an unpleasant object, for example a person in distress, I would like to radiate metta and karuna towards him, and at the same time I would think that he is the heir of his own kamma and I cannot do much about it. In that way, the initial unpleasant feeling may be diminished and equanimity may start to arise in me. But I may not be able to experience the initial unpleasant feeling as pleasant. T: I think since you already have achieved equanimity, that outcome is better than the initial unpleasant feeling. The case is closed, IMO. --------- Han: (2) When I see a pleasant object, I will have a pleasant feeling; that is sure, because I am still a puthujjana. But I have to realize that this pleasant feeling is impermanent and when it is gone I will be left with unpleasant feeling. So, in experiencing both unpleasant feeling and pleasant feeling, the solution is satipatthaana and understanding of paramattha dhammas. T: But it is not clear to me whether the thinking of impermanence, when you are attracted to a pleasurable object, is effective enough to abandon nandi-raga. Of course, if it is effective enough, then that's your working solution, I think. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep and Nina, > > Thank you very much for your kind explanations. They > are very deep and I will have to take time to digest > them > #75823 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:20 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for your queries: Han's question: "How I can reconcile "when an object is repulsive one can see it as unrepulsive (MN 152)" with "pleasant feelings should be known as painful (SN 36.5)"? Me: "Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' would then have it own experiential concomitant." > T: "I do not follow exactly what you are saying, Scott. MN 152 and Patism tell us that only the arahants are capable of 'avoiding both the repulsive and unrepulsive, abide in equanimity, mindful and fully aware'." Scott: I wasn't addressing the level of development in the above, Tep. I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question; perhaps you might elaborate. Rather I was wondering about the difference between seeing which conditions the arising of upekkhaa and seeing which conditions knowledge of dukkha. T: "What about a painful feeling (dukkha vedana), doesn't it undergo change and have the characteristic of impermanence too? I think SN 36.5 recommends a different prescription for each of the three feelings. For example, aniccanupassana is prescribed for treatment of the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings." Scott: Well, how does 'sukhaa vedanaa dukkhaa vedanaa adukkhamasukhaa vedanaa' (SN 36,5) differ from 'manaapa.m', 'amanaapa.m', and manaapaamanaapa.m' (MN 152)? Perhaps, learning this difference, might shed some light on the query. Sincerely, Scott. #75824 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Scott (and Han), - Please be patient with me. Asking a new question instead of answering the previous question only complicates the communication problem more! So, can you forget the questions I asked, and simply explain what you meant by the following ? > Me: "Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes > to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the > arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). > I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of > consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' > would then have it own experiential concomitant." > > How do you understand his reply above, dear Han? Tep === #75825 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:50 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nidive Hi Howard, > I'm saying that the activity of thinking is not mere concept itself. Of course, the intellect is certainly not an inexistent 'concept'. But neither are mind ideas inexistent 'concepts'. A pink elephant may not have a physical representation and therefore can't be 'grasped' through the five physical senses, but it definitely has a mind representation. You can visualize it in your mind, and for me, that is real enough for it to be real. Swee Boon #75826 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 7:50 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: T: "...can you...simply explain what you meant by the following ? Han's question: "How I can reconcile "when an object is repulsive one can see it as unrepulsive (MN 152)" with "pleasant feelings should be known as painful (SN 36.5)"? Me: "Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' would then have it own experiential concomitant." Scott: MN 152 discusses the repulsive object and the effect of upekkhaa in 'seeing' it as non-repulsive. SN 36,5 discusses pleasant feelings which are 'known' as painful. I'm suggesting that in each case, a different set of dhammas combine to condition a difference experience. I'm suggesting that 'knowing' something repuslive as non-repulsive is different than 'knowing' pleasant feeling as dukkha. Sincerely, Scott. #75827 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 9/1/07 5:47:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: > colette: by this point of reading I had already felt the questions > concerning SVABHAVA germinating and arising. Allow me to put forth my > limited knowledge of the term SVABHAVA: self existent, stand alone > entity, (without a past or future), THEREF0RE it does no relate INTO > the definition of DEPENDENT ORIGINATION. Does that sound good enough > or can you elaborate further on my simplistic view? --------------------------------------------- Howard: That is the meaning of 'svabhava' in Mahayana and also in Theravada (Pali 'sabhava') circa the incorporation of the Patisambhidamagga into the Khudakka Nikaya. In the earlier Theravadin tradition, it was not the meaning, as far as I know, and it is not the sense used by the Abhidhammikas here on DSG. That Theravadin sense of 'sabhava' I am told is just that of "nature" or "characteristic" or "quality". -------------------------------------------- > -------------------------- > > >there is nothing among the conditioned paramattha dhammas > >that has own-being/self. > > colette: here you show your depth and understanding of the dhammas > which I cannot have at this time since I've only been studying what > little I get from the time I get on the net and that IS NO WHERE NEAR > THE AMOUNT OF ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE WHICH YOU EXHIBIT. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! That accumulated knowledge plus $2.00 will get me on the subway (the underground). But thank you. :-) ------------------------------------ I particularly > > like how you phrased the sentence since by applying the > word "conditioned" you clearly isolated the aspect of the Point of > View you are speaking of. I can now return to Abhidhamma and > define "CONDITIONED" as well as a few other suttas, etc, to define > the same word, but then it is put into play with "paramattha" which I > have next to no experience realizing in the sense of this foreign > words applications. "...has own-being/self" is that not the > definition of SVABHAVA? > ------------------------------------ > > > And anything that is not a paramattha dhamma is merely > >imputed upon a basis of paramattha dhammas, including "the person". > >------------------------------------------------------ > colette: can I use the word "built" for "imputed" since it seems that > you are suggesting a person IS DOING the imputing and thus creating a > delusion or false view? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, 'built' would be fine, so long as one understands the building to be a purely mental construction. ------------------------------------------ > > Good Reply, thanx. -------------------------------------- Howard: Thank *you*, Colette. ------------------------------------ > > toodles, > colette > ===================== With metta, Howard #75828 From: "tom" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 3:45 pm Subject: Friends, you boggle my mind zorroelbueno with all these ancient words and things to do and not to do.And lifetimes to wait.It all reminds me of the guy who tried for 20 years to break out of jail by banging his shoulder against the door.One day in waryness he leans back and the door falls open of itself.haha on him. #75829 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana ksheri3 Hi Scott, I'm gonna try to put some ideas out there that I may or may not be able to fully extend from my consciousness, well enough for you to understand/comprehend. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Han, and others: > > Trying to get into the groove of the discussion so far: > > Han's question: "How I can reconcile "when an object is repulsive one > can see it as unrepulsive (MN 152)" with "pleasant feelings should be > known as painful (SN 36.5)"? > > Scott: Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes > to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the > arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). > I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of > consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' > would then have it own experiential concomitant. colette: good but I think it goes FAR DEEPER than that since what it certainly sounds as though they're trying to express is the actual feeling sensation of equanimity. Everything springs forth from the same well, or stream (buddha- nature). Everything, then has to possess the qualities of an "un-repulsive" object. Through the course of it's existance it has acquired negative qualities which obscure the actual vision. Equanimity has the characteristics of being not good/not bad/ pleasant/unpleasant, basically it calls to rise the concept of DUALITY. OHHHHHHHHH, I have a mess of jokes, "buddhist humor" concerning the many aspects of the buddhist philosophy (I believe the Kagyu has them out) and this post raised those exact jokes which I can't access until I leave this screen (the Madhyamaka Monster reminds of it since Anatta and Shunyata are required reading in the Madhyamaka philosophy, no?). I believe the quote Tep applied speaks directly to the two concepts of Anatta and Shunyata so that there exists the reality of equanimity before even an opinion could be reached since no opinion is desireable. I could venture out to suggest that the Buddha-Nature is what is to be directly seen imediately and without hesitation FIRST BEFORE ANY CHOICE OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE COULD ARISE. ----------------------------------------------- SN 36,5 refers to > dukkha in relation to pleasant feeling, as far as I can tell, which is > due to the fact that the object undergoes change or has the > characteristic of impermanence. > colette: Tep, have you and Han tun been ganging up to bring this forth? It seems that you're intentionally trying to ensnare another in a web of their own ignorance. Scott, I think you missed this one entirely. Woth reference to your reply the "object" in question has not undergone the changes but your mind may've been conditioned to change/act/react in certain ways as to cast the shadow of unpleasantness upon the object. you can re- inforce those wrong views by associating with like-minded people as the children of suburbia, in the usa, have always been trained, programmed, to practice when they prostitute themselves for the exchange of money. This same behavior can be seen in the gang activity of Fraternities or Sorrorities, or this gang consciousness can be seen in many Organized Religions of the West. From one point of view a person can equate the communist government of Chairman Moa with Muslim fundamentalism, since the entire foundation of Communism is based on the extermination of religion being practiced in an organized way which promotes organized criminal behavior, aka gang behavior. In the states the children took some time before realizing what the Tongs of China had already realized and or the organized mobile hit squads from Vietnam. The children of the USA are and have been a little/lot retarded because they have sooooooo many negative choices to choose from which they view as positive choices. Does this confuse the group all that much more than the best answers from gangs and groups of monks that collude together to creat a signle test score which is applied for the acceptance of an individual or the exclusion of the same individual. "If you listen to fools, the mob rules" Black Sabbath, huh? Group psychology = mob psychology. gotta go, toodles, colette #75830 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 10:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Tep, > > Han: (1) When I have an unpleasant feeling by looking at an unpleasant object, for example a person in distress, I would like to radiate metta and karuna towards him, and at the same time I would think that he is the heir of his own kamma and I cannot do much about it. In that way, the initial unpleasant feeling may be diminished and equanimity may start to arise in me. But I may not be able to experience the initial unpleasant feeling as pleasant. > T: I think since you already have achieved equanimity, that outcome is better than the initial unpleasant feeling. The case is closed, IMO. Han: Not so fast Tep! I did not say I already have achieved equanimity. I said equanimity *may* start to arise in me. The word *may* connotes, it may not arise also :>) ------------------------------ > > Han: (2) When I see a pleasant object, I will have a pleasant feeling; that is sure, because I am still a puthujjana. But I have to realize that this pleasant feeling is impermanent and when it is gone I will be left with unpleasant feeling. So, in experiencing both unpleasant feeling and pleasant feeling, the solution is satipatthaana and understanding of paramattha dhammas. > T: But it is not clear to me whether the thinking of impermanence, when you are attracted to a pleasurable object, is effective enough to abandon nandi-raga. Of course, if it is effective enough, then that's your working solution, I think. Han: At the present stage, I do not have achieved any effective instrument to abandon nandi-raaga. Let alone abandoning of nandi-raaga, if you ask me now, whether I *really* see anicca of any dhamma, I am not sure I can answer you in affirmative. At this stage, it is more of a wishful thinking than anything else! I see the solution, but whether I can apply that solution effectively is a different matter. I am following the discussions by the members, with the hope that I can improve myself based on your wise advice. Respectfully, Han #75831 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Tep (Scott), Scott has already explained what he meant by his comment. My understanding is that Scott was referring to MN 152 paragraph 11-16 “If he should wish: ‘May I, avoiding both the repulsive and unrepulsive, abide in equanimity, mindful and fully aware,’ he abides in equanimity towards that, mindful and fully aware.” Again, if you ask me whether I can do that, I will have to answer at the present I cannot, because this is ascribed to the Arahants. Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > How do you understand his reply above, dear Han? > Tep > === #75832 From: "colette" Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana ksheri3 Hello Han Tun, I'm rockin' tonight so before I walk away from the computer for a while I'll have a go at this from my initial thoughts of illumination. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > > > Han: (1) When I have an unpleasant feeling by > looking at an unpleasant object, for example a person > in distress, I would like to radiate metta and karuna > towards him, and at the same time I would think that > he is the heir of his own kamma and I cannot do much > about it. In that way, the initial unpleasant feeling > may be diminished and equanimity may start to arise in > me. But I may not be able to experience the initial > unpleasant feeling as pleasant. > > > T: I think since you already have achieved > equanimity, that outcome is better than the initial > unpleasant feeling. The case is closed, IMO. > > Han: Not so fast Tep! I did not say I already have > achieved equanimity. I said equanimity *may* start to > arise in me. The word *may* connotes, it may not arise > also :>) > colette: TRUE, this is why you practice the Theravadan vehicle. The same reason applies to the countless Tibetans that seek to at least once in their lifetime, to attend the Kalachackra ceremony given by the Dalai Lama. they, like you, believe that "experiencing" this ceremonial will further their karma. Ah, but you were skillful in the next paragraph to differentiate karma from kamma which I believe is where I'm off to now. --------------------------- > ------------------------------ > > > > Han: (2) When I see a pleasant object, I will have > a pleasant feeling; that is sure, because I am still a > puthujjana. But I have to realize that this pleasant > feeling is impermanent and when it is gone I will be > left with unpleasant feeling. > So, in experiencing both unpleasant feeling and > pleasant feeling, the solution is satipatthaana and > understanding of paramattha dhammas. colette: as a fellow collieue once said "Not so fast"! Why Han Tun you've completely forgotten that the sensation of "pleasant" comes with it's own building blocks which constitute the sensation, just as "unpleasant" has it's own constituent building blocks. Why I do believe we have an honored guest with us: Jaq Derrida and his book DIFFERENCE. Why isn't that another strange occurance, we also have another distinguished guest from Jaq. De4rrida's publisher, the University of Chicago Press, a Mr. Sam WEbster. Both of these individuals wrote papers on "the existance of the table on the stage", and afterall, we certainly are nothing more than actors playing our parts on the stage of life, no? <....> Didn't you suggest that you could not figure out how unpleasant sensations can be seen as pleasant sensations? ---------------------------------------------- And with that perplexing thought that you, han tun, attempted to give me and I returned to you "addressee unknown", I will leave for a while and maybe later tonight I'll get back and focus further on this post. toodles, colette > > > T: But it is not clear to me whether the thinking of > impermanence, when you are attracted to a pleasurable > object, is effective enough to abandon nandi-raga. Of > course, if it is effective enough, then that's your > working solution, I think. > > Han: At the present stage, I do not have achieved any > effective instrument to abandon nandi-raaga. Let alone > abandoning of nandi-raaga, if you ask me now, whether > I *really* see anicca of any dhamma, I am not sure I > can answer you in affirmative. At this stage, it is > more of a wishful thinking than anything else! I see > the solution, but whether I can apply that solution > effectively is a different matter. <....> #75833 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 12:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I nilovg Hi Howard, I join Tep in her thanks. Very good sutta quotes and remarks. She smells Abhidhamma. Welcome to our gang, to 'notre petite bande'. Nina. Op 1-sep-2007, om 21:14 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Let's look at that "... neither within the bodily and mental phenomena > of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in > the ultimate > sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or > any other > abiding substance." #75834 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Sep 1, 2007 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Summary 2007 International Congress on Women's Role in the Sangha moellerdieter Hi Christine, nice to hear from you ! Thanks for the link. I was waiting for that kind of summary . Though the meeting took place only a couple of minutes from my home, my budget did not allow to join. From a first glimpse of the papers : necessary adjustments to the vinaya are supported by a growing number of monks, but a lot of conviction work needs still to be done to overcome the objections by many theras. By all means a split /schism of the order needs to be avoided. The next forum is planned in India .... with Metta Dieter http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/eb_toc.html_1717379581.html #75835 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana nilovg Dear Han, I understood that you found that it helps you in the difficult situations of your personal life. It may helps us too when you could elaborate on this. Personal examples are always useful, especially when they come from you. Nina. Op 2-sep-2007, om 2:06 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Yes, I think establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa > sa.n.thaati) is very important. This is one reason why > I have selected first the Perfection of Equanimity in > my presentation in the Perfections Corner. #75836 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Summary 2007 International Congress on Women's Role in the Sangha christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > nice to hear from you ! > Thanks for the link. I was waiting for that kind of summary . > Though the meeting took place only a couple of minutes from my home, my budget did not allow to join. > From a first glimpse of the papers : necessary adjustments to the vinaya are supported by a growing number of monks, but a lot of conviction work needs still to be done to overcome the objections by many theras. > By all means a split /schism of the order needs to be avoided. > The next forum is planned in India .... > > with Metta Dieter > > > http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/eb_toc.html_1717379581.html Hello Dieter, :-) Good to hear from you also! A friend sent me this copy of the Oral Presentation by Bhikkhu Bodhi: Oral Presentation The Revival of Bhikkhunî Ordination in the Theravâda Tradition ~ Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi My paper focuses on the legal and ethical issues involved in the revival of the Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha. The paper is divided into three parts. In Part I, I review the arguments presented by Theravâdin traditionalists who see a revival of bhikkhunî ordination as a legal impossibility. In Part II, I offer textual and ethical considerations that support the claim that bhikkhunî ordination should be restored. And in Part III, I briefly consider the legal mechanics of restoring the bhikkhunî ordination to the Theravâda tradition, that is, how the ordination can best be harmonized with the stipulations of the Vinaya. Monastic ordination as a bhikkhunî involves three stages: (1) pabbajjâ, the novice ordination; (2) the sikkhamânâ training; and (3) upasampadâ or full ordination. Theravâdin Vinaya experts posit hurdles at all three stages. In my paper, I discuss all three stages from two points of view: in terms of the objections posed by the conservative legalists, who claim that it is impossible to revive them; and from the point of view of those who favor reviving the bhikkhunî ordination. Since the time allotted for the oral presentation is limited, I will be focusing exclusively on the upasampadâ. To anticipate my conclusion: I hold that neither position can be derived unambiguously from the Vinaya, but that interpretation depends upon the setting under which the interpretation of the Vinaya is made and the set of presuppositions and purposes that the interpreters bring to the task of interpretation. I. The Case Against the Revival of Bhikkhunî Ordination For Vinaya legalists, the upasampadâ presents the most formidable barrier to reviving the Bhikkhunî Sangha. The main legal objection the legalists raise against bhikkhunî upasampadâ is that it is a dual-ordination. It must be given by both the Bhikkhunî Sangha and the Bhikkhu Sangha, and to be a purely Theravâda ordination it must come from an existing Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha. This leads to a predicament, for in the absence of an existing Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha, a legitimate Theravâda bhikkhunî ordination itself cannot be granted. There is thus simply no possibility of reviving the Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha. Bhikkhunî ordination will remain out of reach throughout the duration of the present Buddha's dispensation. Those women who want to live a life of renunciation will have to be content with surrogate forms of renunciant life, such as that of the dasasilmâtâ, the thila-shin, or the maechee. II. The Case for a Revival of Theravâda Bhikkhunî Ordination After sketching the legal arguments that conservative Vinaya authorities raise against restoring the bhikkhunî ordination to the Theravâda tradition, I look at some factors, textual and ethical, that favor its restoration. I distribute these factors into two groups: one I call "ancient mandate"; the other, compelling contemporary circumstances. The primary ancient mandate is the Buddha's own decision to create a Bhikkhunî Sangha as a counterpart to the male Bhikkhu Sangha. When Mahâpajâpatî Gotamî and the five hundred Sakyan women came to the Buddha, they did not ask the Buddha to establish an order of nuns. They simply asked him for permission to go forth into the homeless life. Although the Buddha at first denied this request, he finally yielded. In yielding, however, he did not simply allow women to go forth, but constituted renunciant women into a distinct order, a community governed by its own rules and regulations. Though he subordinated this order to the Bhikkhu Sangha with respect to certain functions, he still made it largely autonomous. This shows that he recognized the Bhikkhunî Sangha as an essential component of his Sâsana, and without the Bhikkhunî Sangha the Sâsana is imperfect and incomplete. Reflection on contemporary conditions also supports the case for a revival of bhikkhunî ordination. Our own age has been shaped by the ideas of the European Enlightenment, a movement that affirmed the inherent dignity of the human person and brought demands for political equality and equal justice for all under the law. From the mid-nineteenth century on, people around the globe came to perceive discrimination based on gender as arbitrary and unjust, a system that had been imposed on society simply because of the dominant roles that men had played in eras when social stability depended on physical strength and military force. Thus discrimination based on gender has been challenged almost everywhere in the secular sphere, and its role in religious life has also come up for serious scrutiny. Religion remains one of its most persistent strongholds, and Buddhism is no exception to this. It is true that the Vinaya makes bhikkhunîs subordinate to bhikkhus, and the Bhikkhunî Sangha subordinate to the Bhikkhu Sangha, but we have to remember that the Buddha lived and taught in India in the fifth century B.C. Practices that pertain to etiquette must be evaluated in the light of altered social and cultural conditions. When we ask what line of action would be appropriate for today, we should not ask what the Buddha did twenty-five centuries ago, but what he would want us to do today. If people see Theravâda Buddhism as a religion that includes male renunciants but excludes female renunciants, or which admits them only through some unofficial ordination, they will suspect that something is fundamentally askew, and defensive arguments based on appeals to arcane principles of monastic law will not go very far to break down distrust. This will be an instance of the type of behavior that we meet so often in the Vinaya where "those without confidence do not gain confidence, while among those with confidence, some undergo vacillation." On the other hand, by rousing the courage to restore to women the right to lead a full religious life, that is, by reviving the Bhikkhunî Sangha, Theravâdin elders will show that they know how to apply the Vinaya in a way that is appropriate to the time and circumstances, and also in a way that is kind and embracing rather than rigid and rejecting. III. Addressing the Legalist Challenge Nevertheless, while there might be strong textual and ethical grounds favoring a revival of the Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha, such a step would not be possible unless the legal objections to such a movement can be addressed. The legalists object to resuscitating bhikkhunî ordination, not so much because of bias against women (though some might have such a bias), but because they see such a measure as a legal impossibility. To restore the Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha, the three challenges posed by Theravâda Vinaya legalists would have to be overcome. These are the challenges based on: (1) the problem of pabbajjâ (novice ordination); (2) the problem of sikkhamânâ ordination and training; and (3) the problem of upasampadâ. Here I will deal only with the question of upasampadâ. Before doing so, however, I first want to note that Theravâda legal theory often merges stipulations on legal issues that stem from the canonical Vinaya texts and the Commentaries with interpretations and assumptions that have gained currency through centuries of tradition. I do not want to undervalue tradition, for it represents the accumulated legal expertise of generations of Vinaya specialists, and this expertise should certainly be respected and taken into account in determining how the Vinaya is to be applied to new situations. But we also must remember that tradition should not be placed on a par with the canonical Vinaya or even with the secondary authorities, the Aṭṭhakathâs and Ṭîkâs. These different sources should be assigned different weights of authority according to their different origins. When our understanding of the Vinaya is strongly grounded in tradition, however, without realizing it we may become entangled in a web of traditionalist assumptions that obstructs our ability to distinguish what derives from the canonical Vinaya from what is prescribed by tradition. Sometimes simply changing the assumptions can recast the principles of the Vinaya in a whole new light. I will illustrate this point with an analogy from geometry. A straight line is drawn through a point. As this line is extended, the distance between its two ends widens. It is thus obvious that the two ends will never meet, and if anyone expresses doubts about this, I would almost question their rationality. But this is so only because I am thinking within the framework of traditional geometry, Euclidean geometry, which held sway over mathematics up until the twentieth century. When, however, we adopt the standpoint of spherical geometry, we can see that a line drawn through a particular point, if extended far enough, eventually encounters itself. Again, in traditional geometry we are taught that a triangle can have at most only one right angle and that the sum of the angles of a triangle must be 180°, and this can be proven with absolute rigor. But that is so only in Euclidean space. Give me a sphere, and we can define a triangle with three right angles whose angles make a sum of 270°. Thus, if I break away from my familiar assumptions, a whole new range of possibilities suddenly opens up to my understanding. The same applies to our thinking about the Vinaya. For conservative theory, the fundamental assumptions are: (i) that the dual-Sangha ordination was intended to apply under all circumstances and admits of no exceptions or modifications to accord with conditions; (ii) that the Theravâda is the only Buddhist school that preserves an authentic Vinaya tradition. Once these assumptions are accepted, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Bhikkhunî Sangha is forever extinct. Those who favor revival of the Bhikkhunî Sangha, however, work with different assumptions. For them, the fundamental starting point was the Buddha's decision to create the Bhikkhunî Sangha. The procedure of ordination was merely the legal mechanics to implement that decision. From this standpoint, to block the implementation of that decision because of a legal technicality is to hamper the fulfillment of the Buddha's own intention. This is not to say that the proper way to implement his intention should violate the guidelines of the Vinaya. But within those broad guidelines the two assumptions of conservative legalism can be circumvented by holding either or both of the following: (i) that under exceptional circumstances the Bhikkhu Sangha can revert to a single-Sangha ordination of bhikkhunîs, based on the Buddha's statement: "I allow you, bhikkhus, to ordain bhikkhunîs"; and (ii) that to preserve the form of dual-Sangha ordination, the Theravâda Bhikkhu Sangha can collaborate with a Bhikkhunî Sangha from an East Asian country following the Dharmaguptaka "Four-Section" Vinaya. This approach to ordination may not satisfy the most rigorous demand of conservative Theravâda Vinaya legal theory, namely, that it be conducted by Theravâda bhikkhus and bhikkhunîs who have been ordained by Theravâda bhikkhus and bhikkhunîs in an unbroken lineage. But to make that impossible demand the uncompromising requirement for restoring the Bhikkhunî Sangha would seem unreasonably stringent. In the view of many learned Theravâda monks, mainly Sri Lankan, adopting either of the above routes will culminate in a valid bhikkhunî ordination and at the same time will grant to women the chance to live the spiritual life in the way that the Buddha intended them to live it—as fully ordained bhikkhunîs. The grand ordination held at Bodhgaya in February 1998, under the auspices of Fo Guang Shan, combined both approaches mentioned above. This method yielded a more satisfactory ordination than either could if taken alone. The grand ordination ceremony assembled bhikkhus from several traditions—Chinese Mahâyâna, Theravâda, and Tibetan-- along with Taiwanese and Western bhikkhunîs to conduct the full dual- ordination in accordance with the Chinese tradition. The women who were ordained included Theravâda nuns from Sri Lanka and Nepal, as well as Western nuns following Tibetan Buddhism. One might think that this was a Mahâyâna rite which made the nuns Mahâyâna bhikkhunîs, but this would be a misunderstanding. While the Chinese monks and nuns were practitioners of Mahâyâna Buddhism, the monastic Vinaya tradition they observe is not a Mahâyâna Vinaya but the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas, which belonged to the same broad Vibhajyavâda tradition to which the southern Theravâda school belongs. They were virtually the northwest Indian counterpart of the Theravâda, with a similar collection of suttas, an Abhidharma, and a Vinaya that largely corresponds to the Pâli Vinaya. Thus the upasampadâ ordination performed by the Chinese Sangha at Bodhgaya conferred on the candidates the bhikkhunî lineage of the Dharmaguptakas, so that in Vinaya terms they were now full-fledged bhikkhunîs inheriting the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya lineage. However, the bhikkhunîs from Sri Lanka wanted to become heirs to the Theravâda Vinaya lineage and to be acceptable to the Theravâda bhikkhus of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan bhikkhus who sponsored their ordination, too, were apprehensive that if the nuns returned to Sri Lanka with only the Chinese ordination, their co-religionists would have considered their ordination to have been essentially a Mahâyânist one. To prevent this, shortly afterwards the newly ordained bhikkhunîs traveled to Sarnath, where they underwent another upasampadâ conducted in Pâli by Theravâda bhikkhus from Sri Lanka. This ordination did not negate the earlier dual-ordination received from the Chinese Sangha, but supplemented it and gave it a new direction. The dual-Sangha ordination at Bodhgaya made the women bhikkhunîs, but heirs of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya lineage; the subsequent ordination by a Sangha of Theravâda bhikkhus at Sarnath inducted them into the Theravâda Sangha. They were now entitled to follow the Vinaya of the Pâli Canon and to perform the necessary sanghakammas together with their brothers in the Theravâda Bhikkhu Sangha of Sri Lanka. While dual-Sangha ordination should certainly prevail whenever conditions make it feasible, a case can also be made to justify ordination solely by a Sangha of Theravâda bhikkhus. It might be argued that under the exceptional circumstances when a Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha has vanished, Theravâda bhikkhus are entitled to take as a precedent the original case when there was no Bhikkhunî Sangha and revive the allowance that the Buddha gave to the bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunîs on their own. This allowance might be defended on the principle of analogy: When an exceptional method is used in one set of circumstances to achieve a desirable goal, then in circumstances that are similar in all relevant respects, if there is no other feasible method to achieve that goal, the exceptional method again becomes permissible. In this case, the original situation is that found at the inception of the Bhikkhunî Sangha, when the Sangha was placed in a double-bind. The sixth garudhamma required a dual-Sangha ordination for bhikkhunîs, but there was no Bhikkhunî Sangha to give the ordination. So how was the Sangha to escape this predicament? According to the account, the Buddha said: "I authorize bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunîs." And thus bhikkhus continued to ordain bhikkhunîs until the dual-Sangha ordination was prescribed. This situation is almost exactly analogous to the one we faced until recently, when there were women who wanted Theravâda bhikkhunî ordination but no Theravâda bhikkhunîs to ordain them. So one solution proposed was to allow Theravâda bhikkhus to use that authorization, never withdrawn, to ordain bhikkhunîs until a functional Bhikkhunî Sangha came into being. This was the method the Sri Lankan monks employed at Sarnath to give the Sri Lankan nuns a second ordination that inducted them into the Theravâda Sangha. However, now that the Bhikkhunî Sangha has been reconstituted in Sri Lanka, there is no longer any justification for using ordination by a Sangha composed solely of bhikkhus. If any woman wants to receive bhikkhunî ordination in the Theravâda tradition, she should receive training as a sikkhamânâ and eventual bhikkhunî ordination in Sri Lanka itself. No doubt, in time the opportunity for bhikkhunî ordination will also spread to the West. Conclusion The disappearance of the Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha has presented us with a situation not explicitly addressed in the Vinaya and thus one for which there is no unambiguous remedy. As I see it, the Vinaya cannot be read in any fixed manner as either unconditionally permitting or forbidding a revival of the Bhikkhunî Sangha. It yields these conclusions only as a result of interpretation, and interpretation often reflects the attitudes of the interpreters and the framework of assumptions within which they operate as much as it does the words of the text they are interpreting. In my opinion, in dealing with this issue, the question that should be foremost in our minds is this: "What would the Buddha want his elder bhikkhu-disciples to do in such a situation, now, in the twenty-first century?" Would he want us to apply the regulations governing ordination in a way that excludes women from the fully ordained renunciant life, so that we present to the world a religion in which men alone can lead the life of full renunciation? Or would he instead want us to apply the regulations of the Vinaya in a way that is kind, generous, and accommodating, thereby offering the world a religion that truly embodies principles of justice and non- discrimination? The answers to these questions are not immediately given by any text or tradition, but I don't think we are left entirely to subjective opinion either. From the texts we can see how, in making major decisions, the Buddha displayed both compassion and disciplinary rigor; we can also see how, in defining the behavioral standards of his Sangha, he took account of the social and cultural expectations of his contemporaries. In working out a solution to our own problem, therefore, we have these two guidelines to follow. One is to be true to the spirit of the Dhamma--true to both the letter and the spirit, but above all to the spirit. The other is to be responsive to the social, intellectual, and cultural horizons of humanity in this particular period of history in which we live, this age in which we forge our own future destinies and the future destiny of Buddhism. Looked at in this light, the revival of a Theravâda Bhikkhunî Sangha can be seen as an intrinsic good that conforms to the innermost spirit of the Dhamma, helping to bring to fulfillment the Buddha's own mission of opening "the doors to the Deathless" to all humankind, to women as well as to men. At the same time, the existence of a Bhikkhunî Sangha can function as an instrumental good. It will allow women to make a meaningful contribution to Buddhism in many of the ways that monks do--as preachers, scholars, meditation teachers, educators, social advisors, and ritual leaders-- and perhaps in certain ways that will be unique to female renunciants, for example, as counselors and guides to women lay followers. A Bhikkhunî Sangha will also win for Buddhism the respect of high-minded people in the world, who regard the absence of gender discrimination as the mark of a truly worthy religion in harmony with the noble trends of present-day civilization." metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #75837 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: correction: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I nilovg Hi Howard (and Tep), Correction of some typos: of Tep: his thanks, he smells Abhidhamma.... Nina. Op 1-sep-2007, om 21:14 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Let's look at that "... neither within the bodily and mental phenomena > of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in > the ultimate > sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or > any other > abiding substance." #75838 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 1:52 am Subject: Catching up on the Sisters - Theriigaathaa sarahprocter... Hi Connie & all, Just been catching up this weekend on the Sisters (Theriigaathaa). I get very behind when I go on trips.... I liked all the detail on kalyaanamitta in #74495 and #74472. "Good men are to be resorted to menas: because it is the cause of the state of being wise, even for a fool....." "txt: Kalyaa.namitte bhajamaanoti-aadi kalyaa.namittataaya aanisa.msadassana.m. Tattha api baalo pa.n.dito assaati kalyaa.namitte bhajamaano puggalo pubbe sutaadivirahena baalopi samaano assutasavanaadinaa pa.n.dito bhaveyya. Pruitt: If he resorted to good friends, etc, means: seeing the advantages of the state of having good friends. There, even a fool (api baalo) would be (assa) wise means: resorting to good friends even a fool (baalo pi), an individual who previously was devoid of learning, etc, would become (bhaveyya) wise even if he does not hear the traditional texts, etc." ***** Also, Theri Punna http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75450 (and following) She was a servant in Aathapindika's household and became a sotapanna after listening to MN 20, 'The Lion's Roar'. As I understand the text, still as a servant, she tamed the brahmin who was following a water-purification wrong practice and was immediately stirred to ordain and became an arahat. She later was made a free woman, received permission to ordain herself and also became an arahat. I liked it, because it was a good example of a female servant being able to really help another lost in wrong practice, but able to appreciate the Dhamma when he heard it. Many thanks as usual for all your hard work. May all the merit bring great rewards - especially leading to the development of insight!! Metta, Sarah ========= #75839 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 1:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Swee Boon, and "core-DSGers") - > > In a message dated 9/1/07 8:38:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > > Good question ! You should have asked Nina, Sarah, Scott, Howard, > > KenH and the whole Abhidhamma gang of DSG. > > > ======================= > LOLOL! So now I'm an Abhidhammika! ;-)) [I can't wait to hear the > response on that from the others! LOL!] Well I'm sure you most certainly are an Abhidhammika in the eyes of those who tend to label folks as being of this camp or that. And I think you (unwittingly) became one quite some time ago ;-)) You see, to be labelled an Abhidhammika around here it's not necessary to actually embrace the Abhidhamma; any remark of approval or acknowledgement, however tentative, will suffice for those keen to make a point (jk, of course). Anyway, welcome to the gang (not that I've ever thought of myself as being one). Jon #75840 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 2:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Howard (and Tep) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep - .. > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > I also consider breaths to be only conventional realities. They, like > persons, are nothing in and of themselves. What is actually there when we > "note a breath" is a host of interrelated rupas - warmth/coolness, motion, touch > sensations, some hardness/softness, some dampness, and so on - and a thinking > process that unifies these interrelated phenomena. Yes, quite so. And in samatha bhavana (including when jhanas are attained) it is the "conventional reality" (i.e., concept) of breath, rather than any rupas, that are the object of consciousness. To my understanding, rupas cannot be directly known other than by the consciousness that is mundane (or supramundane) insight. ... > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is conventional speech that is true and conventional speech that > is false. But all conventional speech, properly understood, is figurative and > abbreviational. Taken in that way, it can be true. Mis-taken as literal makes > it all false. > ---------------------------------------- Spoken like a true abhidhammika ;-)) And just to add a bit on a related topic. There is conventional speech and there is speech that is adapted to reflect the world of dhammas. Now dhammas can be spoken of using either kind of speech. When 2 people who both have a highly developed understanding of dhammas are talking, they may use conventional speech, because each understands the other as intended, and there is no risk of one mis- taking the other. This I think is the case in many of the suttas where the Buddha is talking to those ready for enlightenment. Is this how you see it too? Jon #75841 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Swee Boon (and Tep) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Tep, .. > Not only do I think the concept of realities should be carefully > examined, I also think the concept of "'concepts' vs 'realities'" > should be carefully examined as well. It could very well turn out to > be the biggest red herring of the Dhamma in our days. Well in a sense it could be said that "'concepts' vs 'realities'" is a red herring, because it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood. > Could the separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and > 'realities' be just a mundane & useless mental exercise carried out > according to a conceptualized set of conceptualized criteria? However, there is no separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities'. All directly experienced phenomena are dhammas. > I don't know, but as far as I know, the Buddha hadn't expounded on > "'concepts' vs 'realities'" in the suttas. I can't think of any statement of the Buddha's directly on the point of "concepts vs. dhammas". However, he certainly did refer to *conceptualising*. "Concept" is a term for that which is conceived by the mind, rather than being phenomena that are directly experienced. It is a term that may be used in apposition to "dhammas", but it's difficult to say anything more than that without giving them a reality they don't have (and even this sentence is doing just that ;-)). "Concept" is not a term used to refer to a class of experenced phenomena. Jon #75842 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 2:43 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep (and Swee Boon) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Swee, - > > I am very much interested in pursuing the idea that you have stated > often here and at the SD Group. You've said that the Buddha did not > teach "concepts" (pannatti?) in the Sutta-pitaka. In a sense this could be said. The Buddha didn't "teach" concepts, in the sense that what are to be directly known and understood are only realities (dhammas). We learn about concepts only to better understand what dhammas are. Anything that is real in the ultimate (paramattha) sense we call a dhamma. Only dhammas "are". One of those dhammas is the consciousness that thinks (conceptualises). But there *are no* concepts as such. > I only know from reading the suttas that many monks graduated with the > Arahantship degree without the knowledge about concepts and that > concepts are inferior to ultimate realities. I wouldn't say that concepts are inferior to ultimate realties. That seems to give concepts a reality they don't have. It's not like there are 2 things: dhammas and concepts. In the ultimate sense, there are only dhammas. Hoping this clarifies. Jon #75843 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 2:47 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Nina, Sarah, Howard, Scott, Swee, Han, James ..., - ... > Atta is supposed to be the opposite to anatta, is it not? And the > Anatta Doctrine is of such great importance. So, if we disagree (or > Tep stubbornly disagrees with you, and he has been wrong) on atta, > how can we possibly agree on anatta? Perhaps, our understandings on > self and self views have been fundamentally different from the > beginning, and as a consequence our discussion has never reached a > conclusion. From time to time someone brings up the meaning of atta as a subject for discussion. I'm not sure that it's necessary to know anything about atta. You see, while anatta is a characteristic of dhammas, atta is not. There *is no* atta; there is only a (wrong) view of atta. Did the Buddha teach anything about atta? Not to my knowledge. But he did teach anatta as a characteristic of dhammas. So while an intellectual understanding of anatta is no doubt helpful, I have doubts about the value of atta as a subject of study. As regards atta view, these are all discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. Hoping this provides some food for thought. Jon #75844 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Nina, I am still looking for the right kind of upekkhaa. My worries are not so much for myself and for my wife. We have lived our lives. My worries are for some of my children and grand-children who are still dependent on me. How will they manage their lives after I and my wife are gone? Now, I am finding solace by contemplating that they are heir to their own kamma and we cannot do much about it. By considering in this way, I think I can have some upekkhaa towards them. But is this upekkhaa kusala upekkhaa? In the Burmese book I am reading, upekkhaa is classified into ten kinds, or alternatively, into two main kinds, namely, kusala upekkhaa and akusala upekkhaa. The main difference between the two is association with ~naana or not. If it is associated with ~naana it is kusala upekkhaa, but if it is associated with ignorance it is akusala upekkhaa. The analogy given is the case of a deer looking at a ruby. When a deer looks at a ruby it has no happiness or sorrow, because it does not know what it is, and the kind of upekkhaa it has is akusala upekkhaa associated with ignorance. I may not have that type of upekkhaa, but the upekkhaa that I have right now may not be kusala upekkhaa either. It could well be the equanimity of unknowing based on the home life (upekkhaa gehasitaa a~naanupekkhaa), because it is associated with attachment for my children and grand-children, and it itself may be the near enemy of Equanimity. [Vism. IX, 101] I don’t know, Nina. My understanding of upekkhaa is still uncertain and wavering. Perhaps, by studying your book on the Perfections and by following the discussions by the learned members of DSG, I might find the right kind of upekkhaa. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > I understood that you found that it helps you in the > difficult > situations of your personal life. > It may helps us too when you could elaborate on > this. Personal > examples are always useful, especially when they > come from you. > Nina. #75845 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Tep & Swee Boon, --- upasaka@... wrote: > indriyabala@... writes: > > > Good question ! You should have asked Nina, Sarah, Scott, Howard, > > KenH and the whole Abhidhamma gang of DSG. > > > ======================= > LOLOL! So now I'm an Abhidhammika! ;-)) [I can't wait to hear the > > response on that from the others! LOL!] ... S: Well judging from Tep's post full of great quotes on atta and anatta (#75804) and your reply (#75810), plus a few other recent replies, I'd say you were both more than buddhing Abhidhammikas! ;-)) For that matter, from the recent discussions I've been having with Swee Boon on the most intricate of Abhidhamma points, I'd say the same about him too:) Perhaps anyone who puts up with us here must have at least some interest in Abhidhamma, wouldn't you say? The fact that you even take the trouble to read and question what's said shows that! And just as Howard replied, I was about to say in answer to the question: >Swee: >If concepts don't exist, what then is skillful resolves? that it sounds like thinking to me. Maybe skillful or kusala thinking or determination, but a reality, unlike the concepts. Metta, Sarah ======== #75846 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Ken H (& Swee Boon), --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Swee (and Han), - > > It seems you know more about "concepts" and the DSG discussion about > concepts vs. ultimate realities than I. I think I will gather more > information about concepts vs. ultimate realities first before > getting back to you for more in-depth conversations. Otherwise, KenH > may pop out and bite my head off. ... S: LOL! Where is Ken H these days? I've been missing his bites!! Must be too much good surf in Noosa.....(lucky guy!) Tep, don't ever mind his bites - they are very kindly meant bites (for the most part), I know. If you were to meet him, you'd know he's a very gentle guy with his own way of expression and Australian dry humour:-)). He spent a few decades or lifetimes following what he now considers to be wrong practices and rightly or wrongly (depending on how you see it), likes to try and help others get straight to true Dhamma! (Corrections welcome, Ken H!) Metta, Sarah ======== #75847 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Abhidhammika Howard!, --- upasaka@... wrote: My answer was in response to your question "what is skillful > resolves?" My point was that it is a type of thinking. Thinking is an > actual mental > operation. It is no less real than hardness, for example. It is > irrelevant what > the thinking is "about". I'm saying that the activity of thinking is not > mere > concept itself. ... S: With answers like this, the tag will definitely stick:-)) Metta & appreciation, Sarah ======== #75848 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confucian mentality sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- colette wrote: > A Very Good Morning Sarah, > > Often I don't feel that I've connected with my peers when I begin but > today you've, surprisingly, noticed some very subtle realities that I > was alluding to, but you picked up on and verbalized very well thank > you. ... S: Thank you, too. I'm very impressed by the way you're managing to follow the busy list and all the deep, complicated threads, adding your own comments. ... I speak of the impermeneance and transience of senses and the > sense's cognition, interpretation, the mano-vijnana? As I said to > Ken, it is only a view, now to expand, it is only a view at a > particular time, mooment CONDITIONED by an appearance of NAME & FORM. .... S: Yes, without namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) arising and falling away, there'd be no thinking of concepts on account of them. Cittas (mano or vinnana - all synonyms in Pali) refer to momentary states of consciousness which arise and fall away all the time. So seeing consciousness is citta, so is hearing, so is thinking...on and on and on. Such cittas experience rupas (such as visible object or sound), other namas (such as feeling, likes, dislikes, smelling or tasting) or concepts. Let's be very clear what namas and rupas are. ...<...> > thanx for the thoughts of tangent intersections of consciousness and > their transience as well as their impermanence. ... S: Thx for your feedback too. Again, let's be clear that it is the namas and rupas (the consciousness, mental states and physical phenomena) that are impermanent. Not the concepts. Metta, Sarah ======== #75849 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi (Jim D!) sarahprocter... Hi Jim D, I'd also like to belatedly welcome you to DSG. You've joined us at a busy time on the list. I'd like to encourage you and any other new members to just read the messages of interest and start your own threads as you did until you've settled in. Others have already given you good replies to your helpful questions. Do you have any further comments on these or questions/comments/disagreements with them? Btw, may I ask where you live? --- jimdale827 wrote: > Hi, I have been reading about Buddhism for a few months to see if it > had anything to offer me or constructive advice. I do not know any > Buddhists so there is nobody to talk to about it. ... S: Please talk to us and consider us as your friends. We all appreciate good down-to-earth questions like yours. ... > The first one is about non attachment. Having a wife and children, a > job to earn a living, an interest in politics and social policies, I > do not see how one can bet detached or why one would want to be > detached from what goes on in this world. So, what is the point of > detachment? ... S: As Nina stressed, it's not about changing one's lifestyle, but of developing more understanding in that lifestyle. We think of what goes on in this world in terms of particular situations such as family, job, home and politics. In fact, as the Buddha taught, what goes on in this world is only that which appears through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind-doors. These are the six worlds. So the detachment spoken of goes along with an understanding of the six worlds. This is also the way to to understand whether there really is 'somebody in the machine observing all this'. If you have time, you may also like to take a look in 'Useful Posts' in the files. Scroll down to 'Abhidhamma - beginners' and to 'Worlds'. Best of all, give us some feedback and just follow your own thread here. Best wishes and metta, Sarah ========== #75850 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:02 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Scott, - I am delighted with your reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Regarding: > > T: "...can you...simply explain what you meant by the following ? > > Han's question: "How I can reconcile "when an object is repulsive one > can see it as unrepulsive (MN 152)" with "pleasant feelings should be > known as painful (SN 36.5)"? > > Me: "Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes > to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the > arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). > I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of > consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' > would then have it own experiential concomitant." > > Scott: MN 152 discusses the repulsive object and the effect of > upekkhaa in 'seeing' it as non-repulsive. SN 36,5 discusses pleasant > feelings which are 'known' as painful. I'm suggesting that in each > case, a different set of dhammas combine to condition a difference > experience. I'm suggesting that 'knowing' something repuslive as > non-repulsive is different than 'knowing' pleasant feeling as dukkha. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > T: Now I have no difficulty following your suggestion, Scott. Yes, the two cases are indeed different. One case deals with repulsive/nonrepulsive objects that are not feelings, the other case (SN 36.5) is about feelings. You do not apply loving-kindness toward a painful feeling, for example. Thanks. Tep === #75851 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Han, - You wrote : > Han: At the present stage, I do not have achieved any > effective instrument to abandon nandi-raaga. Let alone > abandoning of nandi-raaga, if you ask me now, whether > I *really* see anicca of any dhamma, I am not sure I > can answer you in affirmative. At this stage, it is > more of a wishful thinking than anything else! I see > the solution, but whether I can apply that solution > effectively is a different matter. T: That stage might be closer to " *really* see anicca of any dhamma" than you think. Just like driving a car to a new beach. You have a map and you have memorized all the detail. Now you are driving on a mountain top and can see the beach down the horizon. Just keep on driving in the right direction, I say. > Han: I am following the discussions by the members, with > the hope that I can improve myself based on your wise > advice. T: I am interested in learning from other members too. Thank you for the nice word. Tep === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > > > Han: (1) When I have an unpleasant feeling by > looking at an unpleasant object, for example a person > in distress, I would like to radiate metta and karuna > towards him, and at the same time I would think that > he is the heir of his own kamma and I cannot do much > about it. In that way, the initial unpleasant feeling > may be diminished and equanimity may start to arise in > me. But I may not be able to experience the initial > unpleasant feeling as pleasant. > > > T: I think since you already have achieved > equanimity, that outcome is better than the initial > unpleasant feeling. The case is closed, IMO. > > Han: Not so fast Tep! I did not say I already have > achieved equanimity. I said equanimity *may* start to > arise in me. The word *may* connotes, it may not arise > also :>) > > ------------------------------ > > > > Han: (2) When I see a pleasant object, I will have > a pleasant feeling; that is sure, because I am still a > puthujjana. But I have to realize that this pleasant > feeling is impermanent and when it is gone I will be > left with unpleasant feeling. > So, in experiencing both unpleasant feeling and > pleasant feeling, the solution is satipatthaana and > understanding of paramattha dhammas. > > > T: But it is not clear to me whether the thinking of > impermanence, when you are attracted to a pleasurable > object, is effective enough to abandon nandi-raga. Of > course, if it is effective enough, then that's your > working solution, I think. > > Han: At the present stage, I do not have achieved any > effective instrument to abandon nandi-raaga. Let alone > abandoning of nandi-raaga, if you ask me now, whether > I *really* see anicca of any dhamma, I am not sure I > can answer you in affirmative. At this stage, it is > more of a wishful thinking than anything else! I see > the solution, but whether I can apply that solution > effectively is a different matter. > #75852 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:20 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (65) nichiconn Dear Friends, 12. So.lasanipaato 1. Pu.n.naatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 10 Verses: 247. "Maakaasi paapaka.m kamma.m, aavi vaa yadi vaa raho; sace ca paapaka.m kamma.m, karissasi karosi vaa. 248. "Na te dukkhaa pamutyatthi, upeccaapi palaayato; sace bhaayasi dukkhassa, sace te dukkhamappiya.m. 247. do not do an evil action either openly or in secret. But if you do or will do an evil action, 248. there is no release form pain for you, even if you flee [and] run away.* If you are afraid of pain, if pain is unpleasant for you, Cy: Aavi vaa paresa.m paaka.tabhaavena appa.ticchanna.m katvaa kaayena vaacaaya paa.naatipaataadivasena vaa yadi vaa raho apaaka.tabhaavena pa.ticchanna.m katvaa manodvaareyeva abhijjhaadivasena vaa a.numattampi paapaka.m laamaka.m kamma.m maakaasi maa kari. Atha pana ta.m paapakamma.m aayati.m karissasi, etarahi karosi vaa, "nirayaadiisu catuusu apaayesu manussesu ca tassa phalabhuuta.m dukkha.m ito etto vaa palaayante mayi naanubandhissatii"ti adhippaayena upecca sa~ncicca palaayatopi te tato paapato mutti mokkhaa natthi, gatikaalaadipaccayantarasamavaaye sati vipaccate evaati attho. "Uppaccaa"ti vaa paa.tho, uppatitvaati attho. Eva.m paapassa akara.nena dukkhaabhaava.m dassetvaa idaani pu~n~nassa kara.nenapi ta.m dassetu.m "sace bhaayasii"ti-aadi vutta.m. 247-248. Either openly means: through the state of being well known to others, being made not concealed physically or verbally, either because of killing living beings, etc, or in secret, through the state of not being well know, having concealed it. Also in the mind door, do not do (maakaasi = maa kari) an evil, bad action, because of the covetousness, etc, or even [one] of minute size. But [if] you also perform that evil action in the future, or if you perform it now, and run away here or there with the intention that it will not pursue you with pain as a consequence of that in the hells, etc, the four lower realms, or among men - even if you flee (upecca), deliberately run away (sa~ncicca palaayato) from there, there is no release, no deliverance from evil. It comes to fruition because there is the coming together of the cause, rebirth and opportunity, etc. Or there is the reading: "if you fly up" (uppacca)* [for "if you flee" (upecca)]. The meaning [of that] is: "if you jump up" (uppatitvaa). Now, in order to show it through the doing of meritorious action, she says, If you are afraid, etc. *KRN suggests this as the preferred reading (EV II p109) and translates accordingly. In his note there, read "Ud-a" for "Uv-A." See also UC II, pp.819f., n.352. c: Pruitt's other two footnotes for this paragraph refer to Ud-a 295 (UC II 758). Minor Anthologies II - Ud V iv: Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying near Saavatthii, at Jeta Grove in Anaathapi.n.dika's Park. Now at that time between Saavatthii and Jeta Grove a number of lads were tormenting fish. And the Exalted One, robing himself in the forenoon and taking bowl and robe, was entering Saavatthii in quest of alms-food. Then the Exalted One saw those many lads tormenting fish between Jeta Grove and Saavatthii. At the sight he went up to them and said, 'Are you afraid of pain, my lads? Do you dislike pain?' 'Yes, sir, we are afraid of pain. We dislike pain.' Then the Exalted One ... gave utterance to this verse of uplift: If ye are afraid of pain, if pain is hateful to you, Do not an evil deed openly or in secret. If ye shall do an evil deed or do one now, There's no excape from pain, tho' ye spring up and flee. Peter Masefield, UC II 758: Sona Chapter, #4. Youths: ...cut.... Fathoming this matter (etam attha.m viditvaa): [295] fathoming in all its modes this matter, viz. that those beings, (though) those singularly not desiring dukkha for themselves, are in fact, in practising that which is the root-cause of dukkha, those singularly desiring that (dukkha) for themselves. This Udaana (ima.m udaana.m): gave rise to this Udaana deterring (individuals) from evil activity and explaining the peril (therein). This is its meaning: if that dukkha associated with the states of loss, and that which admits of such divisions as being of short lifespan in the happy destiny and of being misfortunate amongst humans and so on, is entirely distasteful, undesirable, for you, if you have fear thereof, then do not perform (maakattha = maa karittha, alternative grammatical form, even to the extent of a mere atom, that which is evil, that which is of a despicable nature, either openly, by performing, by means of body or by means of speech, in an unconcealed fashion by way of its being public for others, that which admits of division into destroying living beings and so forth, or in hiding, by performing, solely at the mind-door, in a concealed fashion by way of its not being so public, that which admits of division into covetousness and so on; whilst, moreover, (if) you perform that evil deed now, or (if) you go on to perform one in future, then there can be for you, even when deliberately, intentionally running away with the implication that the dukkha in the hells and so on, in the four states of loss and amongst men that constitutes the fruition thereof will not pursue you when running away in this direction or that, no release, no freedom, therefrom. He indicates that it will still ripen when there is a conjunction of the various conditions necessary (for same), such as destiny and time and so on. They also read palaayane (when there be a running away), meaning when there be a going, a departing, to whichever place in the aforesaid manner. And this fact is to be elucidated by way of this verse: "Neither in the air, nor in mid-ocean, {nor if one should enter a cleft in the mountains, is there known that region of the earth, wherein stationed one might escape} one's evil deed" (Dhp 127). The exposition of the fourth sutta is concluded. to be continued, connie #75853 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Daer Han, - Abiding in equanimity toward both the repulsive and unrepulsive, mindful and fully aware is a great goal. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep (Scott), > > Scott has already explained what he meant by his > comment. > > My understanding is that Scott was referring to MN 152 > paragraph 11-16 > "If he should wish: `May I, avoiding both the > repulsive and unrepulsive, abide in equanimity, > mindful and fully aware,' he abides in equanimity > towards that, mindful and fully aware." > > Again, if you ask me whether I can do that, I will > have to answer at the present I cannot, because this > is ascribed to the Arahants. > T: I think perfect equanimity belongs to the Arahants. For us just equanimity that works well, even though not stable, is not bad. Tep === #75854 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: correction: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Part I indriyabala Dear Nina, - As you know I am not "in the Abhidhamma" unlike the Abhidhammikas here. So just to be able to "smell" it is good enough for me. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard (and Tep), > Correction of some typos: of Tep: his thanks, he smells Abhidhamma.... > > Nina. #75855 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Tep, > Tep: That stage might be closer to " *really* see anicca of any dhamma" than you think. Just like driving a car to a new beach. You have a map and you have memorized all the detail. Now you are driving on a mountain top and can see the beach down the horizon. Just keep on driving in the right direction, I say. Han: Thank you very much for your kind encouragement. Respectfully, Han #75856 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Tep, Thank you very much for your kind comments. > Tep: I think perfect equanimity belongs to the Arahants. For us just equanimity that works well, even though not stable, is not bad. Han: At the moment, I can only hope for that kind of equanimity. Respectfully, Han #75857 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 6:01 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon (and Howard), - You gave two hypotheses that show "highly developed understanding of dhammas", using the conventional speech of the illusive world of no beings. (1) Jon: To my understanding, rupas cannot be directly known other than by the consciousness that is mundane (or supramundane) insight. (2) Jon: And just to add a bit on a related topic. There is conventional speech and there is speech that is adapted to reflect the world of dhammas. Now dhammas can be spoken of using either kind of speech. Jon: When 2 people who both have a highly developed understanding of dhammas are talking, they may use conventional speech, because each understands the other as intended, and there is no risk of one mis- taking the other. This I think is the case in many of the suttas where the Buddha is talking to those ready for enlightenment. T: Your hypotheses raise several questions. Those who are "ready for enlightenment", do they "see" only cittas and cetasikas, or "consciousness that is mundane (or supramundane) insight", in every moment but no persons or individuals? In other words, are there only ultimate realities in the emptiness that is void of beings and concepts? If so, why do they need to use conventional sppech of the illusive world of concepts where no beings can be found? Thank you for suggesting these two very interesting hypotheses. I hope you may open up a gateway to abhidhamma learning for me that is far better than smelling it from the outside (like I used to do). Tep === > > ---------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I also consider breaths to be only conventional realities. #75858 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon and Swee (and others), - I appreciate Swee's clever questioning & examination of the important issue of concepts vs. realities. And I also admire Jonathan's clever (and slippery) way of answering that has become more and more skillful every passing day. > > Swee: Not only do I think the concept of realities should be carefully examined, I also think the concept of "'concepts' vs 'realities'" should be carefully examined as well. It could very well turn out to be the biggest red herring of the Dhamma in our days. > Jon: Well in a sense it could be said that "'concepts' vs 'realities'" is a red herring, because it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood. > T: It is very true that "it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood". But the "dhammas" are only seen by ariyans who "see" emptiness and lack of substance in all sankhra dhammas. The worldings who wrote books/articles on "'concepts' vs 'realities'", who do not have the Dhamma Eye, might have distorted the pure Dhamma to some extent. We wouldn't be confused if they did not make a big deal out of the issue. ............ > > Swee: Could the separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities' be just a mundane & useless mental exercise carried out according to a conceptualized set of conceptualized criteria? > > Jon: However, there is no separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities'. All directly experienced phenomena are dhammas. > T: I think Swee meant breathing meditation and insights that spring from the practice, for instance, are experienced phenomena. .............. > > Swee: I don't know, but as far as I know, the Buddha hadn't expounded on "'concepts' vs 'realities'" in the suttas. > > Jon: I can't think of any statement of the Buddha's directly on the point of "concepts vs. dhammas". However, he certainly did refer to > *conceptualising*. > T: The Buddha did not make such statement because He did not make a big deal out of the "concepts" things. ........... Jon: > "Concept" is not a term used to refer to a class of experenced > phenomena. > T: there you go again ! {:>)) Tep === #75859 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind upasaka_howard Hi, ZB - In a message dated 9/2/07 1:11:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, zorrobueno@... writes: > with all these ancient words and things to do and not to do.And > lifetimes to wait.It all reminds me of the guy who tried for 20 years > to break out of jail by banging his shoulder against the door.One day > in waryness he leans back and the door falls open of itself.haha on him. ==================== All that banging probably broke the lock! ;-)) With metta, Howard #75860 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:15 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nidive Hi Sarah, > S: I could refine it further by saying that it is the development > of understanding and awareness of whatever conditioned dhamma > *appears* at this moment. There are many dhammas arising and > passing away at any moment, but only one dhamma ever appears at a > time. I think by "dhamma" here, you mean a rupa, a cetasika, a citta or nibbana. But is a corpse a rupa? Seeing a corpse is different from seeing a rupa. A corpse is a concept according to you. > S: If we really understood what dhammas are, what understanding is, > what awareness is, what anatta means, then there'd be no need for > further elaboration. In a way it is simple - Sariputta didn't need > long explanations to get the message. So why didn't the Buddha teach satipatthana in DN 22 the way you have expounded it? Why beat about the bush? Could it be that the audience of DN 22 are dimwits? But if they were dimwits, wouldn't it have been better to teach them the simpler version (your version) than the complicated version as laid out in DN 22? Why leave them with the hard job of summarizing the simpler version from the complicated version? Why leave chances for error in the process of summarizing and interpreting? > However, we're so used to being lost in a world of concepts, so > used to think Self can direct the show, so used to thinking in > terms of people and things existing, so very unused to > understanding what seeing is, what visible object is, that we need > to hear a lot of explanation and detail to get the point. I don't understand why the five aggregates are called 'real', but the person that is made up of the five aggregates is not 'real' (you call it a concept). Is the sum of all the parts lesser than the individual parts themselves? There does not exist independently an aggregate of form by itself, or an aggregate of feelings by itself, or an aggregate of perceptions by itself, or an aggregate of consciousness by itself, or an aggregate of mental constructions by itself. The five aggregates are mutually dependent on one another and comes together as a "package", as a "summation". In actual reality, they cannot be separated from one another. > S: Thanks for raising this important point. No, satipatthana only > refers to the understanding of a dhamma at "this moment". By > understanding the characteristic of visible object as visible > object (rupa khandha) at this moment, it is evident that any other > visible object (past, future, internal, external....etc) all are > just rupa khandha, mere elements, not things or body or people. This is good & logical deduction, but is such deduction satipatthana on the "present moment"? Wouldn't the mind have to leave the "present moment" to form such a deduction? Swee Boon #75861 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:25 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island .. Concepts vs Realities indriyabala Hi Jonathan (and Swee), - What a happy coincidence! A few minutes ago I just posted a discussion message on concepts vs. realities. Now, in this new message #75842 you did a thoroughly good job of summarizing your understanding about this issue. And I appreciate this effort. The key points made by Jonathan: 1. The Buddha didn't "teach" concepts, in the sense that what are to be directly known and understood are only realities (dhammas). 2.1 We learn about concepts only to better understand what dhammas are. 2.2 Anything that is real in the ultimate (paramattha) sense we call a dhamma. Only dhammas "are". One of those dhammas is the consciousness that thinks (conceptualises). But there *are no* concepts as such. 3.1 I wouldn't say that concepts are inferior to ultimate realties. That seems to give concepts a reality they don't have. 3.2 It's not like there are 2 things: dhammas and concepts. In the ultimate sense, there are only dhammas. Tep's response/comments : 1. Agreed that He did not teach concepts per se. But are only ultimate realities are to be directly known? Read the folowing quote from the Patisambhidamagga. Treatise I, section i. Some of these ideas (dhammas) look like concepts to me. At least they are not the 4 ultimate realities. How is it that knowledge of the ideas that one has heard are to be directly known is suta-maya-nana? One idea(dhamma) to be directly known: All beings are maintained by nutriment(ahara). Two ideas to be directly known: the formed(sankhata) and unformed (nibbana). Three ideas to be directly known: sense-desire element(kama-dhatu), material element(rupa-dhatu), and immaterial element(arupa-dhatu). Four ideas to be directly known: the four noble truths. Five ideas to be directly known: five bases(ayatana) for deliverance (vimutti). Six ideas to be directly known: the six unsurpassables(anuttariya). Seven ideas to be directly known: seven grounds for commendation (i.e. the reasons why the Arahant abandons rebirth). Eight ideas to be directly known: eight bases of mastery(abhi- bhaayatana). Nine ideas to be directly known: nine successive abidings. Ten ideas to be directly known: ten grounds for decay(nijjara-vatthu) 2.1 Gladly accepted as true. 2.2 The ultimate realities (rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana) are not all dhammas. True, consciousness/cognizance knows. Thoughts are citta-sankhara that lead to dukkha, according to the following Dhammapada verse. Are thoughts concepts? 105. Yo caram va yo tittham va nisinno udava sayam vitakkam samayitvana vitakkopasame rato bhabbo so tadiso bhikkhu phutthum sambodhim uttamam. Whether he walks or stands or sits or lies, a monk should take delight in controlling all thoughts. Such a monk is qualified to reach supreme enlightenment. http://www.bps.lk/wheels_library/wh_342_344.htm#Cit But I do not understand your statement : "But there *are no* concepts as such." 3.1 & 3.2 : It is not clear yet about your definition of concepts. Do you mean thoughts, breaths, all formations are concepts, and only the ultimate realities are dhammas, and dhammas are the only truths ? IMHO there are holes in your arguments 3.1 & 3.2, unless I am wrong. Tep === #75862 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/2/07 4:54:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Tep (and Swee Boon, and "core-DSGers") - > > > >In a message dated 9/1/07 8:38:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >indriyabala@... writes: > > > >>Good question ! You should have asked Nina, Sarah, Scott, Howard, > >>KenH and the whole Abhidhamma gang of DSG. > >> > >======================= > > LOLOL! So now I'm an Abhidhammika! ;-)) [I can't wait to > hear the > >response on that from the others! LOL!] > > Well I'm sure you most certainly are an Abhidhammika in the eyes of > those who tend to label folks as being of this camp or that. And I > think you (unwittingly) became one quite some time ago ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps so. ;-) -------------------------------------------- > > You see, to be labelled an Abhidhammika around here it's not > necessary to actually embrace the Abhidhamma; any remark of approval > or acknowledgement, however tentative, will suffice for those keen to > make a point (jk, of course). -------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Of course, jk! ;-)) BTW, I find it so much fun being placed in all these differing "camps"! Seeing myself in all the ways others may think of me reminds me of the contemplation technique of mentally disecting oneself as a butcher cuts apart a cow! ;-) One part of the carcass lays out on the so-thought-of "spurious, dry-as-bones Abhidhamma table", another on the so-thought-of "attached-to-rite-and-ritual meditator table", still another on the widely-thought-of "heretical Mahayana table" (placed outside near the trash bin by fastidious Theravadin health inspectors), and yet another part spread out down the block on a table at a remote and widely disliked and shunned Judaism area. (I won't even mention those parts laid out on the "Admirer-of-the-teachings-of-some-wandering-Hebrew-the-Greeks-called-Jesus table", because that table has been shunned by all the others! LOL!) Why, this body has been so finely sliced and diced that it's practically a bloody pulp at this point! LOLOL! -------------------------------------------------- > > Anyway, welcome to the gang (not that I've ever thought of myself as > being one). ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Onward Abhidhamma soldiers, marching as to war! Comrades in arms, my fellow gang members! LOLOL! --------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ====================== With metta, Howard #75863 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Tep) - In a message dated 9/2/07 5:27:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard (and Tep) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Tep - > .. > >---------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I also consider breaths to be only conventional realities. > They, like > >persons, are nothing in and of themselves. What is actually there > when we > >"note a breath" is a host of interrelated rupas - warmth/coolness, > motion, touch > >sensations, some hardness/softness, some dampness, and so on - and > a thinking > >process that unifies these interrelated phenomena. > > Yes, quite so. And in samatha bhavana (including when jhanas are > attained) it is the "conventional reality" (i.e., concept) of breath, > rather than any rupas, that are the object of consciousness. > > To my understanding, rupas cannot be directly known other than by the > consciousness that is mundane (or supramundane) insight. > > ... > >------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > There is conventional speech that is true and conventional > speech that > >is false. But all conventional speech, properly understood, is > figurative and > >abbreviational. Taken in that way, it can be true. Mis-taken as > literal makes > >it all false. > >---------------------------------------- > > Spoken like a true abhidhammika ;-)) ------------------------------------------- Howard: I would prefer to say "a Buddhist". ;-) -------------------------------------------- > > And just to add a bit on a related topic. There is conventional > speech and there is speech that is adapted to reflect the world of > dhammas. > > Now dhammas can be spoken of using either kind of speech. > > When 2 people who both have a highly developed understanding of > dhammas are talking, they may use conventional speech, because each > understands the other as intended, and there is no risk of one mis- > taking the other. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree with the foregoing. ------------------------------------------- > > This I think is the case in many of the suttas where the Buddha is > talking to those ready for enlightenment. Is this how you see it too? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm sure this is so, though it is not something always perfectly evident as to which suttas are such and which are not. Some are clearly such, others clearly not, and still others requiring study in that regard. ----------------------------------------- > > Jon > ==================== With metta, Howard #75864 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views indriyabala Dear jon, - Perhaps you were too busy to read through the whole message. I guarantee you that several concerns of yours below are adequately addressed by this "Some Findings About Self and Self Views". > Jon: From time to time someone brings up the meaning of atta as a subject for discussion. > I'm not sure that it's necessary to know anything about atta. You see, while anatta is a characteristic of dhammas, atta is not. There *is no* atta; there is only a (wrong) view of atta. > Did the Buddha teach anything about atta? Not to my knowledge. But he did teach anatta as a characteristic of dhammas. So while an intellectual understanding of anatta is no doubt helpful, I have doubts about the value of atta as a subject of study. As regards atta view, these are all discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. Hoping this provides some food for thought. > Tep === #75865 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/2/07 5:39:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > "Concept" is a term for that which is conceived by the mind, rather > than being phenomena that are directly experienced. It is a term > that may be used in apposition to "dhammas", but it's difficult to > say anything more than that without giving them a reality they don't > have (and even this sentence is doing just that ;-)). > > "Concept" is not a term used to refer to a class of experenced > phenomena. > ====================== I agree with this and think it is well put. With metta, Howard #75866 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nidive Hi Jon, > Well in a sense it could be said that "'concepts' vs 'realities'" > is a red herring, because it is only dhammas that can be, and are > to be, directly known and thus directly understood. But without knowledge of "'concepts' vs 'realities'", how do we know which dhammas are to be directly known and thus directly understood? Is this knowledge soldered into our minds? > However, there is no separation of experienced phenomena into > 'concepts' and 'realities'. All directly experienced phenomena are > dhammas. I directly experience in-&-out breaths. I directly experience the keyboard. I directly experience the beautiful sight of the sun setting at sea. It is kind of funny that you agree with me that there is no separation of experienced phenomena into 'concepts' and 'realities' because these are all the things that I directly experience but other people on DSG call them concepts that don't exist. Are you sure you are not part of the 'gang'? Swee Boon #75867 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/2/07 5:48:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep > Sastri" wrote: > > > > > >Hi Nina, Sarah, Howard, Scott, Swee, Han, James ..., - > ... > >Atta is supposed to be the opposite to anatta, is it not? And the > >Anatta Doctrine is of such great importance. So, if we disagree (or > >Tep stubbornly disagrees with you, and he has been wrong) on atta, > >how can we possibly agree on anatta? Perhaps, our understandings on > >self and self views have been fundamentally different from the > >beginning, and as a consequence our discussion has never reached a > >conclusion. > > From time to time someone brings up the meaning of atta as a subject > for discussion. > > I'm not sure that it's necessary to know anything about atta. You > see, while anatta is a characteristic of dhammas, atta is not. There > *is no* atta; there is only a (wrong) view of atta. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I think you are incorrect on this, Jon. Anatta is absence of atta. To have any understanding of the meaning of 'anatta', it must be understood exactly what it denies existence to. And to be mindful/watchful of the arising of atta-view, there is the need to know what it is. To understand the meaning of a term that refers to something not actually existent, it is particularly urgent to know what that alleged fantasy item is understood to be. --------------------------------------------- > > Did the Buddha teach anything about atta? Not to my knowledge. But > he did teach anatta as a characteristic of dhammas. > > So while an intellectual understanding of anatta is no doubt helpful, > I have doubts about the value of atta as a subject of study. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: No. We need to know what we are denying. If we do not, the denial is worthless. In fact, it is harmful, giving us the false sense of actually knowing something. ----------------------------------------------- > > As regards atta view, these are all discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: With regard to anything that does not actually exist, all that there is of it is its definition. But that definition is essential. Before physicists could determine the non-existence of "the ether", for example, they had to know what that term meant. See, for example, the following Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment --------------------------------------------------- > > Hoping this provides some food for thought. > > Jon > ========================= With metta, Howard #75868 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/2/07 7:25:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Abhidhammika Howard!, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > My answer was in response to your question "what is skillful > >resolves?" My point was that it is a type of thinking. Thinking is an > >actual mental > >operation. It is no less real than hardness, for example. It is > >irrelevant what > >the thinking is "about". I'm saying that the activity of thinking is not > >mere > >concept itself. > ... > S: With answers like this, the tag will definitely stick:-)) ------------------------------------------- Howard: No problem. I always have Ken to rely on! LOLOL! ----------------------------------------- > > Metta &appreciation, > > Sarah > =================== With metta, Howard #75869 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:46 am Subject: Ch 13, no 3 nilovg Dear friends, The “Book of Analysis” (Ch 5, Analysis of the Controlling Faculties, § 220) reminds us that the faculties are non-self. We read: Therein what is controlling faculty of eye? That eye which, derived from the four great essentials (the four great Elements [1]), is sensitive surface... this is an empty village. This is called controlling faculty of eye. The same is said of the other senses, they are all empty villages. The “Atthasaliní” (II, Book II, Ch III, 309) explains “empty village”: “And this is an empty village”, refers to its being common to many and to the absence of a possessor. Just as an empty village is unoccupied, so the eye and the other senses have no possessor, they are anattå, non-self. The five faculties which are the five senses (pasåda rúpas) are sense- doors as well as physical bases (vatthus). The heart-base (hadaya- vatthu) is the rúpa which is the physical base for the cittas other than the sense-cognitions. One may wonder why the heart-base is not a faculty, indriya. Objects do not impinge on the heart-base, the heart-base is not a doorway through which objects are experienced; it is not a “leader”, a controlling principle in the experiencing of objects. The heart-base is different from the mind-door. The mind-door through which objects are experienced is a citta, the last bhavanga-citta arising before the mind-door adverting-consciousness which is the first citta of the mind-door process[2]. As regards the five faculties which are the senses, they control the strength or weakness of the cittas dependent on them. The eye faculty, for example, controls seeing; keen and bad eyesight are due to the quality of the eye faculty and it is the same with the other four sense faculties. The heart-base does not in this way control the cittas which are dependent on it since it is not a faculty [3]. --------- 1.The eyesense arises in a group of rúpas which includes the four great Elements of solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion which are present in each group of rúpas. All rúpas other than the four great Elements are “derived rúpas”, upådå-rúpas and these are dependent on the four great Elements.There cannot be eyesense without solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion. 2. See Appendix 1. 3. See Guide to Conditional Relations I, Ch II, 16 b, Base- Prenascence-Faculty, by U Nårada. ******** Nina. #75870 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge .. Biting My Head Off.. indriyabala Dear Sarah, I appreciate your words of metta towards KenH. > Sarah: > Tep, don't ever mind his bites - they are very kindly meant bites (for the most part), I know. If you were to meet him, you'd know he's a very gentle guy with his own way of expression and Australian dry humour:-)). > > He spent a few decades or lifetimes following what he now considers to be wrong practices and rightly or wrongly (depending on how you see it), likes to try and help others get straight to true Dhamma! > He is an interesting guy, without any question. But his dancing style and his kind of "tune" are still out of synch with me. It might take me a few more trials, before we may finally finish the dance. Tep === #75871 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind moellerdieter Hi Howard ( ZB), 'with all these ancient words and things to do and not to do.And lifetimes to wait.It all reminds me of the guy who tried for 20 years to break out of jail by banging his shoulder against the door.One day in waryness he leans back and the door falls open of itself.haha on him. ==================== All that banging probably broke the lock! ;-)) D: no, the locked door appeared to be a concept not an ultimate reality .. Howard, you need now to adjust to the etiquette of the 'gang ' ;-)) with Metta Dieter, #75872 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:02 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep and Han, Thanks for the ongoing discussion. (You're both not 'ganging up' on me, are you? colette's got me nervous - dragged into an alley in the dark to get roughed up by a couple of old toughs...) T: Now I have no difficulty following your suggestion, Scott. Yes, the two cases are indeed different. One case deals with repulsive/nonrepulsive objects that are not feelings, the other case (SN 36.5) is about feelings. You do not apply loving-kindness toward a painful feeling, for example." Scott: The Visuddhimagga (IV 156-166) clarifies equanimity, which is upekkhaa, which is tatramajjhattataa cetasika). There are a number types of equanimity: "Six factored equanimity (cha.la"nga upekkhaa) - this is that of the arahat...Equanimity as a divine abiding (brahma-vihaarupekkhaa)... Equanimity as an enlightenment factor (bhojjhangupekkhaa)... Equanimity of energy (viryupekkhaa)...Equanimity about formations (sa"nkhaarupekkhaa)... Equanimity as a [or 'of'] feeling (vedanupekkhaa)...Equanimity about insight (vipassanupekkhaa)... Equanimity as specific neutrality (tatramajjhattupekkhaa)...Equanimity of jhaana (jhaanupekkhaa)... Purifying equanimity (parisuddhupekkhaa)..." Scott: How do you understand the above to factor into the discussion? Sincerely, Scott. #75873 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:08 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Swee and Sarah (and Nina, Scott, ..) Good job, Swee. I am thankful for your wise/appropriate questioning that has brought out a number of issues for continuing fruitful discussion. I also am thankful to Sarah thoughtful and wise reply, but the discussion is still far from reaching a conclusion. > Tep === #75874 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Sarah and Howard, - Quite observant, Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Abhidhammika Howard!, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > My answer was in response to your question "what is skillful resolves?" My point was that it is a type of thinking. Thinking is an actual mental operation. It is no less real than hardness, for example. It is irrelevant what the thinking is "about". I'm saying that the activity of thinking is not mere concept itself. > ... > S: With answers like this, the tag will definitely stick:-)) > > Metta & appreciation, > > Sarah > ======== T: Howard probably does not know himself that he is now in a deep- water zone, and that it is now too late to back out! So long, good bye, Howard. Tep === #75875 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:42 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear colette, Thanks for the reply: Me: "Wouldn't it depend on which characteristics of an object comes to be 'seen' at a given moment? MN 152 seems to be looking at the arising and establishment of equanimity ('...upekkhaa sa.n.thaati). I'd say that the cetasika upekkhaa would suffuse a moment of consciousness with its particular characteristic and this 'flavour' would then have it own experiential concomitant." colette: "good but I think it goes FAR DEEPER than that since what it certainly sounds as though they're trying to express is the actual feeling sensation of equanimity." Scott: This is a very good point, colette. Now I don't go so far philosophically as you do with: c: "Everything springs forth from the same well, or stream (buddha- nature). Everything, then has to possess the qualities of an "un-repulsive" object. Through the course of it's existance it has acquired negative qualities which obscure the actual vision." Scott: I think of naama and ruupa and knowing the difference between the two, for one thing. But I can look at: c: "Equanimity has the characteristics of being not good/not bad/ pleasant/unpleasant, basically it calls to rise the concept of DUALITY...I believe the quote Tep applied speaks directly to the two concepts of Anatta and Shunyata so that there exists the reality of equanimity before even an opinion could be reached since no opinion is desireable. I could venture out to suggest that the Buddha-Nature is what is to be directly seen imediately and without hesitation FIRST BEFORE ANY CHOICE OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE COULD ARISE." Scott: I'll bring in Venerable Buddhagosa from Attasaalinii (p. 176): "'Equanimity'(or balance of mind - tatramajjhaattataa) is neutrality regarding various states. It has the characteristic of carrying on consciousness and mental properties equally, the function of checking deficiency and excess, or of cutting off partisanship; it has the manifestation of neutrality. By virtue of its indifference regarding consciousness and mental properties it should be regarded as a charioteer who treats with impartiality the well-trained horses he is driving." Scott: Again, Buddha-Nature is beyond the city walls for me, colette, sorry. Equanimity has its own nature which is, I guess, is what it is first and foremost and arises and falls away solely due to conditions and is therefore sort of pristine and clear and like that. colette: "...Scott, I think you missed this one entirely. With reference to your reply the 'object' in question has not undergone the changes but your mind may've been conditioned to change/act/react in certain ways as to cast the shadow of unpleasantness upon the object." Scott: I think the change referred to is due to the rapid arising and ceasing of conditioned dhammas. Naama and ruupa are subject to this impermanence. 'Reaction' suggests conditionality, at least to me. I hope you are well. Talk to you later. Sincerely, Scott. #75876 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind nilovg Dear Tom Z, I can sympathize so much with you. But don't let it bother you. You can, as Sarah often says to newcomers, start your own thread. Why not a thread about more simple things, that can be very interesting. Or with your own questions and matters you take to heart. As to lifetimes to wait, that is another subject. How do you see this? Nina. Op 2-sep-2007, om 0:45 heeft tom het volgende geschreven: > with all these ancient words and things to do and not to do.And > lifetimes to wait #75877 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 9:19 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Hi Scott (Han, Colette), - I am pleased with our ability to discuss and learn despite minor conflicts. [Whose discussion is perfect, anyway?] Scott: You're both not 'ganging up' on me, are you? colette's got me nervous - dragged into an alley in the dark to get roughed up by a couple of old toughs... T: Colette was too pessimistic. These two old toughs are kind and radiating metta in every direction ! Scott: The Visuddhimagga (IV 156-166) clarifies equanimity, which is upekkhaa, which is tatramajjhattataa cetasika). There are a number types of equanimity: "Six factored equanimity (cha.la"nga upekkhaa) - this is that of the arahat...Equanimity as a divine abiding (brahma-vihaarupekkhaa)... Equanimity as an enlightenment factor (bhojjhangupekkhaa)... Equanimity of energy (viryupekkhaa)...Equanimity about formations (sa"nkhaarupekkhaa)... Equanimity as a [or 'of'] feeling (vedanupekkhaa)...Equanimity about insight (vipassanupekkhaa)... Equanimity as specific neutrality (tatramajjhattupekkhaa)...Equanimity of jhaana (jhaanupekkhaa)... Purifying equanimity (parisuddhupekkhaa)..." Scott: How do you understand the above to factor into the discussion? ........... T: Your question is tougher than Nina's qualifying exam. Your tactic of "questioning 'em to death" has proved to be successful every time. [ Han and I have a weakness of being fond of questions, thus we often fall prey to younger aggressive guys.] Are you aware or not that your quote is from Chapter IV, The Earth Kasina (the paperback edition,1999) which is heavy in jhana through samatha kammatthana? Are you sure that you want to bring that into the discussion? IV, 156 : ... Equanimity is of ten kinds; six-factored equanimity, equanimity as a divine abiding, equanimity as an enlightenment factor, equanimity of energy, equanimity about formations, equanimity as a feeling, equanim,ity about insight, equanimity as specific neutrality, equanimity of jhana, and equanimity of purification. T: Now, concerning the six-factored equanimity. It fits our discussion topic despite the implication that it is supported by jhana, which is not in your domain of interest. The following paragraph # 157 describes this type of equanimity that arises "when desirable or undesirable objects of the six kinds come into focus in the six doors". 'Here a bhikkhu whose cankers are destroyed is neither glad or sad on seeing a visible object with eye: he dwells in equanimity, midful and fully aware'. etc. That is upekkhaa at the sense doors way upstream before vedana has a chance to arise. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep and Han, > > Thanks for the ongoing discussion. (You're both not 'ganging up' on > me, are you? colette's got me nervous - dragged into an alley in the > dark to get roughed up by a couple of old toughs...) > #75878 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:53 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 1. Misconceptions. nilovg Dear friends Chapter 4 Misconceptions We have a distorted view of reality: what is impermanent we take for permanent, what is dukkha we take for happiness, what is non-self we take for self, what is foul we take for beautiful. Without the Buddha’s teachings we would never know that we have a distorted view of reality, that we deviate from the truth. We have accumulated these ways of wrong conceiving for so long, that even when we study the Dhamma we are still inclined to deviate from the truth. These ways of conceiving phenomena in the wrong way are classified in the scriptures as “vipallåsa”, as perversions or hallucinations. This was one of the subjects we discussed during our journey. We read in “The Path of Discrimination” (Patisambhidåmagga, First Division, VIII, Treatise on Perversions) : Bhikkhus, there are these four perversions of perception (saññå), perversions of cognizance (citta), perversions of view (ditthi). What four? Bhikkhus, seeing what is impermanent as permanent is a perversion of perception, a perversion of cognizance, a perversion of view. Seeing the painful (dukkha) as pleasant is a perversion of perception, a perversion of cognizance, a perversion of view. Seeing what is not self as self is a perversion of perception, a perversion of cognizance, a perversion of view. Seeing the foul as beautiful is a perversion of perception, a perversion of cognizance, a perversion of view. These, bhikkhus, are the four perversions of perception, perversions of cognizanze, perversions of view. We read further on that there are four non-perversions which are the opposites of the perversions. The perversions are deeply rooted and all of them arise so long as we have not attained enlightenment. Four of the eight akusala cittas rooted in lobha, attachment, are accompanied by ditthi. When there is ditthi one clings with wrong view to the self, to what one believes is permanent, to what one takes for beauty and for happiness. Citta is the “leader” in cognizing an object, and the accompanying cetasikas also experience that object, but they have each their own function. Citta and the accompanying cetasikas condition one another. When citta is accompanied by ditthi, the citta and the other cetasikas, saññå included, are conditioned by ditthi: all of them are perverted by wrong view. Saññå which accompanies each citta has the function of remembering or recognizing. Saññå which accompanies kusala citta is completely different from saññå which accompanies akusala citta. Also in the case of akusala citta without ditthi, saññå which is perverted remembers wrongly, in a distorted way, and citta which is perverted cognizes the object in a distorted way. ******* Nina. #75879 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 9:53 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "...These two old toughs are kind and radiating metta in every direction!" Scott: Ouch. > > Scott: The Visuddhimagga (IV 156-166) clarifies equanimity, which is > upekkhaa, which is tatramajjhattataa cetasika). There are a number > types of equanimity: > > "Six factored equanimity (cha.la"nga upekkhaa) - this is that of the > arahat...Equanimity as a divine abiding (brahma-vihaarupekkhaa)... > Equanimity as an enlightenment factor (bhojjhangupekkhaa)... > Equanimity of energy (viryupekkhaa)...Equanimity about formations > (sa"nkhaarupekkhaa)... Equanimity as a [or 'of'] feeling > (vedanupekkhaa)...Equanimity about insight (vipassanupekkhaa)... > Equanimity as specific neutrality (tatramajjhattupekkhaa)...Equanimity > of jhaana (jhaanupekkhaa)... Purifying equanimity > (parisuddhupekkhaa)..." > T: "...Are you aware or not that your quote is from Chapter IV, The Earth Kasina (the paperback edition,1999) which is heavy in jhana through samatha kammatthana? Are you sure that you want to bring that into the discussion?" Scott: No need to worry, Tep. I think Buddhagosa merely elaborated on upekkhaa in context. Just because this happens to be in the chapter on the earth kasina is of no real consequence. He included jhaanupekkhaa in the overall list, I notice, and so there is no need to go off into this. T: "Now, concerning the six-factored equanimity. It fits our discussion topic despite the implication that it is supported by jhana, which is not in your domain of interest." Scott: Well, the 'implication' would be debatable, subject to research. No, it is not a part of this discussion at the moment. I like to learn about all aspects of the Dhamma but there is no need to reinvigorate the tiresome ongoing debate here. T: "The following paragraph # 157 describes this type of equanimity that arises 'when desirable or undesirable objects of the six kinds come into focus in the six doors'... That is upekkhaa at the sense doors way upstream before vedana has a chance to arise." Scott: Good point. Can you elaborate the order of arising here? This would take the discussion into the realm of Abhidhamma, which, as you know, I appreciate very much. Sincerely, Scott. #75880 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 10:25 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Hi Scott, - The discussion continues. > > T: "The following paragraph # 157 describes this type of equanimity > that arises 'when desirable or undesirable objects of the six kinds > come into focus in the six doors'... That is upekkhaa at the sense > doors way upstream before vedana has a chance to arise." > > Scott: Good point. Can you elaborate the order of arising here? This > would take the discussion into the realm of Abhidhamma, which, as you > know, I appreciate very much. > T: Yes, I can, but without taking the discussion "into the realm of Abhidhamma". The order of arising is explained in MN 137: Salayatana Vibhanga Sutta. The sutta like this is adequate for a simple Buddhist like me. Tep === #75881 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:20 am Subject: Truths about Clustered Clinging! bhikkhu0@... Friends: What 4 Objects of Clinging are always inevitable Suffering? The Blessed Buddha once said this: Bhikkhus & Friends there are these Four Noble Truths. What four? The Noble Truth of Suffering; The Noble Truth on the Cause of Suffering; The Noble Truth on the End of Suffering; The Noble Truth on the Way to end Suffering... These are the Four Noble Truths! What, Bhikkhus & Friends, is the 1st Noble Truth of Suffering? These Five Clusters of Clinging are Suffering! The cluster of clinging to Material Form (RÅ«pa) is Suffering... The cluster of clinging to Mental Feeling (VedanÄ?) is Suffering... The cluster of clinging to Mental Perception (SaññÄ?) is Suffering... The cluster of clinging to Mental Construction (SankhÄ?ra) is Suffering... The cluster of clinging to bare Consciousness (ViññÄ?na) itself is Suffering... This is verily the 1st Noble Truth of Suffering! What, Bhikkhus & Friends, is the 2nd Noble Truth on the Cause of Suffering? It is this Craving , which leads to renewed becoming joined by delight and lust, seeking delight now here & later there! That is craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming (ex. rich) this & the craving for not-becoming that (sick). This is indeed the 2nd Noble Truth on the Cause of Suffering! What, Bhikkhus & Friends, is the 3rd Noble Truth on the Ceasing of Suffering? It is the traceless fading away & complete ceasing of that very same craving, the giving up & relinquishing of it, the freedom from it, & non-dependence on it. This is actually the 3rd Noble Truth on the Ceasing of all Suffering! What is the 4th Noble Truth on the Way leading to the ceasing of Suffering? It is this Noble 8-fold Way namely: Right View (sammÄ?-ditthi) Right Motivation (sammÄ?-sankappa) Right Speech (sammÄ?-vÄ?cÄ?) Right Action (sammÄ?-kammanta) Right Livelihood (sammÄ?-Ä?jÄ«va) Right Effort (sammÄ?-vÄ?yÄ?ma) Right Awareness (sammÄ?-sati) Right Concentration (sammÄ?-samÄ?dhi) This is the 4th Noble Truth on the Way leading to the ceasing of Suffering! These, Bhikkhu and Friends, are the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, Bhikkhus and Friends, an effort should be made much of, so to completely understand: This is Suffering; This is the Cause of Suffering; This is the End of Suffering; This is the Way leading to the End of Suffering... An effort should be made to understand, comprehend, penetrate, recognize & realize these 4 Noble Truths! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:425-6] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 13: Clusters... More on these 5 Clusters of Clinging (Khandha): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_are_the_5_Clusters_of_Clinging.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Acquisition_of_Fuel.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Any_Kind.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Not_Yours.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Leash.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Fingernail_of_Soil.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_5_Clusters_of_Clinging.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/khandha.htm More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/truths.html http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sacca.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/index.html http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-h-1 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffering.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * #75882 From: "tom" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind zorroelbueno > All that banging probably broke the lock! ;-)) > > > D: no, the locked door appeared to be a concept not an ultimate reality .. > Howard, you need now to adjust to the etiquette of the 'gang ' ;- )) > > > with Metta Dieter, > > NO and no. That door was a wondrous being--a huge field of knowledge.Stay wih it until you are friends with it, until you are intimate with it until you are one with it.Saves a lot of wear and tear on the ;dominant shoulder. Z > > #75883 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 6:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 9/2/07 10:56:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: > All that banging probably broke the lock! ;-)) > > > D: no, the locked door appeared to be a concept not an ultimate reality .. > Howard, you need now to adjust to the etiquette of the 'gang ' ;-)) > > > with Metta Dieter ======================== Mmm. I'm not a member in good standing yet. I still haven't gotten to wear the gang colors! LOLOL! With metta, Howard #75884 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 10:51 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "...The order of arising is explained in MN 137: Salayatana Vibhanga Sutta..." Scott: If you see it as relevant, by all means please bring in the relevant information. Sincerely, Scott. #75885 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Sarah) - In a message dated 9/2/07 11:21:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > T: Howard probably does not know himself that he is now in a deep- > water zone, and that it is now too late to back out! > So long, good bye, Howard. > ======================== LOL! Starting to drown in the paramattha-dhamma deeps, eh? ;-)) With metta, Howard #75886 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind scottduncan2 Dear Tom, "NO and no. That door was a wondrous being--a huge field of knowledge. Stay wih it until you are friends with it, until you are intimate with it until you are one with it.Saves a lot of wear and tear on the dominant shoulder." This makes me think of that alert light in some cars which says, 'Door is ajar.' I mean, is it a door or is it a jar? What gives, man? Sincerely, Scott. #75887 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 1:00 pm Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Scott, - > Scott: If you see it as relevant, by all means please bring in the > relevant information. T: Of course, MN 137 is relevant. In MN 137 the Salayatana is classified by the 6 external-spheres (forms, ..., ideas) and 6 internal-sense spheres (eye, ..., mind), the 6 consciousnesses (cakkhu- to mano-vinnana), the 6 contacts (phassa). The 18 "ramblings of the mind" (3 vedanas X 6 external spheres) should be known; the 36 clingings should be known (3 vedana X 6 clingings to worldly and to non-sensual). The 3 vedana are pleasure, displeasure, and equanimity. And there 2 kinds of equanimity : there is the equanimity to diverse clinging, and there is the equanimity to a single clinging. The equanimity to diverse clinging are : equanimity to forms, to sounds, smells, tastes and touches. The equanimity to a single clinging are defined with respect to the sphere of space, the sphere of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, and the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. It is most interesting that the Great Sage taught the monks to "overcome and dispel" the equanimity to diverse clinging by the equanimity to a single clinging, and "without desiring equanimity to a single clinging, finally overcome and dispel equanimity to a single clinging". http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima-Nikaya/mn-137.htm What is your thought on the overcoming of the equanimity to a single clinging by abandoning tanha? Can one bypass this stage by contemplation of anatta (anattanupassana) alone? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for the reply: > > T: "...The order of arising is explained in MN 137: Salayatana > Vibhanga Sutta..." #75888 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confucian mentality insighting Namas & Rupas? ksheri3 Good Morning Sarah, While Insight can be the mentality of visionaries (making it somewhat of a noun) Insight can also be the action of an "Agent Provacature" which places our noun in the category of a verb. We can go to our friends the Alchemists who have a strikingly accurate word for this action: CATALYST. Since we were on a supposed thread concerning properly identifying Namas & Rupas I thought I'd do away with dirty little virus sitting there waiting to be put to use, employed, put into action. While my own immunology may be quite well thank you I see no reason to endanger any other individual that may come across this work in the future thus allowing me to put that virus to rest, no? <...> So, Sarah, you say: > Let's be very clear what namas and rupas are. > S: Thx for your feedback too. Again, let's be clear that it is the namas > and rupas (the consciousness, mental states and physical phenomena) that > are impermanent. Not the concepts. colette: Are you suggesting that Namas & Rupas are nothing more than than incongruent, intangible, worthless "objects" of our existance that we must transcend? I feel that if it wasn't for our existance then Namas & Rupas wouldn't exist. <...> Watch the spin on this one: namas and Rupas are nothing more than the conditioning that the individual mind issues externally. At this very second I'm thinking of running down stairs and digging for the work on Vasubandhu! <....> Now what were the conditions for existence that you put on Namas & Rupas? <....> toodles, colette #75889 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 11:36 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana ksheri3 LET THERE BE LIGHT, I didn't know how else to begin this since I was given such a colorful description Scott gave me. I was suggesting that Tep and Han were back together discusing a type of plan to further their own self- interests whatever those interests could be, one should look at my analogy as being from a scholarly point of view since in our line of study there are people in this world that certainly seek to abuse our study for their own personal self-interests. <...> Yes at the moment I wrote the characterisation of what appeared to be Tep saying what he knew was wrong, I thought I saw a collusive nature. No need to fear however Scott. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep and Han, > > Thanks for the ongoing discussion. (You're both not 'ganging up' on > me, are you? colette's got me nervous - dragged into an alley in the > dark to get roughed up by a couple of old toughs...) > > T: Now I have no difficulty following your suggestion, Scott. Yes, > the two cases are indeed different. One case deals with > repulsive/nonrepulsive objects that are not feelings, the other case > (SN 36.5) is about feelings. You do not apply loving-kindness toward > a painful feeling, for example." <...> #75890 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind ksheri3 good Day Zorro and Howard, You bring a good point out concerning the laborious nature of our work but then what is easy if it is worth having? I find no problems, however, with learning different languages since it gives so much more of a flavor to the different culture that inhabits the same space craft as I do. concerning the "lifetimes to waite" well, I just think that there's a little misinterpretation going on there. <...> The thousands of lifetimes schtick, IMO, has been used up as a selling point by the Thereavdan community but it's still there and well maybe somehow it'll attract buyers. At least, Zorro, you are browsing the store aren't you? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, ZB - > > In a message dated 9/2/07 1:11:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > zorrobueno@... writes: > > > with all these ancient words and things to do and not to do.And > > lifetimes to wait.It all reminds me of the guy who tried for 20 years > > to break out of jail by banging his shoulder against the door.One day > > in waryness he leans back and the door falls open of itself.haha on him. > ==================== > All that banging probably broke the lock! ;-)) <...> #75891 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 12:29 pm Subject: I Robot by Alan Parsons ksheri3 Hi Scott, Good Advice, to continue with the process, even if it is a little at a time, not like myself, who has nothing better to do than to study this type of schmuck, I mean stuff. I got so many irons in the fire that it's a never ending job (no rest for the wicked huh?) and I must admit that it was surprising that Sarah noticed that I do maintain a hectic schedule on the forums I'm a part of and those forums have very divergent conversations but somehow I manage to keep up, a little bit here a little bit there, etc. > "NO and no. That door was a wondrous being--a huge field of > knowledge. Stay wih it until you are friends with it, until you are > intimate with it until you are one with it.Saves a lot of wear and tear > on the dominant shoulder." > ------------------------------------------------- colette: the below statement is what I want to refer to. > This makes me think of that alert light in some cars which says, 'Door > is ajar.' I mean, is it a door or is it a jar? What gives, man? colette: it must be a syncronicity or however it's spelled, but somehow we did manage to think along similar lines. What's so beneficial is that you took the side of the machine and what it says as your foundation while I tend to go after those pesky little rodents that somebody stuffed into an already produced assembly line white shirt, tie, suit, wing-tips so that when the c*nt opens her legs to spread her wings she can make the sale, I mean fly a way. Your focus is that of the interaction that a RESULTANT rupa has with our consciousness. the staement that boggles the mind is "The Door Is A Jar" or is it "Ajar"? Damn, you've struck another joke the Kagyu have concerning a computer virus made up of not 1s nor 0s nor neither 1s and 0s. The point I'm making is that a computer, robot, searches for strings of characters and finds the characteristics of the characters, the same theory applies to cryptology or breaking codes, but the computer does it in lightening speeds. In a computerized world, THEREFORE, the phrase which has the human failures of two meanings such as "...Ajar" and "...A Jar" will not be a problem since the space between the letters is a character of nothing. Doesn't it sound as though that through mechanization of jobs in the workplace, which creates unemployment, and starving masses ("give me your hungry, your tired, your poor, and piss on 'em, that's what the Statue of Bigotry says" Lou Reed), that the great science fiction writes of days long gone by, are now coming true? Did they create the fiction which is now being seen as non-fiction or did they just observe it at the time? Are they prophets or are they simply setting up dominos? toodles, colette #75892 From: "tom" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 1:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind zorroelbueno > This makes me think of that alert light in some cars which says, 'Door > is ajar.' I mean, is it a door or is it a jar? What gives, man? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Is it a door or a jar? Well, let's look and see. The harder I look The more they both look like me. #75893 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Sarah, Nina, Scott, Tep, Colette, It is very unfortunate that Colette wrote something about Tep and I, and Scott get nervous. Sarah and Nina, you know me very well. If you consider that Tep and I are ganging up at DSG for our self-interest, kindly remove me from the Group. Respectfully, Han --- colette wrote: > LET THERE BE LIGHT, > > I didn't know how else to begin this since I was > given such a > colorful description Scott gave me. I was suggesting > that Tep and Han > were back together discusing a type of plan to > further their own self- > interests whatever those interests could be, one > should look at my > analogy as being from a scholarly point of view > since in our line of > study there are people in this world that certainly > seek to abuse our > study for their own personal self-interests. <...> > > Yes at the moment I wrote the characterisation of > what appeared to be > Tep saying what he knew was wrong, I thought I saw a > collusive > nature. No need to fear however Scott. > > toodles, > colette > #75894 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Han, Regarding: H: "It is very unfortunate that Colette wrote something about Tep and I, and Scott get nervous. Sarah and Nina, you know me very well. If you consider that Tep and I are ganging up at DSG for our self-interest, kindly remove me from the Group." Scott: Please be totally assured, Han, that I was in no way nervous. Your credentials are Impeccable, your comportment Admirable, your knowledge Humbly Offered, and your Value to the list is, without question, Immense. In a nutshell, you're The Man. (I'm only 'nervous' because, compared to you and Tep, I'm a complete and utter rookie and am liable to say one dumb thing after another - it won't stop me though.) Sincerely, Scott. #75895 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,186 Vism.XVII,187 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII [(iv) Mentality-Materiality] 186. For the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality': (1) By analysis of mind and matter, (2) Occurrence in becoming, et cetera, (3) Inclusion, and (4) manner of condition, The exposition should be known. 187. 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. 'Matter' (ruupa--materiality) is the four great primary elements and the materiality derived [by clinging] from the four great primaries. Their analysis is given in the Description of the Aggregates (Ch. XIV,34f. and 125f.). This, in the first place, is how the exposition of mentality-materiality should be known 'by analysis'. ******************** 186. vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupapade -- vibhaagaa naamaruupaana.m, bhavaadiisu pavattito. sa"ngahaa paccayanayaa, vi~n~naatabbo vinicchayo.. 187. vibhaagaa naamaruupaananti ettha hi naamanti aaramma.naabhimukha.m namanato vedanaadayo tayo khandhaa, ruupanti cattaari mahaabhuutaani catunna~nca mahaabhuutaana.m upaadaayaruupa.m. tesa.m vibhaago khandhaniddese vuttoyevaati. eva.m taavettha vibhaagaa naamaruupaana.m vi~n~naatabbo vinicchayo. #75896 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind scottduncan2 Dear Tom, T:" Is it a door or a jar? Well, let's look and see. The harder I look The more they both look like me." Scott: Surreal. What about the idea that all three ('door', 'jar', and 'me') are concepts and have no ultimate reality? What do you think about that old chestnut? Sincerely, Scott. #75897 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana hantun1 Dear Scott, Thank you very much for your kind assurance. I also have very high regard of you. You wrote: “I'm a complete and utter rookie and am liable to say one dumb thing after another.” No, Scott, your posts are always useful and I like them very much. Respectfully, your humble friend, Han --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Han, > > Regarding: > > H: "It is very unfortunate that Colette wrote > something about Tep and > I, and Scott get nervous. > > Sarah and Nina, you know me very well. > If you consider that Tep and I are ganging up at DSG > for our self-interest, kindly remove me from the > Group." > > Scott: Please be totally assured, Han, that I was in > no way nervous. > > Your credentials are Impeccable, your comportment > Admirable, your > knowledge Humbly Offered, and your Value to the list > is, without > question, Immense. In a nutshell, you're The Man. > > (I'm only 'nervous' because, compared to you and > Tep, I'm a complete > and utter rookie and am liable to say one dumb thing > after another - > it won't stop me though.) > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > #75898 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 5:14 pm Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,186 Vism.XVII,187 nichiconn Path of Purity, pp. 669-670 In the clause: "Conditioned by consciousness, name and form comes to pass": Decision should be known by classifying Of name and form, by causal mode and groups, Procedure in existence and so forth. As regards "By classifying of name and form" - "name" refers to the three aggregates beginning with feeling because they bend (namanato) towards the object. By "form" are understood the four Primaries, and matter derived therefrom. The classification of name and form has been stated in the Exposition of the Aggregates {above ch. xiv}. Thus first of all, decision should here be known by the classifying of name and form. #75899 From: "tom" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind zorroelbueno > > What about the idea that all three ('door', 'jar', and 'me') are > concepts and have no ultimate reality? > > What do you think about that old chestnut? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Yes, they are all just concepts.Cluster-beings. #75900 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 8:47 pm Subject: Types of Bardos ksheri3 Hi Group, I've been doing a little thinking here and there and have come to the conclusion that in this form of esoteric study I've reached the point where the different Bardos absolutely require definition(s). My point was that Tep, Han Tun, and Scott could not see the unmistakable equality between pleasant and unpleasant. We have to take this apart: what is it that CONDITIONS the mind to discriminate then label both namas and rupas before the EXPERIENCE has been achieved; Since life can be seen as being a type of Bardo in the cyclic nature of Yama's wheel of karma, is there a way to interact with that which manifests the OBSCURATIONS in the mind of the practioner, before the practioner can have the chance to encounter the pressumed EXPERIENCE; and so forth. I'm working with the "CONTINUUM" THEORY here based on Karma. It has bothered me that my three colleagues cannot see the equality between the two opposites: if they cannot see the blatant "sameness" between the two then I'm forced to realize that the majority of our sisters and bros. cannot see the duplication. If the two cannot be distinguished from one another then there is nothing but trouble for the practioner that happens along and unfortunately places the pleasant for the unpleasant and proceeds on that basis. I hope there are some colleagues that can see that, for instance, saying up when it is actually down, then proceeding to follow through on the actions basing their rationale on the premise that the falsehood is the truth, can and will lead to unfortunate results. It's not an enjoyable experience to admit that there are those among us that abuse these wisdoms for their own personal gratification but it is a fact and cannot be denied. BAsed on the shocking realization I had that my three colleagues could not come to a conclusion on the identicle qualities of pleasant-unpleasant I have to view there being an ENORMOUS amount of MISS INFORMATION out there and so I'd just like to begin looking into the different types of Bardos as a way of defining the actions taking place. In the actions and functions we can see if there is a hidden file that automatically places a faulty confidence in the practioner. Does this make any sense to my colleagues? I hope so and I hope I can get some info. on the Bardos if they are not toooooooooooo secret. toodles, colette #75901 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 9:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Sarah and Tep, ------ <. . .> T: > > I think I will gather more > > information about concepts vs. ultimate realities first before > > getting back to you for more in-depth conversations. Otherwise, KenH > > may pop out and bite my head off. > ... > S: LOL! Where is Ken H these days? ------- I'm still here, and hanging on every word. :-) ----------- <. . .> S: > He spent a few decades or lifetimes following what he now considers to be > wrong practices and rightly or wrongly (depending on how you see it), > likes to try and help others get straight to true Dhamma! > > (Corrections welcome, Ken H!) ------------ That's correct, but maybe I tread a fine line between wanting to help and wanting to be [what you and K Sujin call] 'the world's policeman.' I am keeping a low profile at the moment. Trying to curb my head- biting-off tendencies. :-) Ken H #75902 From: "colette" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 9:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana ksheri3 Hi Scott, Come on, who in this life is an expert. EXPERIENCE is something that comes with time in position. I said what I said because I saw something in my mind's eye. that is my greatest failure and greatest achievement, I can see things, intuitively and in other not so normal sensing ways, but it comes with a price. I can try to maintain friendships but I see sooooooooo many negative qualities in people and it causes me to recoil, as the great boxer Cassus Clay, Mahhamid Ali, practiced the "rope a dope" where he covered up and let his oponent punch himself out. I deliberately extended myself and now am in a time of reflection, deep meditation, and I'm feeling some very negative sensations even before I came back on the web tonight. My typical terminology is that I am out of balance, I'm in motion, and I'm feeling very insecure, I don't even want to drink a beer that I have down stairs next to my bed. I know I want to think this sensation out It certainly bothers me that you Han Tun would feel so threatened by my statements and presence that you ask to be removed. I made a simple joke in a jesting manor and am now being placed as the "heavy" or the person that has the taste to discriminate (see Discriminating Tastes). I am in the utmost poverty and have no desire to turn friends away. I am also human and unfortunately am a human that has EXPERIENCED DEATH and survived. My human qualities mean that I do have emotions and I do feel completely mocked by society particularly by the people of chicago where I have lived most of my life. I seek out my emotional problems and read about their characteristics so that I can improve myself by ridding myself of these characteristics but I will not rid myself of the fact that I have EXPERIENCED DEATH and have survived. That is one part of me that no human can ever take from me and they cannot have it for themselves unless they choose to try to roll their 1978 Cadillac end over end three times, jump out in mid-roll so that the a spring board effect can be achieved where the individual can fly through the air some 370 feet before landing on their head and expiring before the emergency medical services can arrive. I have to live with that! It's not that easy sometimes. I have been studying theology since 1980 and am completely devoted to it since it is more real than any single person I've ever come in contact with. I can stand anywhere and clearly admit the valid statements and treatises of SHUNYATA, things are so clear when seen through the eyes of the many Tibetan Buddhist sects that I have studied these few years. talk to me, han tun! I made the statement and if my joke was more than true well then so be it, I get lucky quite frequently. But then again, is it luck or is it a natural ability? Did the people collude together to make my prophecy come true or did it naturally happen of it's own volition? > H: "It is very unfortunate that Colette wrote something about Tep and > I, and Scott get nervous. colette: true, it is unfortunate that Scott got nervous about something that his mind only manifested yet I tried to alay his fears to the wayside by suggesting the truth of the matter that I was only playing cards, having some fun, making a joke, etc. there was no need for Scott to have fears. anyway, if it was true and there was a need for Scott to be afeared (like that use of ghetto language depicted by the status quo White Middle-Class slave owners?) then isn't my problem since I witnessed the trouble and it would then be my responsibility to do something about any trouble that I saw "on it's way"? <...> No I do not complain, often. Sometimes I do but I'm sooooooo sick and tired after more than 25 years of society giving me their piss party of apathy and condesending tones, so I ignore what is not worth my short time in this life fighting a fight I will never win, Foreigner said it best: "I'm at war with the world, I've got the right to be free". sounds like a good ending. toodles, colette p.s. "gonna fight while I can. To put an end to this misery." Foreigner. #75903 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Tep), --- kenhowardau wrote: > > S: LOL! Where is Ken H these days? > ------- > I'm still here, and hanging on every word. :-) .... S: ;-) Now, don't leave home with those replies still in the draft folder! .... > > likes to try and help others get straight to true Dhamma! > > > > (Corrections welcome, Ken H!) > ------------ > > That's correct, but maybe I tread a fine line between wanting to help > and wanting to be [what you and K Sujin call] 'the world's policeman.' ... S: This is actually a very interesting point. Would you elaborate more on your reflections. There must be a cheating dhamma for the being 'the world's policeman' masquerading as 'wishing to help'! We all take on noble causes all the time - whether it be protecting the environment, standing up for women, educating children, yes, getting the true dhamma message out, protecting meditation or the commentaries....and so on and so on. We think we're being helpful and have the right intentions - often we may do so, but even more often we're just acting as 'the world's policeman' or 'the world manager' (that's the phrase, I recall). We're trying to dictate how others behave/think, rather than understanding our own cittas, developing metta no matter how others behave/think.... If we are disturbed by the other's view/commment/action, it's clear that it isn't metta or equanimity, that's for sure! Oops, I was asking for your comments! Pls add your own reflections and ignore this if any different. Tep may have further comments too. .... > I am keeping a low profile at the moment. Trying to curb my head- > biting-off tendencies. :-) ... S: I'm sure that no one would wish those tendencies to be completely silenced, lol (not that I see them like that, as I said). I'm sure we're all taken for head-biters now and then ;-) Metta, Sarah ========= #75904 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 11:16 pm Subject: Re: Control is Popular buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thanks for the reply: > > James: "It isn't just 'speed' that the Buddha referred to with the use > of this metaphor, but also 'easily'- demonstrating an intended action > (which can be done "easily" when one has trained the mind properly to > guard the sense doors)." > > The text: > > "...Just as a man with good sight, having opened his eyes might shut > them or having shut his eyes might open them, so too concerning > anything at all, the agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that > arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease just > as quickly, just as rapidly, just as easily, and equanimity is > established..." > > The Paa.li: > > "...Evameva kho aananda, yassa kassaci eva.m siigha.m eva.m tuva.ta.m > eva.m appakasirena uppanna.m manaapa.m uppanna.m amanaapa.m uppanna.m > manaapaamanaapa.m nirujjhati, upekkhaa sa.n.thaati..." > > Scott: I see that the Paa.li word translated as 'easily' is the > compound 'appakasirena'. Now don't take this to the bank (we can wait > for correction since I'm likely to be wrong) but 'appa' is (PTS PED): > > "Appa (adj.)...small, little, insignificant, often in the sense of > "very little = (next to) nothing" (so in most cpds.)" > > And 'kasirena' is from 'kasira': > > "Kasira (adj.)...miserable, painful, troubled, wretched...adv. kasiraa > (abl.) with difficulty..." > > The compound (from the text regarding 'appa') is a negation: > > " -- kasira in instr. [appa]kasirena with little or no difficulty" James: Thank you for the Pali interpretation but I'm not quite sure where it is supposed to be going. > > Scott: So far so good, yet there is nothing in the meaning of the word > which would allow the leap to the assertion that this 'with little or > no difficulty' refers in any way to 'intended action', and there is > nothing extant in the Paa.li text itself which indicates that > 'intentional' is meant. If this can be shown otherwise, then the > assertion moves beyond conjecture. James: I don't really believe that I am participating in conjecture, I am simply reading the sutta in a straightforward manner. The Buddha uses a metaphor of opening and closing the eyes, which is a willed or controlled action, so the process being described in the mind is also willed and controlled. It seems pretty straightforward to me. It seems to me that you are going to great lengths to make the text say something different. > > As it stands, the view expressed that intention is somehow being > demonstrated by the simile is at least as much conjecture as some > consider the view of no-control to be. > > For example, one can intentionally open and close the eyes, but the > involuntary blink reflex is just as (if not more - sorry, no > stop-watch) rapid and instantaneous - it occurs as well, while being > involuntary, with 'little or no difficulty' - in fact with less than > when one 'wills' one's eye to blink. James: This is a good point. If the Buddha had used the metaphor of a "blink" and said that this process was like a blink (an involuntary action), then I would agree with your interpretation. But that isn't what he said. He said that it is like opening your eyes when they are closed or closing them when they are open- does that mean "blink" to you? Surely the Buddha had the proper vocabulary at his disposal to differentiate between a blink and voluntarily opening and closing the eyes. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Metta, James #75905 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Sep 2, 2007 11:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: ead. > ... > >J: You can't provide any quotes from the Buddha stating that people don't > > exist. > ... > S: I could provide many where he indicates what the 'All' is. No 'people' > included. This is an inference, not a direct quote. I could also quote many suttas where the Buddha describes "people"; where would that get us? I was asking you to provide a direct quote from the Buddha saying that people (entities) don't exist. If you can't do that, then common sense dictates that they do exist. You need to present some very compelling evidence to contradict common sense- and one quote from the Vism. (written as a poem and not to be taken literally) isn't really compelling enough. Metta, James #75906 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: appreciation, to Han. nilovg Dear Han, Op 3-sep-2007, om 0:00 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Sarah and Nina, you know me very well. > If you consider that Tep and I are ganging up at DSG > for our self-interest, kindly remove me from the > Group. --------- N: I appreciate your and Tep's posts very much, and Lodewijk too. I follow with interest Tep's dialogues with others about the conventional world and the world of paramattha dhammas. This point, as you know, Lodewijk also takes very much to heart. Nina. #75907 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 12:39 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Sarah, > That's correct, but maybe I tread a fine line between wanting to help > and wanting to be [what you and K Sujin call] 'the world's policeman.' ... S: This is actually a very interesting point. Would you elaborate more on your reflections. There must be a cheating dhamma for the being 'the world's policeman' masquerading as 'wishing to help'! We all take on noble causes all the time - whether it be protecting the environment, standing up for women, educating children, yes, getting the true dhamma message out, protecting meditation or the commentaries....and so on and so on. We think we're being helpful and have the right intentions - often we may do so, but even more often we're just acting as 'the world's policeman' or 'the world manager' (that's the phrase, I recall). We're trying to dictate how others behave/think, rather than understanding our own cittas, developing metta no matter how others behave/think.... --------------- Ah yes, sorry, the world's "manager" not "policeman!"That was a brilliant conversation with K Sujin (on an India trip, I think) and I find it translates very well into conventional wisdom - for people with no interest in the Dhamma. I was talking to a surfing acquaintance a couple of months ago, and he was raving on about the National Park rangers who weren't doing enough to keep exotic weeds out of the park. I told him (quite tactfully by my standards) to let them do their job and not try to be the world's manager. He could see that I was just as concerned about weeds as he was, and he actually saw the point I was making and agreed with me. (There's a first time for everything!) I have had less success with one of my in-laws who counts other people's supermarket items while they are standing in the '12 items or less' queue. If they have more than 12 he gives them a lecture. He also watches people who park in bays reserved for disabled drivers. Even if they have the required permit, if they walk away without limping they cop a lecture. :-) He rang me the other night to ask if I had seen our Labour Party leader being interviewed on television about being seen in a strip club. I agreed the interviewer (normally our favourite television presenter) had been excessively petty about it. "Too right!" he said "I rang the station and complained!" (As I was saying; not one of my success stories.) I find it a great relief to finally realise I don't have to be the world's manager. I still lapse back into old ways quite a lot, of course, but that's to be expected. Another thing, BTW, I am very happy with is being a T-totaler. I don't mention it to my friends unless they ask because they would get the wrong impression. But, being free of that hankering - for a beer or wine around dinner time - is just marvellous! But I digress. --------------------- S: > If we are disturbed by the other's view/commment/action, it's clear that it isn't metta or equanimity, that's for sure! Oops, I was asking for your comments! Pls add your own reflections and ignore this if any different. Tep may have further comments too. .... > I am keeping a low profile at the moment. Trying to curb my head- > biting-off tendencies. :-) ... S: I'm sure that no one would wish those tendencies to be completely silenced, lol (not that I see them like that, as I said). I'm sure we're all taken for head-biters now and then ;-) ------------------------- As you mentioned, I was a practising Buddhist for about 26 years before (thanks to DSG) I saw the significance of anatta. I want to warn others away from the meditation teachers who gave me such patently wrong advice. (Including one I saw on television who ended his walking-meditation instructions with, "When you are making a cup of tea, know you are making a cup of tea!") :-) Ken H #75908 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 12:11 am Subject: Six Sour Sense Sources! bhikkhu0@... Friends: What is always & inevitably a sour source of Suffering? The Blessed Buddha once said this: Bhikkhus & Friends there are these Four Noble Truths. What four? The Noble Truth of Suffering; The Noble Truth on the Cause of Suffering; The Noble Truth on the End of Suffering; The Noble Truth on the Way to end Suffering... These are the Four Noble Truths! What, Bhikkhus & Friends, is the 1st Noble Truth of Suffering? These Six Sources of Sensing are Suffering! The sense source of the eye is Suffering... The sense source of the ear is Suffering... The sense source of the nose is Suffering... The sense source of the tongue is Suffering... The sense source of the body is Suffering... The sense source of the mind itself is Suffering... This is thus verily the 1st Noble Truth of Suffering! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:426] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 14: Sources... More on these 6 Sense Sources (Ä€yatana): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Source_of_All.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Source_of_What.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Egolessness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Mistaken_Reference.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/aayatana.htm More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/truths.html http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Clustered_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sacca.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/index.html http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-h-1 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffe\ ring.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * #75909 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 12:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi James & all (Han*), --- buddhatrue wrote: > I was asking you to provide a direct quote from the Buddha saying that > people (entities) don't exist. If you can't do that, then common > sense dictates that they do exist. You need to present some very > compelling evidence to contradict common sense .... S: common sense is wrong view! Did you read the quote I gave from the Kathavatthu in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 Comments? Did you read through all Tep's excellent quotes in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 Comments, esp on the refs he gave to DN9 and attaa as used in the sense of person or individual as quoted and commented on by Nanamoli? Khandha Samyutta, SN 22 - the chapter is all about how only the khandhas arise, exist and fall away. 22:151- 156 (Bodhi transl): 151: "At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what, by adhering to what, does one regard things thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?...." 152: "..... does such a view as this arise: 'That which is the self is the world; having passed away, that I shal be...permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change'?...." 153: ".......does such a view as this arise: 'I might not be, and it might not be for me, I will not be, [and] it will not be for me'?..." 154: "......does wrong view (micchaadi.t.thi) arise?..." 155: "......does identity view (sakkaaya ditthi) arise?..." 156: "......does view of self (attaanudi.t.thi)arise? "Venerable Sir, our teachings are rooted in the Blessed One..." "When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self [identity view etc] arises. When there is feeling...perception....volitional formations...consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, by adhering to consciousness, view of self arises."... "Seeing thus....He understands: '...there is no more for this state of being." **** * [Han, you may find it of interest to see that the suttas 22:155 and 22:156 are identical except that sakkaaaya ditthi is referred to in the first one and attaanudi.t.thi inthe second one.] James, whatever language is used in any part of the Tipitaka, in the absolute meaning, there are only elements, only namas and rupas, only khandhas (and nibbana). Anything else is a concept. If you think people exist, tell me how they are experienced, how they are known. Metta, Sarah ======== #75910 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James & all (Han*), > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > I was asking you to provide a direct quote from the Buddha saying that > > people (entities) don't exist. If you can't do that, then common > > sense dictates that they do exist. You need to present some very > > compelling evidence to contradict common sense > .... > S: common sense is wrong view! James: So, adherents of the Buddha's teaching are supposed to be mentally deranged and claim that people don't exist? ;-)) Blah, blah, blah....again, give me a quote where the Buddha states that people don't exist. Do I exist? Do you exist? Yes and yes. > > Did you read the quote I gave from the Kathavatthu in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 > Comments? James: No, I don't want to read a bunch of quotes where you present the inference that people don't exist. I WANT A DIRECT QUOTE! please :-) > > Did you read through all Tep's excellent quotes in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 > Comments, esp on the refs he gave to DN9 and attaa as used in the sense of > person or individual as quoted and commented on by Nanamoli? > > Khandha Samyutta, SN 22 - the chapter is all about how only the khandhas > arise, exist and fall away. James: People don't arise, exist and fall away? What about the life cycle? > > 22:151- 156 (Bodhi transl): > > 151: "At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what, by > adhering to what, does one regard things thus: 'This is mine, this I am, > this is my self'?...." > > 152: "..... does such a view as this arise: 'That which is the self is the > world; having passed away, that I shal be...permanent, stable, eternal, > not subject to change'?...." > > 153: ".......does such a view as this arise: 'I might not be, and it might > not be for me, I will not be, [and] it will not be for me'?..." > > 154: "......does wrong view (micchaadi.t.thi) arise?..." > > 155: "......does identity view (sakkaaya ditthi) arise?..." > > 156: "......does view of self (attaanudi.t.thi)arise? > > "Venerable Sir, our teachings are rooted in the Blessed One..." > > "When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, > view of self [identity view etc] arises. When there is > feeling...perception....volitional formations...consciousness, by clinging > to consciousness, by adhering to consciousness, view of self arises."... > > "Seeing thus....He understands: '...there is no more for this state of > being." James: So, there is a state of being!! If there wasn't there would be nothing to escape from. > **** > * [Han, you may find it of interest to see that the suttas 22:155 and > 22:156 are identical except that sakkaaaya ditthi is referred to in the > first one and attaanudi.t.thi inthe second one.] > > James, whatever language is used in any part of the Tipitaka, in the > absolute meaning, there are only elements, only namas and rupas, only > khandhas (and nibbana). Anything else is a concept. James: This is KS babble. Again, please provide some direct quotes. :-) > > If you think people exist, tell me how they are experienced, how they are > known. James: They are "known" through the mind door. They are "experienced" through all the doors. How do you experience Jon? (Wait...we don't need to know that! ;-)) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > Metta, James #75911 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi James and Sarah, Butting in if I may: --------- J: > This is an inference, not a direct quote. I could also quote many > suttas where the Buddha describes "people"; where would that get us? > I was asking you to provide a direct quote from the Buddha saying that > people (entities) don't exist. If you can't do that, then common > sense dictates that they do exist. You need to present some very > compelling evidence to contradict common sense- and one quote from the > Vism. (written as a poem and not to be taken literally) isn't really > compelling enough. ---------- Unless I am mistaken you have asked this question several times. Among the replies you receive there is usually a quote from Ven Dhammananda's message #9847 (back when he was called Robert Eddison): ""....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) ""In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)" Ken H #75912 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue & Demerit jonoabb Andrew (and All) > PS "Bula, bula" to Jon in Fiji! Bula! Fiji is a lovely place, as you probably know, not least because the people are so nice. I am in Suva, not the most fetching part of the islands, yet there is still a wonderfully friendly, laid back atmosphere. My days are quite long (8 am to 6 pm, with an hour for lunch) and I'm working 6 days a week, but the work is interesting (drafting of urgently needed legilsation). Keeping up with the list is not easy, as some of our more frequent posters seem to manage with little or no sleep!! Apologies in advance to all for falling behind with replies. Vinaka Jon PS > Andrew: A vivid example of the unlikelihood of being able to read a > translated sutta and correctly discern its meaning without further > reference or study. One can go "off the rails" very badly! The > Sangha who composed, memorised and recorded the commentaries clearly > knew this and have left a wonderful treasure. I agree with all this. (Well done Sarah!) #75913 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner. nilovg Dear Han, Op 2-sep-2007, om 12:18 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > the upekkhaa that I have right now may not be > kusala upekkhaa either. It could well be the > equanimity of unknowing based on the home life > (upekkhaa gehasitaa a~naanupekkhaa), because it is > associated with attachment for my children and > grand-children, and it itself may be the near enemy of > Equanimity. [Vism. IX, 101] --------- N: I have been thinking of your children and grandchildren. They may live in difficult situations, having trouble in providing for themselves. But you have done enough for them. Your children are adults and have to face themselves the contrarieties of life, however difficult it may be for them. It depends on kamma what kind of vipaaka it produces for each individual. Kamma and vipaaka are paramattha dhammas. Understanding paramattha dhammas can help us to face the contrarieties of life. We can learn to be more impartial. This cannot be on command, but we can gradually see the benefit of evenmindedness, impartiality. As to the ten kinds of upekkhaa, see Survey, p. 432. The term upekkhaa can represent tatramajjhattataa cetasika which accompanies each kusala citta, or it can also stand for indifferent feeling, pa~n~naa or viriya. It depends on the context. The equanimity as perfection is tatramajjhattataa cetasika. It arises together with kusala citta and thus also with alobha and adosa. It could never arise with attachment. Nina. #75914 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] legislation, was :Virtue & Demerit nilovg Dear Jon, Lodewijk says that this is an excellent way of kusala. Helping with institution building that is so important. Nina. Op 3-sep-2007, om 10:27 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > the work is interesting (drafting of > urgently needed legilsation). #75915 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: appreciation, to Han. hantun1 Dear Nina and Lodewijk, Thank you very much for your trust in me. I will continue as before. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > Op 3-sep-2007, om 0:00 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: > N: I appreciate your and Tep's posts very much, and > Lodewijk too. > I follow with interest Tep's dialogues with others > about the > conventional world and the world of paramattha > dhammas. This point, > as you know, Lodewijk also takes very much to heart. > Nina. > #75916 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. I have noted your words, especially, “The equanimity as perfection is tatramajjhattataa cetasika. It arises together with kusala citta and thus also with alobha and adosa. It could never arise with attachment.” “It could never arise with attachment.” Yes, I see that the main obstacle is the “attachment.” I will have to reduce it. Otherwise, tatramajjhattataa cetasika will not have the chance to do its function. Thank you once again, Nina. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > As to the ten kinds of upekkhaa, see Survey, p. 432. > The term > upekkhaa can represent tatramajjhattataa cetasika > which accompanies > each kusala citta, or it can also stand for > indifferent feeling, > pa~n~naa or viriya. It depends on the context. > The equanimity as perfection is tatramajjhattataa > cetasika. It arises > together with kusala citta and thus also with alobha > and adosa. It > could never arise with attachment. > Nina. > #75917 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 4:09 am Subject: Perfections Corner (09) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ Wise attention, yoniso manasikåra, is most important. When we listen to the Dhamma, we may be inclined to think that we should act in a particular way so as to have wise attention and abandon defilements. However, if we understand realities as non-self we do not think in that way. If we reflect on the practice of the Bodhisatta in each of his lives and if we evaluate our own practice in this life and compare it with his practice, we can understand that it will take an endlessly long time to abandon defilements. ------------------------------ To be continued. Metta, Han #75918 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (09) hantun1 Dear All, It is mentioned in the text that “wise attention, yoniso manasikaara, is most important.” In SN 46.2 Kaaya Sutta, the Buddha said that “yoniso manasikaara” is the nutriment for the enlightenment factors. “And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness? There are, bhikkhus, things that are the basis for the enlightenment factor of mindfulness: frequently giving careful attention (yoniso manasikaara bahuliikaaro) to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness.” [To repeat for other enlightenment factors.] The importance of yoniso manasikaara is also mentioned in other suttas as well. Metta, Han --- han tun wrote: > Dear All, > This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The > Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The > Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin > Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. #75919 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 4:54 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "Of course, MN 137 is relevant." Scott: I'm still not sure in what way it is - at least to the question. T: "...It is most interesting that the Great Sage taught the monks to 'overcome and dispel' the equanimity to diverse clinging by the equanimity to a single clinging, and 'without desiring equanimity to a single clinging, finally overcome and dispel equanimity to a single clinging'." http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima-Nikaya/mn-137.htm Scott: The same passage is translated by ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi: '...by depending and relying on non-identification, abandon and surmount equanimity that is unified, based on unity. It is thus this is abandoned; it is thus this is surmounted.' The phrase in the Paa.li is: 'Atammayata.m bhikkhave, nissaaya atammayata.m aagamma yaa'ya.m upekkhaa ekattaa ekattasitaa ta.m pajahatha.' 'Atammayata.m' ('non-identification') is, as you say, 'the absence of craving', at least as explained by the commentary. In Note 1244 to this passage, MA paraphrases: "By the equanimity of the immaterial attainments, abandon the equanimity of the fine material attainments; by insight into the immaterial sphere, abandon insight into the fine material sphere." In Note 1245: "MA says that non-identification (atammayataa) here refers to 'insight leading to emergence,' i.e., the insight immediately preceding the arising of the supramundane path; for this effects the abandonment of equanimity of the immaterial attainments and the equanimity of insight." T: "What is your thought on the overcoming of the equanimity to a single clinging by abandoning tanha?" Scott: In the ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi translation, 'single clinging' is rendered 'unified, based on unity'. The Paa.li is 'upekkhaa ekattaa ekattasitaa'. This 'single clinging' seems to refer to the four immaterial spheres or aruupaayatana and the absorptions of these immaterial spheres. I think that this refers to jhaanupekkhaa. As noted by the commentary, it is the arising of the Path which allows for 'the overcoming of the equanimity to a single clinging...'. T: "Can one bypass this stage by contemplation of anatta (anattanupassana) alone?" Scott: I think it is insight knowledge that 'bypasses' this stage, nothing else. So, yes (although I'm totally in over my head with your challenging questions.) Perhaps you can also answer this question. Sincerely, Scott. #75920 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for kindly drawing my attention to the following. [Han, you may find it of interest to see that the suttas 22:155 and 22:156 are identical except that sakkaaaya ditthi is referred to in the first one and attaanudi.t.thi in the second one.] Han: Exactly! That was why I said before that sakaaya ditthi and attavaadupaadaana are synonymous! But please do not start it again :>) Respectfully, Han #75921 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:17 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (65) nichiconn Dear Friends, 12. So.lasanipaato 1. Pu.n.naatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 11 Verses: 249. "Upehi sara.na.m buddha.m, dhamma.m sa"ngha~nca taadina.m; samaadiyaahi siilaani, ta.m te atthaaya hehiti. 250. "Upemi sara.na.m buddha.m, dhamma.m sa"ngha~nca taadina.m; samaadiyaami siilaani, ta.m me atthaaya hehiti. 249. go to the venerable Buddha as a refuge, to the Doctrine, and to the Order. Undertake the rules of virtuous conduct. That will be to your advantage. [The brahman:] 250. I go to the venerable Buddha as a refuge, to the Doctrine, and to the Order. I undertake the rules of virtuous conduct. That will be to my advantage. Cy: Tattha taadinanti di.t.thaadiisu taadibhaavappatta.m. Yathaa vaa purimakaa sammaasambuddhaa passitabbaa, tathaa passitabbato taadi, ta.m buddha.m sara.na.m upehiiti yojanaa. Dhammasa"nghesupi eseva nayo. Taadiina.m varabuddhaana.m dhamma.m, a.t.thanna.m ariyapuggalaana.m sa"ngha.m samuuhanti yojanaa. Tanti sara.nagamana.m siilaana.m samaadaana~nca. Hehitiiti bhavissati. Pruitt: 249-250. There, the venerable (taadina.m) means: having attained equipoise (taadi-bhaava-ppatta.m) through right view, etc. Or, just as previous Fully Awakened Ones are to be seen, so too, he is of such a kind (taadi) because he is seen. "Go to that Buddha as a refuge"; that is the connection. And this is the meaning also for the Doctrine and the Order. The combination of the venerable ones (taadiina.m): the excellent Buddhas, the Doctrine, and the Order of eight noble individuals; this is the connection. That means: going to the [three] refuges and taking upon oneself the rules of virtuous conduct. It will be (hehiti) means: it will be (bhavissati). Verse: 251. "Brahmabandhu pure aasi.m, ajjamhi saccabraahma.no; tevijjo vedasampanno, sottiyo camhi nhaatako"ti.- 251. Formerly I was a kinsman of Brahmaa. Today I am truly a brahman. I possess the triple knowledge, I am endowed with knowledge, and I am versed in sacred lore. [And] I am washed clean. Cy: So braahma.no sara.nesu siilesu ca pati.t.thaaya aparabhaage satthu santike dhamma.m sutvaa pa.tiladdhasaddho pabbajitvaa gha.tento vaayamanto na cirasseva tevijjo hutvaa attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa udaanento "brahmabandhuu"ti gaathamaaha. 251. The brahman was established in the refuges and the rules of virtuous conduct. Afterwards he went to the Teaching, heard the Doctrine, gained faith, went forth, then striving and making effort, in a very short time he became one possessing the triple knowledge. Looking over his attainment, he spoke the verse beginning [Formerly I was] a kinsman of the Brahmaa as a solemn utterance. Txt: Tassattho- aha.m pubbe braahma.nakule uppattimattena brahmabandhu naamaasi.m. Tathaa irubbedaadiina.m ajjhenaadimattena tevijjo vedasampanno sottiyo nhaatako ca naamaasi.m. Idaani sabbaso baahitapaapataaya saccabraahma.no paramatthabraahma.no, vijjattayaadhigamena tevijjo, magga~naa.nasa"nkhaatena vedena samannaagatattaa vedasampanno, nittharasabbapaapataaya nhaatako ca amhiiti. Ettha ca braahma.nena vuttagaathaapi attanaa vuttagaathaapi pacchaa theriyaa pacceka.m bhaasitaati sabbaa theriyaa gaathaa eva jaataati. Pu.n.naatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. So.lasanipaatava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. RD: For the brahmin, established in the Refuges and the Precepts, when later he had heard the Master preach the Norm, became a believer and entered the Order. Using every effort, he not long after became Thrice-Wise, *336 and, reflecting on his state, exulted in those verses. And the Sister, repeating them of herself, they all became her Psalm. *336 See Ps. xxii. 26 n. {Addhakasi} Pruitt: Therefore, by simply learning, etc, the Rig Veda, etc, I then possessed the triple knowledge, I was endowed with knowledge, I was versed in sacred lore, and I was washed clean. Now, I have completely removed my evil. I am truly a brahman (sacca-braahma.no). By having acquired the triple knowledge (vijja-ttayaadhigamena), I possess the triple knowledge (tevijjo). Through what is known as knowledge of the paths, through being possessed of knowledge (vedena), I am endowed with knowledge (veda-sampanno). And through leaving behind all evil, I am washed clean. And here, the verses spoken by the brahman and the verses spoken by [the therii] herself were spoken afterwards by the therii alone, and thus they became the verses of the therii Here ends the commentary on the verses of Therii Pu.n.naa. Here ends the commentary on the section of sixteen [verses]. ===take a break! connie. #75922 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi KenH (and Sarah), - I like your humor, Ken. >KenH: I'm still here, and hanging on every word. :-) > > S: > He spent a few decades or lifetimes following what he now > considers to be > > wrong practices and rightly or wrongly (depending on how you see it), > > likes to try and help others get straight to true Dhamma! > > > > (Corrections welcome, Ken H!) > ------------ > > KenH: That's correct, but maybe I tread a fine line between wanting to help and wanting to be [what you and K Sujin call] 'the world's policeman.' > > I am keeping a low profile at the moment. Trying to curb my head- biting-off tendencies. :-) > ............... T: I am confident, after having survived the much more severe attack by the Bat Woman, Colette, that my head has grown much stronger. So I am ready for another round of debate with 'the world's policeman' -- anytime you are back from the hiding place. But please do not handcuff me without a fair investigation. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Sarah and Tep, > > ------ > <. . .> > T: > > I think I will gather more > > > information about concepts vs. ultimate realities first before > > > getting back to you for more in-depth conversations. Otherwise, > KenH > > > may pop out and bite my head off. > > ... > > > S: LOL! Where is Ken H these days? > ------- #75923 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:32 am Subject: Re: Control is Popular scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks for the reply. Again: The text: "...Just as a man with good sight, having opened his eyes might shut them or having shut his eyes might open them, so too concerning anything at all, the agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease just as quickly, just as rapidly, just as easily, and equanimity is established..." The Paa.li: "...Seyyathaapi aananda, cakkhumaa puriso ummiiletvaa vaa nimiileyya nimiiletvaa vaa ummiileyya. Evameva kho aananda, yassa kassaci eva.m siigha.m eva.m tuva.ta.m eva.m appakasirena uppanna.m manaapa.m uppanna.m amanaapa.m uppanna.m manaapaamanaapa.m nirujjhati, upekkhaa sa.n.thaati..." James: "I don't really believe that I am participating in conjecture, I am simply reading the sutta in a straightforward manner. The Buddha uses a metaphor of opening and closing the eyes, which is a willed or controlled action, so the process being described in the mind is also willed and controlled. It seems pretty straightforward to me. It seems to me that you are going to great lengths to make the text say something different." Scott: Who wills and who controls? James: "This is a good point. If the Buddha had used the metaphor of a 'blink' and said that this process was like a blink (an involuntary action), then I would agree with your interpretation. But that isn't what he said. He said that it is like opening your eyes when they are closed or closing them when they are open- does that mean 'blink' to you?..." Scott: Yes, you make a good point, and I agree. I was focusing on 'easily' and showing that this word alone doesn't imply that a person is controlling the action; that this merely refers to eyes which open and close. I wasn't suggesting that the Buddha was using 'blink' instead of 'open and close'. (He is using 'open' and 'close': 'cakkhumaa puriso ummiiletvaa vaa nimiileyya nimiiletvaa vaa ummiileyya'.) As I said, '...there is nothing extant in the Paa.li text itself which indicates that 'intentional' is meant.' You've not shown otherwise, hence my suggestion that this is conjectural. I could go on to discuss how the opening and closing of the eye is not regulated by a person but is mind-made matter proceeding in sequence with concentration serving to complete the action, etc., etc., but... We may need to agree to disagree, James, since I think we both know our positions on these concerns. Sincerely, Scott. #75925 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, The commentary to the “Path of Discrimination”, the “Saddhammappakåsiní”, explains that the perversions of saññå, citta and ditthi have different strengths: “... The perversion of saññå is the weakest in strength of all three. The perversion of citta has more strength than the perversion of saññå. The perversion of ditthi has the greatest strength of all three.” This reminds us of the danger of wrong view. So long as we cling to the concept of self there cannot be the eradication of any defilement. We have learnt from the Buddha’s teachings that what we call a person are ever changing phenomena which arise and fall away, but instead of developing right understanding of nåma and rúpa we are often absorbed in concepts and we remember these with perverted saññå. Since we have accumulated wrong saññå for countless lives we are inclined to think of ourselves and others as persons who exist, at least during a life time; we fail to see that a person is only citta, cetasika and rúpa which do not last. This causes us many problems when we suffer from the loss of people who are dear to us through death. We have learnt through the teachings that all dhammas are anattå, but we forget that realities are beyond control, that they do not belong to us. Even when we develop vipassanå we can be lured by the wrong view of self : we believe that “we” can cause the arising of sati. We take what is dukkha for happiness, we cling to life, to all the sense objects we experience. Whatever we experience through the six doors falls away immediately, it is dukkha, but we believe that what we experience can bring us pleasant feeling. Pleasant feeling does not last, it is dukkha. What is foul or ugly we take for beautiful: we find our body beautiful and forget that in reality it is foul. It consists of rúpa elements which arise and fall away immediately; it is insignificant and not worth clinging to. The Buddha taught the way to overcome the perversions, but they can only be eliminated very gradually. Insight has to be developed stage by stage until enlightenment can be attained. The characteristics of nåma and rúpa should be known as they are when they appear one at a time. At the first stage of insight nåma is clearly distinguished from rúpa. We cannot forego this stage, because so long as we are confused about the difference between nåma and rúpa, higher stages of insight cannot be reached, the impermanence of realities cannot be realized and the concept of self cannot be eradicated. ******* Nina. #75926 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, As regards mind faculty, manindriya, all eightynine types of citta are mind faculty. This faculty, unlike the five sense faculties, arises together with the realities it conditions by way of faculty- condition, indriya-paccaya. Citta is the “leader” in cognizing an object, in this field it rules over the associated dhammas. The accompanying cetasikas share the same object, but they do not cognize it in the same way as citta which is the leader. If there would be no citta, cetasikas could not arise; citta is the basis and foundation for the cetasikas. Citta conditions the accompanying cetasikas and also the rúpa it produces by way of conascent faculty-condition. When we gesticulate or speak there are rúpas conditioned by citta by way of faculty-condition; citta has controlling power over these rúpas. However, mind faculty does not last, it falls away immediately. We should not, while we speak or gesticulate, take the citta which produces rúpas for self. Neither should we take those rúpas for self; they arise because of conditions and fall away again. The mind- faculty which is the patisandhi-citta arising at the moment of rebirth does not produce rúpa but it conditions the kamma produced rúpa by way of conascent faculty-condition [1]. The rúpas which are femininity faculty and masculinity faculty (itthindriya and purisindriya) have been classified as faculties, since they condition the characteristic marks, appearance and disposition of the sexes. However, they are not faculty-condition; they do not condition other phenomena by way of faculty-condition. ------- 1. The first citta in life, the patisandhi-citta, is too weak to produce rúpa. At that moment kamma which produces the patisandhi- citta also produces rúpas at the same time. ****** Nina. #75927 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing Vedana scottduncan2 Dear colette, Sorry for the delay in replying to: c: "Come on, who in this life is an expert. EXPERIENCE is something that comes with time in position..." Scott: True, true, colette. I've not been 'in position' for long. c: "...I said what I said because I saw something in my mind's eye. that is my greatest failure and greatest achievement, I can see things, intuitively and in other not so normal sensing ways, but it comes with a price. I can try to maintain friendships but I see sooooooooo many negative qualities in people and it causes me to recoil, as the great boxer Cassus Clay, Mahhamid Ali, practiced the "rope a dope" where he covered up and let his opponent punch himself out. I deliberately extended myself and now am in a time of reflection, deep meditation, and I'm feeling some very negative sensations even before I came back on the web tonight. My typical terminology is that I am out of balance, I'm in motion, and I'm feeling very insecure, I don't even want to drink a beer that I have down stairs next to my bed. I know I want to think this sensation out" Scott: Now, its interesting that I wondered about getting into the discussion with the good Han and the good Tep. [Han and Tep: This is not about you - this is a conversation with colette.] I did notice some inner vibe of mine that seemed to be like a bit of lack of trust and insecurity as I began to discuss with Tep and Han. Something in the preparations and comments and preliminaries that was making me wary. Perhaps you, with your sensitivity to these things, also picked this up. I know for a fact that this was my own vibe and don't usually leap immediately to think that such things automatically refer to any so-called external reality, an appreciation of which is a special gift of mine. Rather than assume that such a vibe is well-founded, I just notice it and try to wait and see. Sometimes I do turn out to be correct. Beware the GAMBLER'S FALLACY. For example, I worry more about Tep than about Han. My vibe says to me that Tep is still upset with me and is out to get back at me for something. I don't believe myself off the bat. I'm taking the position that I'm just insecure. I'll keep interacting (in the 'rope-a-dope style') until I get over this. It can be daunting though. [Tep: Remember - not about you.] c: "p.s. 'gonna fight while I can. To put an end to this misery.' Foreigner." Scott: I appreciate your many references to lyrics old and new (mostly old - you are into the 'classics'). Sincerely, Scott. #75928 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: appreciation, to Han. indriyabala Dear Nina, - I was touched by your kind understanding ! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han, > Op 3-sep-2007, om 0:00 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > Sarah and Nina, you know me very well. > > If you consider that Tep and I are ganging up at DSG > > for our self-interest, kindly remove me from the > > Group. > --------- > N: I appreciate your and Tep's posts very much, and Lodewijk too. > I follow with interest Tep's dialogues with others about the > conventional world and the world of paramattha dhammas. This point, > as you know, Lodewijk also takes very much to heart. > Nina. > > I am happy to hear that for two reasons. 1. Such appreciation from special persons like Lodewijk and you is truly special to me. 2. It is a precious reward that shows a kind acceptance to the view that the conventional world and the world of paramattha dhammas are co- existing. Tep === #75929 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 6:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Sarah (and KenH), - Thank you for being an exceptional moderator and wise mediator at the same time! > Sarah: > There must be a cheating dhamma for the being 'the world's policeman' masquerading as 'wishing to help'! We all take on noble causes all the time - whether it be protecting the environment, standing up for women, educating children, yes, getting the true dhamma message out, protecting meditation or the commentaries....and so on and so on. We think we're being helpful and have the right intentions - often we may do so, but even more often we're just acting as 'the world's policeman' or 'the world manager' (that's the phrase, I recall). We're trying to dictate how others behave/think, rather than understanding our own cittas, developing metta no matter how others behave/think.... > > If we are disturbed by the other's view/commment/action, it's clear that it isn't metta or equanimity, that's for sure! > > T: I cannot agree more with you. Yes, the meaning of 'doing the right things' can be interpreted in several ways. A police thinks s/he has the right to kill "the bad guys" to save the public. But we know about killing better than that. And we also know about bad abusive behaviors of policemen as well. Yes, developing metta towards all beings means having zero aversion + genuine kindness + generosity + not-self, that does not contradict with "no self". Tep === #75930 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: appreciation, to Han. nilovg Dear Tep, thank you for your kind words. Op 3-sep-2007, om 14:55 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > It > is a precious reward that shows a kind acceptance to the view that > the conventional world and the world of paramattha dhammas are co- > existing. -------- N: I know what you mean, but I would like to carefully think more about the balance of the two worlds. When I consider the citta at this moment, I would say: at one moment there can be consideration (and a beginning understanding) of a nama or rupa as it appears through one of the six doorways, and at another moment, not at the same time, I am thinking of the conventional world, say, the ways in which we can help flying doctors or other useful organisations. Cittas are so fast, there can be switching in splitseconds. Nina. #75931 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 6:21 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 13, no 4. scottduncan2 Dear Nina (and James), This is what I was alluding to when I suggested to James that opening and closing the eyes is not the willed action of a person: N: "...When we gesticulate or speak there are ruupas conditioned by citta by way of faculty-condition; citta has controlling power over these ruupas. However, mind faculty does not last, it falls away immediately. We should not, while we speak or gesticulate, take the citta which produces ruupas for self. Neither should we take those ruupas for self; they arise because of conditions and fall away again..." Sincerely, Scott. #75932 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. nilovg Dear Han, Op 3-sep-2007, om 12:44 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > “It could never arise with attachment.” Yes, I see > that the main obstacle is the “attachment.” I will > have to reduce it. Otherwise, tatramajjhattataa > cetasika will not have the chance to do its function. ------- N: The problem is with the reducing of attachment. Only the anaagami has eradicated attachment to sense objects, and that includes persons. As you just quoted: ----- N: Acting in a particular way so as to have wise attention. But 'who' can do that? We read further on in the Ch on Equanimity: < Wisdom is opposed to akusala as it dispels the darkness of attachment and restores sight. As soon as we have seen something, attachment is bound to arise. When paññå is lacking, there is no opposition to lobha which is very skilful in clinging to all the sense objects. However, when paññå arises, attachment cannot arise at the same time; paññå is opposed to attachment. Only paññå can dispel the darkness of attachment. When paññå arises, it is able to understand the true nature of the reality that appears. Paññå understands kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. As paññå develops, it will know the characteristics of realities as they are, so that the darkness of ignorance can be overcome.> When we see the benefit of kusala we may see that we can help other more when there is less attachment to them. I think of your situation, your family, but this is to be applied by all of us, each in his situation. The example of your situation, equanimity with regard to one's family, is very useful since it is about the daily life of all of us. Nina. #75933 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your comments. But there are certain things which are not clear to me. When I said I will have to reduce attachment, you said that the problem is with the reducing of attachment. Only the anaagami has eradicated attachment to sense objects, and that includes persons. When I quoted: “Wise attention, yoniso manasikåra, is most important”, you said that: “Acting in a particular way so as to have wise attention. But 'who' can do that.” In that case, what can I do? Just do nothing? You said: “Only paññå can dispel the darkness of attachment.” But, understanding realities as non-self, who can make panna to arise? Or, how can we develop panna? Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > Op 3-sep-2007, om 12:44 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: > > > “It could never arise with attachment.” Yes, I see > > that the main obstacle is the “attachment.” I will > > have to reduce it. Otherwise, tatramajjhattataa > > cetasika will not have the chance to do its > function. > ------- #75934 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: Asoka, Ch 4, no 2. indriyabala Dear Nina, - Please allow me to discuss your timely writing on "the danger of wrong view" that is caused by the "perversion of ditthi" (ditthi- vipallasa). I especially appreciate the careful wordings about, 'person', 'self', and 'wrong view of self' without using confusing words like 'no self', 'illusion', or "no real persons exist". >Nina: So long as we cling to the concept of self there cannot be the eradication of any defilement. We have learnt from the Buddha's teachings that what we call a person are ever changing phenomena which arise and fall away, but instead of developing right understanding of nåma and rúpa we are often absorbed in concepts and we remember these with perverted saññå. T: Yes. Elimination of ditthi-samyojana and maana-samyojana take care of many defilements. I think because of atta-saññå that "remembers" past events (continuity) we then "see" a compact person in the "ever changing phenomena which arise and fall away". Thus, the "right understanding of nåma and rúpa" cannot be developed without anatta- saññå. .............. >Nina: Since we have accumulated wrong saññå for countless lives we are inclined to think of ourselves and others as persons who exist, at least during a life time; we fail to see that a person is only citta, cetasika and rúpa which do not last. T: By "at least during a life time" do you imply annihilationism ? Yes, "we fail to see that a person is only citta, cetasika and rúpa which do not last" because we lack the understanding that "a person" exists only in each moment and there is no "self" passing from one moment to the next, except kamma-vipakas("accumulations" ?). What do you think of the following excerpt? "Whatever exists is in a constant state of flux, through and through, like the flame of the lamp, and all existence is in a process which continues to constantly renew itself. "Our mind and its thoughts is essentially a stream of consciousness. Thought, however, is not simply a physiological function but a kind of energy, something like electricity. We should therefore strive to translate and activate this thought energy in the world we live in, the life we live, in this existence where the illusion of the separative self and the unchanging permanent soul can be forever eliminated, no longer causing us to cling to forms that lack reality and substance. The bonds of selfhood are then broken. New vistas appear before us. A clearer unclouded understanding of the living forces of life is now ours. [William Gilbert. Soul and Substance — from Suchness, April 1966.] ................. >Nina: We take what is dukkha for happiness, we cling to life, to all the sense objects we experience. Whatever we experience through the six doors falls away immediately, it is dukkha, but we believe that what we experience can bring us pleasant feeling. Pleasant feeling does not last, it is dukkha. T: The following sutta [AN 4.49 Vipallasa Sutta. Distortions of the Mind. (excerpt) Translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki] seems to give the same message as yours: These four, O Monks, are distortions of perception, distortions of thought distortions of view... Sensing no change in the changing, Sensing pleasure in suffering, Assuming "self" where there's no self, [Th. Bh. "Perceiving self in what's not-self"] Sensing the un-lovely as lovely — Gone astray with wrong views, beings Mis-perceive with distorted minds. Bound in the bondage of Mara, Those people are far from safety. They're beings that go on flowing: Going again from death to birth. But when in the world of darkness Buddhas arise to make things bright, They present this profound teaching Which brings suffering to an end. When those with wisdom have heard this, They recuperate their right mind: They see change in what is changing, Suffering where there's suffering, "Non-self" in what is without self, [Th. Bh.: "Seeing what's not-self as not-self".] They see the un-lovely as such. By this acceptance of right view, They overcome all suffering. .............. Thank you very much. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > The commentary to the "Path of Discrimination", the > "Saddhammappakåsiní", explains that the perversions of saññå, citta > and ditthi have different strengths: > #75935 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:10 am Subject: Re: Knowing Vedana indriyabala Dear Scott, - Your "thinking out loud" is interesting. Suspicion is a mixed quality which is not kusala. As such there is no panna present, and one may be led to even more akusala actions which are the dangerous consequence. So, my suggestion to you is to stay away from any people and conversations that may condition suspicion and akusala vitaka. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear colette, > > Sorry for the delay in replying to: > > c: "Come on, who in this life is an expert. EXPERIENCE is something > that comes with time in position..." > > Scott: True, true, colette. I've not been 'in position' for long. > #75936 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. nilovg Dear Han, you have some relevant questions. Op 3-sep-2007, om 16:08 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > When I said I will have to reduce attachment, you said > that the problem is with the reducing of attachment. > Only the anaagami has eradicated attachment to sense > objects, and that includes persons. ------- N: Wrong view has to be eradicated first, and this happens when enlightenment of the stage of the sotaapanna has been attained. When there is still the latent tendency of wrong view we are bound to take realities for self. It is my attachment, and 'I' will reduce or eradicate it. This is not possible, we can find out. When pa~n~naa has been developed to the stage of the sakadaagami, attachment to sense objects has become less, but only the anaagami has eradicated it. > ------- > H: When I quoted: “Wise attention, yoniso manasikåra, is > most important”, you said that: “Acting in a > particular way so as to have wise attention. But 'who' > can do that.” ------ N: The quoted text speaks about 'acting in a particular way', and this means: I try to do this or that, implied is: again with an idea of self who exerts control. -------- > > H: :In that case, what can I do? Just do nothing? ------ N: The only way: develop more understanding, beginning with the level of pariyatti. ------ > > H: You said: “Only paññå can dispel the darkness of > attachment.” But, understanding realities as non-self, > who can make panna to arise? Or, how can we develop > panna? --------- N: It is already a step into the right direction if we understand that there is no self who can make pa~n~naa arise at will. That is already a degree of pa~n~naa, and we are on the right way! This can encourage us. We would never know this had we not heard the Buddha's teachings. Thus, pa~n~naa is developing already when we listen, consider, discuss as we are doing here at dsg. Gradually we can learn what awareness of the level of satipatthana is and what the object of awareness is: any nama or rupa as it appears now, one at a time. Not more than one at a time, not a whole of impressions, not a concept. Moreover, it is necessary to develop all the perfections, all of them, not neglecting any of them. As you quoted: we need medicine to strengthen us on the long, long journey to the other shore. Patience, energy, determination, all of them can develop if we see the value of them. They can develop along with satipatthana. Perhaps some questions remain unsolved? Nina. #75937 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 9:06 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Asoka, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Dear Tep, Op 3-sep-2007, om 16:42 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > We have learnt from the Buddha's > teachings that what we call a person are ever changing phenomena > which arise and fall away, but instead of developing right > understanding of nåma and rúpa we are often absorbed in concepts and > we remember these with perverted saññå. > > T: Yes. Elimination of ditthi-samyojana and maana-samyojana take care > of many defilements. I think because of atta-saññå that "remembers" > past events (continuity) we then "see" a compact person in the "ever > changing phenomena which arise and fall away". Thus, the "right > understanding of nåma and rúpa" cannot be developed without anatta- > saññå. > .............. > N: I am inclined to turn this around: as right understanding of > nama and rupa develops it leads to anatta sa~n~naa. As I understood there are perversion of sa~n~naa and citta at each moment of akusala citta, also those that are without ditthi. The perversions occur more often tha we ever thought. -------- > >Nina: Since we have accumulated wrong saññå for countless lives we > are inclined to think of ourselves and others as persons who exist, > at least during a life time; we fail to see that a person is only > citta, cetasika and rúpa which do not last. > > T: By "at least during a life time" do you imply annihilationism ? ------ N: We know that they have to die but we are inclined that they exist during this life. I was not thinking of annihilationism. --------- > T: Yes, "we fail to see that a person is only citta, cetasika and rúpa > which do not last" because we lack the understanding that "a person" > exists only in each moment and there is no "self" passing from one > moment to the next, except kamma-vipakas("accumulations" ?). ------ N: Each citta falls away and is succeeded by the next one. Kamma and all kusala and akusala inclinations are accumulated from one moment of citta to the next moment, from life to life. We cannot say that vipaaka is accumulated, it is produced by accumulated kamma at a particular moment. Then it is not further accumulated. -------- > > T: What do you think of the following excerpt? > > "Whatever exists is in a constant state of flux, through and through, > like the flame of the lamp, and all existence is in a process which > continues to constantly renew itself. ------ N: The renewing is not in conformity with impermanence. ------- > "Our mind and its thoughts is essentially a stream of consciousness. > Thought, however, is not simply a physiological function but a kind > of energy, something like electricity. We should therefore strive to > translate and activate this thought energy in the world we live in, > the life we live, in this existence where the illusion of the > separative self and the unchanging permanent soul can be forever > eliminated, no longer causing us to cling to forms that lack reality > and substance. The bonds of selfhood are then broken. New vistas > appear before us. A clearer unclouded understanding of the living > forces of life is now ours. [William Gilbert. Soul and Substance — > from Suchness, April 1966.] > ................. > N: Energy: I would avoid this idea, it is not so clear. We prefer > the Tipitaka expressions, don't we? He ends with: it is ours, which > is unfortunate. 'the living forces of life', I do not take to that > so much, again, preferring the Tipitaka. ------- > > >Nina: We take what is dukkha for happiness, we cling to life, to all > the sense objects we experience. Whatever we experience through the > six doors falls away immediately, it is dukkha, but we believe that > what we experience can bring us pleasant feeling. Pleasant feeling > does not last, it is dukkha. > > T: The following sutta [AN 4.49 Vipallasa Sutta. Distortions of the > Mind. -------- N: Thank you, that is very appropriate. Nina. #75938 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 9:51 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Asoka, Ch 4, no 2. moellerdieter Hi Nina and Tep, just chipping in for a brief comment : N: Energy: I would avoid this idea, it is not so clear. We prefer the Tipitaka expressions, don't we? He ends with: it is ours, which is unfortunate. 'the living forces of life', I do not take to that > so much, again, preferring the Tipitaka. D: in my opinion the term energy fits quite well.. thinking about the translation of Sankhara by kamma forces/volition , or simply the will (cetana) of action..though it is an issue of translation and so of individual preference. However the excerpt isn't so clear to me too with Metta Dieter #75939 From: "colette" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 10:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge ksheri3 C'mon Tep, You can do better than that. "Bat Woman", what the...? "Survived" what do you take or was given to you that you had not requested? Me, on the offensive? Well, I can admit that I take the offensive quite regularly when it is given that the odds are certainly against me. As is Standard Operating Procedure I typically end up in disputes where it is not a fair fight, where there is more than a single person persecuting me and so I have to resort to pulling rabits out of my hat, although it's also true that people have said "you can leave your hat on". too bad you never experienced the US government's "armed services", military, since then you'd be able to understand sooooooo much better: "When ya gottem by the balls their hearts and minds are sure to follow". toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: ... > T: I am confident, after having survived the much more severe attack > by the Bat Woman, Colette, that my head has grown much stronger. So I > am ready for another round of debate with 'the world's policeman' -- > anytime you are back from the hiding place. But please do not > handcuff me without a fair investigation. > > Tep #75940 From: "colette" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 11:19 am Subject: "forward they cry, from the rear, as the front rank dies" Pink Floyd ksheri3 Hi Scott, > > Scott: Now, its interesting that I wondered about getting into the > discussion with the good Han and the good Tep. > colette: I've gotta comment here since you show a characteristic within you (internal) but you classify this "reserved" sensation through terminology of "good" this or that: why would you be aprehensive if you already show that you have nothing to fear being that you've classified the future dharma, future interaction, as being kusala, pleasant? If it is kusala then ALL IS KUSALA (Aggregates, Conditioning, and that "third eye" commonly refered to as Buddha-nature). Certainly, we all know and are aware that there exists akusala we cannot allow that truth to confine our efforts. <....> Here Time In Position will show you that going into a strange bar is okay to have a drink and associate just remember where your weapons are and why they are there. For instance I went to the Wilkes Barre- Scranton area where my parents were from, for the first time on my own in the mid-90s, somehow I walked into a strip club after driving through this ignorant as hell rush hour traffic, just to get a drink. I had fun and the next day when I finally made it to my grandparent's home I ended up going to like the only bar in the town to relax and talk with people. In comes some bikers, if you didn't have eyes then you wouldn't have seen them but EVERYBODY KNEW WHO THEY WERE, Warlocks, and since I knew that I had had a good time in their bar, which was the strip club, I wanted to buy them drinks since it was obvious that they deliberately came to where I was and deliberately went into a bar that their kind would have no use for, so they were making a statement to me. when I tried to buy them drinks to show them that I was appreciative for having them let me have a good time in their bar I was told "NO, you do not want to buy them drinks" by the bartender. Why sure, it could've turned into ugliness but it didn't since I am not in competition with them for whatever and I have no hositilities toward them. the same thing applies here, you've just gotta remember that we're all humans and we're all on our own trip. ---------------------- > I did notice some inner vibe of mine that seemed to be like a bit of > lack of trust and insecurity as I began to discuss with Tep and Han. > Something in the preparations and comments and preliminaries that was > making me wary. Perhaps you, with your sensitivity to these things, > also picked this up. > colette: now I'd be talking out of class if I went and discussed certain characteristics of Han and Tep. Why don't you simply consider them as the same person. When you talk with Han you talk with Tep and vice versa. I float around and see a lot of stuff that I keep quite since it's not my play but remember if somebody is making a play and I see it, well, I'm gonna see how keeping my mouth shut is gonna benefit me first. Notice the traditional character on the first card of the Major Arcana in the standard Tarot deck. "The Magician" is commonly characterized as being a juggler since we deal with and deal in many different forces of nature. <...> --------------------------------------- > I know for a fact that this was my own vibe colette: thank you for taking credit for something that most people put on others, point the finger. -------------------------- and don't usually leap > immediately to think that such things automatically refer to any > so-called external reality, colette: EVERYTHING outside of yourself IS EXTERNAL and that means that Han and Tep are external along with the things that are internal to Han and Tep, they are external too. Give them credit for having the ability to fall victim to delusions and hallucinations. Now when I read it deeper you are failing to recognize the differentiation between a person and a thing, human life and inatimate object, human life can exist outside of yourself. If you project you are projecting part of your life outside of yourself, making what was/is INTERNAL something completely OTHER in the form of EXTERNAL. -------------------------- an appreciation of which is a special gift > of mine. Rather than assume that such a vibe is well-founded, I just > notice it and try to wait and see. colette: nothing wrong with that, it's a form of defense, but also a form of good judgement. -------------------------- Sometimes I do turn out to be > correct. Beware the GAMBLER'S FALLACY. > colette: shit happens doesn't it. > For example, I worry more about Tep than about Han. My vibe says to > me that Tep is still upset with me and is out to get back at me for > something. colette: only you know what that something is and I advise that you poke around this "thing" before you go and open your mouth about it. why not try lobbing artillery fire at it to see what the characteristics are when under fire from above? You're gonna get your hands dirty though but damn, a little dirty laundry is typical in these times <...> -------------------------------- > I don't believe myself off the bat. colette: another good characteristic. Now it's obvious that you are aware of your own mind's tricks that it plays even on you. ------------------------------- I'm taking the > position that I'm just insecure. colette: so be it, If you take the position of insecurity then you know the material that will help you recognize the signs of your own insecurity and how to deal with it. ---------------------------- I'll keep interacting (in the > 'rope-a-dope style') until I get over this. It can be daunting though. > colette: another good characteristic, work through it. Yea, daunting isn't close sometimes to how hard it gets plodding through the bogs. -------------------------------------- > c: "p.s. 'gonna fight while I can. To put an end to this misery.' > Foreigner." > > Scott: I appreciate your many references to lyrics old and new (mostly > old - you are into the 'classics'). colette: thanks scott, I think they take a little preasure off but they also do a lot of illuminating if ya listen to all the lyrics. Yea, I guess I would be considered now as a classic rock fan, but I love sooooooo many other types of music. I simply was conditioned with/through classic rock. thanks for the warmth in the a little insecurity myself. toodles, colette #75941 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:12 pm Subject: Re: "forward they cry, from the rear, as the front rank dies" Pink Floyd scottduncan2 Dear colette, Thanks for the reply: colette: "I've gotta comment here since you show a characteristic within you (internal) but you classify this "reserved" sensation through terminology of "good" this or that: why would you be apprehensive if you already show that you have nothing to fear being that you've classified the future dharma, future interaction, as being kusala, pleasant?" Scott: Well, were I to have the capacity to predict the future in this way, I'd have already won the lottery and would own all the Tipitaka in English and Paa.li!! But alas... I can't predict the pleasantness of future interactions. This is dependent on conditions (the oft heard refrain). I like the use of internal/external here. More below and so I'll hold off. c: "If it is kusala then ALL IS KUSALA (Aggregates, Conditioning, and that "third eye" commonly refered to as Buddha-nature). Certainly, we all know and are aware that there exists akusala we cannot allow that truth to confine our efforts. Scott: But it can't all be kusala can it? c: "...Why sure, it could've turned into ugliness but it didn't since I am not in competition with them for whatever and I have no hostilities toward them. the same thing applies here, you've just gotta remember that we're all humans and we're all on our own trip." Scott: This may have been metta, in part. Hey, what do you think of this: If something is external then it is a matter of PERCEPTION the awareness of which is naama and hence INTERNAL. colette: "...Why don't you simply consider them as the same person. When you talk with Han you talk with Tep and vice versa. I float around and see a lot of stuff that I keep quite since it's not my play but remember if somebody is making a play and I see it, well, I'm gonna see how keeping my mouth shut is gonna benefit me first. Notice the traditional character on the first card of the Major Arcana in the standard Tarot deck. "The Magician" is commonly characterized as being a juggler since we deal with and deal in many different forces of nature." Scott: I try to consider 'them' to be 'me' first, you know what I mean? PROJECTION, right? colette: "thank you for taking credit for something that most people put on others, point the finger." Scott: You're welcome. colette: "EVERYTHING outside of yourself IS EXTERNAL and that means that Han and Tep are external along with the things that are internal to Han and Tep, they are external too. Give them credit for having the ability to fall victim to delusions and hallucinations." Scott: Yeah, back to external/internal. Very interesting. Of course the radical view is that Han and Tep are, a) ruupa, and b) internal in the form of concepts. There is this 'stream' of dhammas arising and ceasing in this human realm with kamma-produced body and citta-produced movements, speech, gestures, etc known as 'Scott'. This conditions thinking that the colour I see in the form it finally takes (in this case words with names appended) is an other. If this 'stream' exists, so too must others. But do the streams actually interact beyond the illusory? Silly musing. c: "Now when I read it deeper you are failing to recognize the differentiation between a person and a thing, human life and inanimate object, human life can exist outside of yourself. If you project you are projecting part of your life outside of yourself, making what was/is INTERNAL something completely OTHER in the form of EXTERNAL." Scott: Is there a difference between a person and a thing when a person is conceptual? I know you and I are interacting but of what does this really consist? I've been roughed up over this many times, I'll tell you. I know that these words of yours are sign of another being. Beings are conceptual but also objects of, say, metta. I feel like being kind to someone. Somewhere in all that might even be a real moment of kindness. This would be internal. Its hard to fathom. I can fool myself. As far as I know I want to be kind sometimes or I find this sort of kindness-pressure and so kindness arises. Projection is quite the process. colette: "shit happens doesn't it." Scott: Yeah. colette: "only you know what that something is and I advise that you poke around this "thing" before you go and open your mouth about it. why not try lobbing artillery fire at it to see what the characteristics are when under fire from above? You're gonna get your hands dirty though but damn, a little dirty laundry is typical in these times" Scott: Well, I think I prefer holding my fire. I played hockey in the day. You'd take a hit, look at the guy's number, and make sure you got him later. I don't think the Buddha would have recommended that sort of hockey-mentality but I still have it sometimes. If some measure of mindfulness doesn't arise then I'm liable to give as good as I get. Not so great, really... colette: "another good characteristic. Now it's obvious that you are aware of your own mind's tricks that it plays even on you." Scott: Thanks again. I get it sometimes, often, though, its after the fact, more's the pity. colette: "thanks scott, I think they take a little preasure off but they also do a lot of illuminating if ya listen to all the lyrics. Yea, I guess I would be considered now as a classic rock fan, but I love sooooooo many other types of music. I simply was conditioned with/through classic rock. thanks for the warmth in the a little insecurity myself." Scott: You're welcome, colette. I haven't thought of Foreigner for years. I'm still following the new music although my daughter's been listening to all my Beatles (which I never stopped listening to) and so the music goes on... Stay well! Sincerely, Scott. #75942 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much. So, what I have to do is: (1) Wrong view has to be eradicated (or lessened) first. When there is still the latent tendency of wrong view we are bound to take realities for self. It is my attachment, and 'I' will reduce or eradicate it. This wrong view will be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. (How to develop pa~n~naa, see below.) (2) How to develop more understanding or pa~n~naa? It begins with the level of pariyatti. Thus, pa~n~naa is developing already when we listen, consider, discuss as we are doing here at DSG. Gradually we can learn what awareness of the level of satipatthana is and what the object of awareness is: any nama or rupa as it appears now, one at a time. Not more than one at a time, not a whole of impressions, not a concept. Moreover, it is necessary to develop all the perfections, all of them, not neglecting any of them, and they can develop along with satipatthana. No, Nina, no questions remain unsolved. It is very clear now. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > you have some relevant questions. #75943 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 4:20 pm Subject: Perfections Corner nichiconn Dear Han, Sorry to be even slower than usual about answering. Did you still want me to post extracts from Perfections? with respect, connie #75944 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Unless I am mistaken you have asked this question several times. James: No, you are not mistaken- and I will continue to ask it until I get a direct answer. I would like a direct quote from the Buddha stating that people don't exist. In essence, that anatta means that beings don't exist. This is a big one so if it is true the Buddha would have said so directly at some point during 45 years of teaching. > Among the replies you receive there is usually a quote from Ven > Dhammananda's message #9847 (back when he was called Robert Eddison): > > ""....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > belongs to self...." > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > > ""In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be > found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > (Yamaka Sutta)" James: I guess you don't get what I am asking for. Again, I want a direct quote from the Buddha stating that people (entities) don't exist. These quotes that you provide don't state that. Ken, I can read. :-) These are brief quotes, taken from a much larger context, which could be interpreted to mean any number of things. I could track down the original sutta; do a detailed analysis; and then demonstrate that these quotes don't mean what you think they mean-- but that would be a complete waste of my time. It would be much more expedient for you to provide a direct quote or to admit that a direct quote doesn't exist. Again, I would like a direct quote- or you could just ignore my request. Metta, James #75945 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:30 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Ken H. and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > That's correct, but maybe I tread a fine line between wanting to > help > > and wanting to be [what you and K Sujin call] 'the world's > policeman.' > ... > S: This is actually a very interesting point. Would you elaborate > more on your reflections. > There must be a cheating dhamma for the being 'the world's policeman' > masquerading as 'wishing to help'! We all take on noble causes all the > time - whether it be protecting the environment, standing up for > women, educating children, yes, getting the true dhamma message out, > protecting meditation or the commentaries....and so on and so on. We > think we're being helpful and have the right intentions - often we > may do so, but even more often we're just acting as 'the world's > policeman' or 'the world manager' (that's the phrase, I recall). > We're trying to dictate how others behave/think, rather than > understanding our own cittas, developing metta no matter how others > behave/think.... > --------------- > > Ah yes, sorry, the world's "manager" not "policeman!"That was a > brilliant conversation with K Sujin (on an India trip, I > think) and I find it translates very well into conventional wisdom - > for people with no interest in the Dhamma. I will throw my two cents into this discussion- which I think is worthwhile. It is a natural desire for one on the Buddha's path to want to help others. That falls under the category of the brahma-viharas and the Perfections. It is impossible to develop the perfections without helping others. However, when one has a mistaken notion about humanity (as in the belief that people don't exist) then the desire to help others doesn't come from compassion for others, it comes selfish ego: "I'm right and you're wrong." I see a lack of compassion in those who follow the teaching of KS. They would much rather give others "cold showers" than friendly encouragement. They would much rather act superior and know-it-all rather than humble. This is, I believe, because they haven't developed compassion for others. You cannot have compassion for others if you think they don't exist and that there is no one who suffers. Just some things to consider. Metta, James #75946 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:45 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 13, no 4. buddhatrue Hi Scott (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Nina (and James), > > This is what I was alluding to when I suggested to James that opening > and closing the eyes is not the willed action of a person: James: What is it the willed action of? A stone? ;-)) You are mixing the conventional with the absolute and making no sense whatsoever. > > N: "...When we gesticulate or speak there are ruupas conditioned by > citta by way of faculty-condition; citta has controlling power over > these ruupas. However, mind faculty does not last, it falls away > immediately. We should not, while we speak or gesticulate, take the > citta which produces ruupas for self. Neither should we take those > ruupas for self; they arise because of conditions and fall away again..." James: This description is fine because it doesn't mix conventional with absolute. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Metta, James #75947 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner hantun1 Dear Connie, Yes, I would like to request you to take up some chapters. What I have in mind is I will take upekkhaa, khanti, and nekkhamma. You do not have to wait until I finish all three. Please start your chapter when I finish with upekkhaa. When we finish six (three each), we will see how to proceed with the remaining four. What do you think? Respectfully, Han #75948 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 6:38 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner nichiconn Dear Han, >What I have in mind is I will take upekkhaa, khanti, and nekkhamma. >You do not have to wait until I finish all three. >Please start your chapter when I finish with upekkhaa. > >When we finish six (three each), we will see how to proceed with the remaining four. This is fine with me (unless someone else chooses to join us?). I will take sacca, adi.t.thaana and mettaa, in that order. Thank you for starting the corner, connie #75949 From: han tun Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 7:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner hantun1 Dear Connie, Fine! It is agreed then. If someone else wants to join us they are most welcome, and we can readjust our presentations. Respectfully, Han --- L G SAGE wrote: > Dear Han, > This is fine with me (unless someone else chooses to > join us?). I will take sacca, adi.t.thaana and > mettaa, in that order. > Thank you for starting the corner, > connie > #75950 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 7:09 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi James, ------------ <. . . > J: > and I will continue to ask it until I get a direct answer. I would like a direct quote from the Buddha stating that people don't exist. In essence, that anatta means that beings don't exist. This is a big one so if it is true the Buddha would have said so directly at some point during 45 years of teaching. <. . .> ""....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > belongs to self...." > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > > ""In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be > found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > (Yamaka Sutta)" James: I guess you don't get what I am asking for. Again, I want a direct quote from the Buddha stating that people (entities) don't exist. These quotes that you provide don't state that. --------------- They do state that, but you don't want to know it. A Tathagaata is a person. If, in truth and reality, here and now (when the Tathagaata was speaking), the Tathagaata was not to be found (did not exist) then the same applies to any other person. In truth and reality there are no people (abiding entities). Like it or not, nothing can be clearer than that. --------------------- J: > Ken, I can read. :-) --------------------- :-) I missed a good opportunity, didn't I? ------------------------ J: > These are brief quotes, taken from a much larger context, which could be interpreted to mean any number of things. --------------------- You have moved the goal posts. I knew this would happen! -------------------------------- J: > I could track down the original sutta; do a detailed analysis; and then demonstrate that these quotes don't mean what you think they mean-- but that would be a complete waste of my time. It would be much more expedient for you to provide a direct quote or to admit that a direct quote doesn't exist. Again, I would like a direct quote- or you could just ignore my request. ------------------------------------------- I think you want the one that says, "Let's all eat Ananda's dinner. There is no Ananda, so he can't possibly mind." Unfortunately I won't be able to find that one because the Dhamma is not about eternal existence or annihilation. Anatta does not mean you and I cease to exist, it means we never existed in the first place. Ken H #75951 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 7:12 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 13, no 4. scottduncan2 Dear James, Thank you for the reply: James: "...You are mixing the conventional with the absolute..." Scott: How so? Sincerely, Scott. #75952 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 7:17 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Ken H. (and James - sorry I found it funny), Too much, man: K: "...I think you want the one that says, "Let's all eat Ananda's dinner. There is no Ananda, so he can't possibly mind...." Scott: Hilarious. Sincerely, Scott. #75953 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, James & Ken - In a message dated 9/3/2007 8:24:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > ""In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be > found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > (Yamaka Sutta)" James: I guess you don't get what I am asking for. Again, I want a direct quote from the Buddha stating that people (entities) don't exist. These quotes that you provide don't state that. Ken, I can read. :-) These are brief quotes, taken from a much larger context, which could be interpreted to mean any number of things. I could track down the original sutta; do a detailed analysis; and then demonstrate that these quotes don't mean what you think they mean-- but that would be a complete waste of my time. It would be much more expedient for you to provide a direct quote or to admit that a direct ============================= Ken, do you have a link for that sutta? I'd like to read it. James, what is inadequate in that sutta as an example? With metta, Howard #75954 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind scottduncan2 Dear Tom, Sorry for the delay, T: "Yes, they are all just concepts.Cluster-beings." Scott: What are 'cluster-beings'? Sincerely, Scott. #75955 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:11 pm Subject: dependent origination gazita2002 Hello Sarah, and others A question, Sarah. what does 'existence' really mean in D.O. Am reading Nidanasamyutta and wonder how clinging conditions existence and not just 'birth'. Thanks. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #75956 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Human Life: Half Dead but still Kicking! bhikkhu0@... Human Life by the late Ven. Dr. K Sri Dhammananda, The Buddhist Channel, Sept 3, 2007 This is the transcript of the final public Dharma talk given by the late Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda at the Brickfields Buddhist Mahavihara on Friday, 7 July, 2006. The Vihara marked the first anniversary of the Venerable's demise on Friday, August 31, 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- I never actually thought that I would have the chance to see and talk to you (again). Half of my body is dead, but my heart, my mind still has energy (to go on). In memory: Ven. Dr K Sri Dhammananda Maha Nayaka Thera (1919-2006). Picture by Jeff Ooi What is this diseased body? Is it life? (Our body) is not life, but just a house (containing this physical body). Life is "energy". The coming together of mental, kammic and cosmic forces - that is life. When the body decays, life goes away. Actually we must be happy when the time comes to depart without suffering. To crave so much for the body, we spend our whole life decorating it, looking after it. One day it will decay and when the body elements dissipate, then the mental energy will go on to build another house. Life begins with mental energy. This is birth. Every single child cries (when they are born), none comes to this world smiling. Life is suffering. (In a lifetime) we use whole amount of energy just to maintain this physical body, but yet one day, we (still) have to depart. (When we have departed) what is left behind is solidity and fluidity - two elements only. There is no longer heat and motion. Christians and Muslims are particular about the body (of the departed) as they believe in resurrection. Buddhists do not believe that there is anything in this physical body. People spend thousands of dollars on funerals, but the departed never get anything. The only way to support the departed is to know how to make use of this life. That is why religion is needed to help us to cultivate compassion, sympathy and kindness and supporting others. Rhys Davids (the late President of the Pali Text Society) sent me a letter saying that there are two reasons to be happy as an old man. Firstly, he said that he will (soon) be free from pain and suffering. Secondly, ever since becoming a Buddhist, he said that he has tried his best to maintain and uphold the five precepts. (As such, he knows that should) he be reborn in another life, it won't be an unfortunate one. He knows he can depart with the confidence that his good deeds would ensure a good rebirth. In the end the dying man takes no solace in dancing and singing. Only through meritorious deeds will one get confidence and this will support the kammic energy in the (subsequent) rebirth. We must know how to handle life, by doing service to others to help release their suffering. Many die with fear and confusion in mind. This cannot take rebirth into the upper realm. Meditation is important to maintaining purity. When craving and attachment is completely removed, the mind is then completely pure. Remember, this body is not life. It is just a house built by energy and the four cosmic elements. It is unfortunate that in the past 2500 years, Buddhists in Asia have introduced a lot of rites and rituals (which were) never introduced by the Buddha. The Buddha just teaches us to keep away from evil by reducing anger, jealousy and enmity. We must continue to do meritorious deeds, to develop the mind through understanding and to purify the mind (through meditation). If you are cruel, hot tempered or stingy, try your best to take this out (of yourself). If you pray to God to take this out (for you) do you think God can do that? Buddha will also won’t (be able to take your negative elements away), but he can tell you how to do that. War is declared by the human mind. Peace also comes from our minds. They are not created from heaven or by God. In Buddhism, (we practice) first by understanding, not by blindly believing. When you have developed right understanding, then (you will be able to) carry out a religious way of life. When you (have) doubt, you must think and investigate, then (make a decision to) accept or reject. (This is Buddhism, unlike) other religions which say that when there is doubt, God will punish you. All over the world different (Buddhist) schools have sprung up and followers have their own traditions which they have maintained for a long time. (While) Buddha has rejected (many) old traditions, it was (unfortunate that many rites and rituals have been) introduced to primitive, narrow minded people. (As people) in Asian countries (get more enamoured by rites and tradition, it is a shame they) don't study the dharma (much). Next - do good. Reduce your anger and (try to) do something to train the mind through right understanding. Change the mind through your own experience of understanding what is right and wrong. I have been in Malaysia for 53 years. (Once) I don’t even have a room to sleep in. (But I have made the country my home, teaching Buddhism). Most of the Buddhists here are the Chinese, and through Buddhist societies we made them understand what Buddhism is. Although I am half dead, my mental and life energy is still active. (It would be beneficial if) you know how to do this. Although the end of my life is now near, I have no fear. Arahants can disconnect mind from body, experience Nibbanic bliss. At that moment, you cannot tell if they are dead or alive as their bodies are still warm and their complexions remain ruddy. They can maintain so for one week at the most. Remember there are four kinds of happiness: 1. Happiness of Possession - In owning your own property, house, land, business, bank account. 2. Happiness of Enjoyment - Using what you have earned (which) you can enjoy good food, nice house, (comfortable clothing) without abusing, bluffing and cheating others. 3. Happiness of Debtlessness - Try best not to borrow from others. By spending within your own means, you gain self respect. 4. Happiness of Blamelessness - Try to lead life without brining harm to anyone. (You must constantly cultivate) these four kinds of happiness. (Never) be lazy, do some (productive) work, do not neglect what you have earned. Maintain and protect what you have earned. Later on, you can then decide upon adopting a Buddhist way of life, right up to becoming an Arahant. (But first, you have to) know how to adjust your way of life and how to associate with others. Who are (these others)? Associate with good people, not harmful, wicked people. Support your father and mother and look after your wife and children. Don't neglect relatives, help them (when needful). Develop your mind to the extent that you are not shaken by the eight winds of change – praise and blame, fame and shame, gain and loss, pleasure and pain and treat all the same. (If you do this well) at this stage nothing will affect you. All meetings end in partings, That which rises must fall, That which is collected will be dispersed, Birth ends with death ---------- Edited by Ang Choo Hong, President of the Buddhist Missionary Society of Malaysia and Co-edited by Lim Kooi Fong, Managing Editor of the Buddhist Channel. This article is published in memory of the first anniversary of the demise of the late Ven. Dr K Sri Dhammananda. This article will go on print in the Voice of Buddhism, October 2007 edition. Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <....> #75957 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Howard and Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, James & Ken - > > In a message dated 9/3/2007 8:24:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > ""In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be > > found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > > (Yamaka Sutta)" > ============================= > Ken, do you have a link for that sutta? I'd like to read it. James, what > is inadequate in that sutta as an example? > > With metta, > Howard Oh bother, I didn't want to get into sutta analysis. It gets too complicated and distracts from the original point. But, since you have asked, Howard, I will oblige (yes, I play favorites ;-)). The Buddha, the Tathagata, is too vast to be comprehended or defined. That sutta is entirely about enlightened beings that cannot be traced or comprehended here on Earth or after paranibbana. I was asking about ordinary people, who are quite often defined by the Buddha as the `five clinging aggregates'. I would like a quote from the Buddha stating that the ordinary person doesn't exist. Contrary to what Ken H. claims, I haven't moved the goal posts. Metta, James #75958 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 13, no 4. buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thank you for the reply: > > James: "...You are mixing the conventional with the absolute..." > > Scott: How so? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > This is what I was alluding to when I suggested to James that opening > and closing the eyes <<>>> is not the willed action of a person: <<>> Metta, James #75959 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:38 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 13, no 4. scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks: J: "This is what I was alluding to when I suggested to James that opening and closing the eyes <<>>> is not the willed action of a person: <<>>" Scott: Oh. What's the problem with that? Sincerely, Scott. #75960 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination sarahprocter... Hi Azita, --- gazita2002 wrote: > Hello Sarah, and others > > A question, Sarah. what does 'existence' really mean in D.O. > Am reading Nidanasamyutta and wonder how clinging conditions existence > and not just 'birth'. Thanks. ... S: When I've asked K.Sujin, she's stressed that bhava in D.O. refers to present (abhi)sankhara, i.e kamma, as opposed to past (abhi)sankhara which conditioned (present) vinnana (i.e vipaka cittas). In the commentary to the Mahanidana Sutta, it says that literally it refers to kamma-bhava "since clinging is a condition for rebirth-existence through its nature as a condition for kamma-existence, not otherwise, it is directly a condition for kamma-existence." Further (in the sub-commentary, all B.Bodhi translations in 'The Great Discourse on Causation'): " "Under the heading of conascence": clinging is a condition of the unwholesome kamma conascent with itself under the heading of conascence; it is a condition for other (unwholesome kamma) under the heading of decisive support, by way of being a proximate decisive support condition, etc. But it is a condition for wholesome kamma only under the heading of decisive support...." For more detail, see also these past posts in U.P.: >Bhava (Becoming, Kamma) 55628, 60689, 71769, 73628< Metta, Sarah p.s have you moved yet? Working? When do you stay with Vince? Pls share some of the discussions:). How's the 'patience, courage and good cheer' going? Hope you saw my other short post to you. ========== #75961 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 8:56 pm Subject: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I re-quoted from the first chapter of the Kathavatthu (the 5th of the 7 Abhidhamma Pitaka texts) the other day: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21096 >S:In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41) <....>: ***** QUOTE “ “Without self” means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. ".....Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, there is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: “there is the person.” This is the sense here. "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: “These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.” (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. "The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence, ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning. "Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahant, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. "He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahant, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. "Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. On the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards. "Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the Buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. ‘they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.’ Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e. known). Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ‘person’ is ended.” < ***** <...> >Sarah: Nina recently sent this post to Jon, in which we can note the reference to khandhas included: Nina: I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about paramatthadesana, I shall translate: Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa caa ti. There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti evaruupa sammutidesanaa. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m deseti. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. ******************** >Sarah: I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of conventional speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these references which are useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: ‘....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,’ (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: ‘...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” >End earlier post< ****** Metta, Sarah ====== #75962 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 3, 2007 11:36 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Asoka, Ch 4, no 2. indriyabala Hi Nina and Dieter, - Thank you for your thoughts on "energy" in the article 'Soul and Substance' by William Gilbert. >N : Energy: I would avoid this idea, it is not so clear. We prefer the Tipitaka expressions, don't we? He ends with: it is ours, which is unfortunate. 'the living forces of life', I do not take to that > so much, again, preferring the Tipitaka. >D (#75938): in my opinion the term energy fits quite well.. thinking about the translation of Sankhara by kamma forces/volition , or simply the will (cetana)of action..though it is an issue of translation and so of individual preference. However the excerpt isn't so clear to me too T: Energy (viriya) in the Tipitaka is mental, which I think is what Gilbert calls "thought energy". You both are right that he is not clear. But he seems to hit on something important when he suggests that the "illusion of the separative self and the unchanging permanent soul can be forever eliminated" by activating "this thought energy". It sounds like the "right effort" to me ! Tep === #75963 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 12:01 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Sarah, - It has been a controversy like you said. That controversy is, however, not seen in the Sutta-pitaka. S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! T: You are right : I can see why further elaborations and comments on the original words of the Teachings can end up in that conclusion of "no Buddha!!". The controversy continues in the mind of a disbeliever. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I re-quoted from the first chapter of the Kathavatthu (the 5th of the 7 > Abhidhamma Pitaka texts) the other day: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 > > The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further > elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really > is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21096 > ... ... > >Sarah: I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of > conventional speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these > references which are useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: > > `....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,' (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) > > The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: > > `...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." > >End earlier post< > ****** > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > #75964 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > It has been a controversy like you said. That controversy is, > however, not seen in the Sutta-pitaka. ... S: I agree, but probably for different reasons:) ... > > S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further > elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there > really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! > > T: You are right : I can see why further elaborations and comments on > the original words of the Teachings can end up in that conclusion > of "no Buddha!!". ... S: Good! ... > The controversy continues in the mind of a disbeliever. ... S: :-)) Ah well, there'd probably be no discussion here without controversy!! Appreciating all your threads - apologies for long delays in replies to some of your (and other's) posts.... Metta, Sarah ====== #75965 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 12:26 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I re-quoted from the first chapter of the Kathavatthu (the 5th of the 7 > Abhidhamma Pitaka texts) the other day: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75731 > > The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further > elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really > is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21096 > > >S:In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the > Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there > is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from > the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41) <....>: > ***** > QUOTE > " "Without self" means deprived of self, of soul, of person. Since when are self, soul, and person synonyms? This quote is obviously referring to "person" in a way which is different than "human being". Metta, James #75966 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Dear Han, Thanks for kindly replying: --- han tun wrote: > [Han, you may find it of interest to see that the > suttas 22:155 and 22:156 are identical except that > sakkaaaya ditthi is referred to in the first one and > attaanudi.t.thi in the second one.] > > Han: Exactly! That was why I said before that sakaaya > ditthi and attavaadupaadaana are synonymous! > But please do not start it again :>) ... S: OK, not starting it again - just mentioning in passing that the way I read these suttas, they were pointing to the opposite of your conclusion ;>) Otherwise, no need for 2 suttas, identical apart from 'sakkaaya di.t.thi' and 'attaanudi.t.thi' (i.e attavaadupaadaana)....!! Metta, Sarah ========= #75967 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > QUOTE > > " "Without self" means deprived of self, of soul, of person. > > Since when are self, soul, and person synonyms? This quote is > obviously referring to "person" in a way which is different than > "human being". .... S: It's not saying they are synonyms. It is saying that 'without self', anatta, means there is no self, no soul, no person, no human being, no thing - just 5 khandhas arising and falling away, mistakenly viewed as being a person in actuality etc. In an extract yesterday in Nina's series from the India trip (Asoka), she wrote (#75925): "The commentary to the “Path of Discrimination”, the “Saddhammappakåsiní”, explains that the perversions of saññå, citta and ditthi have different strengths: “... The perversion of saññå is the weakest in strength of all three. The perversion of citta has more strength than the perversion of saññå. The perversion of ditthi has the greatest strength of all three.” This reminds us of the danger of wrong view. So long as we cling to the concept of self there cannot be the eradication of any defilement. We have learnt from the Buddha’s teachings that what we call a person are ever changing phenomena which arise and fall away, but instead of developing right understanding of nåma and rúpa we are often absorbed in concepts and we remember these with perverted saññå. Since we have accumulated wrong saññå for countless lives we are inclined to think of ourselves and others as persons who exist, at least during a life time; we fail to see that a person is only citta, cetasika and rúpa which do not last. This causes us many problems when we suffer from the loss of people who are dear to us through death. We have learnt through the teachings that all dhammas are anattå, but we forget that realities are beyond control, that they do not belong to us. " **** S: You mentioned about a lack of compassion with an understanding of anatta. I see it as the complete opposite. The Buddha had the greatest compassion of all and this was perfected through his penetration of the Four Noble Truths and the fully developed wisdom which understood all dhammas as anatta. As we appreciate more and more the wretchedness that wrong view, ignorance and craving bring, the more sympathy and compassion will we have for 'others', all other 'people' in the same predicament. Having compassion for people doesn't mean there cannot be more and more understanding that actually, in truth, there are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Thanks for your interest and feedback! Metta, Sarah ====== #75968 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 1:48 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah (and James, Howard), - ... > T: I think there are several meanings of "self" (atta). The > personalist view above is just one of them. For example, another > meaning of "self" is of a permanent ego identity, or a soul. I > believe you prefer the mainstream Buddhist view of self as > a "person" , i.e. it is derived from the five aggregates. Am I > correct? > > Are the five aggregates real? If they are, then why is their > derivative not real (does not exist), or not a "substantial reality > in its own right" ? In a later post (to Howard) you comment on the fact that there are truths to be understood at different levels, the conventional and the absolute, and that each can be seen as true in its own sense. I think a similar situation applies to what is 'real'. Things are real at different levels. A person is real in the sense that ghosts are not. Similarly, the khandhas are real in a sense that person is not. As with truths, so with realities: it is important to distinguish between the conventionally real and the real in the ultimate sense. So while it can in a sense be said that "person" is derived from the khandhas, we need to keep in mind that that derivation is always a matter of thinking and not a matter of direct experience through one of the six doorways. Just for your consideration. Apologies if this has already been covered in a recent post (I am behind on my reading at the moment). Jon #75969 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. nilovg Dear Han, I listened to an audio (march 2005, 30 P c) about wrong view and its eradication. I shall share. Op 4-sep-2007, om 1:08 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Wrong view has to be eradicated (or lessened) > first. When there is still the latent tendency of > wrong view we are bound to take realities for self. It > is my attachment, and 'I' will reduce or eradicate it. > This wrong view will be lessened with the development > of pa~n~naa. ------- N:audio: Kh S explained that wrong view, when it appears, can be known as just a reality. She also explained about the vipassana ~naanas. When the first stage of tender insight has not arisen yet, it is difficult to be aware of and understand kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas. We do not know yet nama as nama and rupa as rupa. Kh Sujin said that vipassana ~naana is only the hint, the beginning of direct experience. After the moments of vipassana ~naanas have fallen away one knows the difference between the moment of vipassana ~naana and the moment there is not. But the development of pa~n~naa has to go on and one, that is why three pari~n~nas have been taught, levels of clear comprehension. It depends on detachment whether pa~n~naa can penetrate the arising and falling away of dhammas at later stages of insight. It may be after a long time. Kh Sujin referred to: dukkha patipada and sukha patipada, practice with difficulty or with ease. She said: N: This teaches us that we cannot try to be aware of wrong view or try to eradicate wrong view. It also reminds us of our ignorance and clinging and that it takes a long time to develop pa~n~naa. The late Ven. Dhammadharo spoke once about the Jataka about the captain of a ship who had to bring back his people after a dangerous journey. He said; one has to be far-sighted to develop pa~n~naa. But this is not discouraging. Nina. #75970 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (06) jonoabb Hi Han I'm appreciating your "Perfections" series very much. Please keep it going. Jon PS On a lighter note, I think the 'footers' that get added to your posts are very appropriate for DSG. Here's one: <> "Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please?". Spot on! Here's another: <> "Moody friends, Drama queens". Could be describing dsg!! #75971 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:09 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge buddhatrue Hi Ken H (Scott), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Ken H. (and James - sorry I found it funny), > > Too much, man: > > K: "...I think you want the one that says, "Let's all eat Ananda's > dinner. There is no Ananda, so he can't possibly mind...." James: :-) Of course I don't expect a quote like that- especially since Ananda and the Buddha didn't eat dinner....;-)) > > Scott: Hilarious. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Metta, James #75972 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > QUOTE > > > " "Without self" means deprived of self, of soul, of person. > > > > Since when are self, soul, and person synonyms? This quote is > > obviously referring to "person" in a way which is different than > > "human being". > .... > S: It's not saying they are synonyms. It is saying that 'without self', > anatta, means there is no self, no soul, no person, no human being James: The Buddha never said that there are no human beings: I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html > S: You mentioned about a lack of compassion with an understanding of > anatta. James: No, I mentioned a lack of compassion with the mistaken belief that anatta means that no beings exist. Don't misquote me and mix my words around, please. Metta, James #75973 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:41 am Subject: Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > Again, I'll need you to explain. I don't understand why the idea > > of "insight with jhana as basis" should be indicative of a bias > > against samatha. Please say a little more about how you see this. > > If there is "insight with jhana as basis", there would also be > "insight without jhana as basis". Am I right to say that? Certainly (and I have never suggested otherwise, have I?) > Consequently, one can claim that full awakening is attained by means > of insight alone. Am I right to say that? Absolutely correct. Very glad to hear it said! > If the authors of the commentaries actually knew what the Buddha is > talking about, would they need to explain it in 7 different ways. The > Buddha never said that there are 7 different ways of interpretation > in the sutta itself. So why the number 7? As far as I know there's no particular significance in the number 7. On the other hand, the Buddha himself often explained something in multiple ways, so I wouldn't see this as indicating lack of understanding. > Regarding (d), if one doesn't have the wrong view of eternalism & the > wrong view of annihilationism, does it mean that one has crossed over > the floods? > > Honestly Jon, do you think you still have wrong view of eternalism or > annihilationism? If not, why haven't you crossed over the floods? Or > why hasn't Howard crossed over the floods? Why aren't both of you > arahants yet? Well I can't speak for Howard of course (but I'm sure he'll be as amused as I am that you have lumped us together here, especially when he is so obviously lifetimes ahead of me ;-)) > Also, is the flood of wrong views of self the only flood to be > crossed? What about the flood of sensuality? Sensuality is there, in the form of kilesa, attachment, over- indulgence and all forms of akusala (see (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (g)). > I have expressed that this interpretation of the Ogha-tarana is my > belief & opinion right from the start. I have never said that "I KNOW > BETTER THAN ANY OF THE AUTHORS OF THE COMMENTARIES". That would be > pure conceit. > > But it has been proven without doubt (at least for me) that the > authors of the commentary on the Ogha-tarana Sutta have proved > themselves to be incompetent fools, which is why I do not put any > hope on them. But I think you make this judgement based mainly on the fact that your own interpretation is different, and you disagree with theirs! You've not been able to point to any objective shortcoming in the commentary to this sutta. > At the very least, I have backed up my interpretation of the Ogha- > tarana Sutta with another sutta also spoken by the Buddha himself. > > Whose interpretation is more credible based on facts & merit? *Your* > answer depends on your own biasness. While you arguments are always persuasive, I hope you won't mind if I express a preference for studying the commentaries in more detail before making a final judgement on the question of whose is the more credible ;-)) Always stimulating to talk to you. Jon #75974 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. hantun1 Dear Nina, The following first step that I have noted is the summary from your post. (1) Wrong view has to be eradicated (or lessened) first. When there is still the latent tendency of wrong view we are bound to take realities for self. It is my attachment, and 'I' will reduce or eradicate it. This wrong view will be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. I was quite happy with it. But now with your longer explanation, I got confused and do not know what to make of it. Have I summarized it wrongly? If wrong, can you kindly edit on the above paragraph I have written. If we cannot try to be aware of wrong view or try to eradicate wrong view, then what can I do? Your last post was clear to me. It was very good. Now it confuses me. I am sorry for my ignorance. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > I listened to an audio (march 2005, 30 P c) about > wrong view and its > eradication. I shall share. > Op 4-sep-2007, om 1:08 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: > #75975 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (06) hantun1 Dear Jon, I am glad you appreciate my presentations on the Perfections. I will keep on going. But ‘footers’ are not my doing! The credit or otherwise goes to Yahoo!:>)) Han #75976 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi James, (Ken H & Howard)* --- buddhatrue wrote: >> James: The Buddha never said that there are no human beings: <...> > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is > caught up1 there, tied up2 there, one is said to be 'a being.'3 > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... > fabrications... > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html .... S: It doesn't say 'a being' exists. It says 'one is said to be 'a being'. The point being made is the same as in the suttas I quoted, SN22: 151-156: "When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, ***view of self [identity view etc]*** arises. When there is feeling...perception....volitional formations...consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, by adhering to consciousness, view of self arises."... "Seeing thus....He understands: '...there is no more for this state of being." ... S: It is through clinging and wrong view that there is an idea of human being. Dependent on sakkaya ditthi (identity/human being view), all other wrong views arise. This is the first defilement which has to be eradicated. [When it says 'there is no more for this state of being', it is referring to further birth/becoming.] ... > S: You mentioned about a lack of compassion with an understanding of > > anatta. > > James: No, I mentioned a lack of compassion with the mistaken belief > that anatta means that no beings exist. ... S: Sorry. Anatta does mean no human beings exist in an ultimate sense. As all the quotes I've given suggest, puggala (human beings) are a concept used with or without wrong view. Thx for your comments and quotes. Pls keep them up, but (reluctantly), see below* Metta, Sarah *p.s Thx to Ken H and Howard for joining in the thread - I need to give attention to other long-neglected threads, so I'll leave this one in your good hands now:-). ======== #75977 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:32 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge kenhowardau Hi Tep, I will be glad to resume discussions with you at any time. I'm not sure what started this talk of head-biting-off. I suppose it was when I likened you to Victor - another prominent DSG member who insisted that anatta did not mean no self. I think I said that discussion with him was pointless: there was no way he was ever going to be convinced by the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. Really though, there is no reason why that should put an end to useful discussion. If a Christian, for example, were to join DSG and say, "Even though I am not prepared to accept it as truth, I would like to discuss the Theravada teaching," that would be fine as far as I am concerned. I think it would be just as acceptable if someone were to say, "My understanding of the suttas is different from the way they are explained in the Abhidhamma and commentaries." He could then explain why he thought his version was better. However, if the Christian or the heterodox Dhamma student were to object to other people's decision to study the Dhamma the way it is found in the original Pali texts *as a whole* then the situation would become unworkable, I think. Let's just accept that, according to the texts as a whole, there are only dhammas - there is nothing else (no self: nothing!). But, whatever happens, I am not the world's manager. If I think a particular discussion is pointless I can just keep out of it. :-) Ken H > > I am keeping a low profile at the moment. Trying to curb my head- biting-off tendencies. :-) > > . . . > I am ready for another round of debate with 'the world's policeman' -- > anytime you are back from the hiding place. But please do not > handcuff me without a fair investigation. > #75978 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (and Tep) --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Tep (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/2/07 11:21:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > > T: Howard probably does not know himself that he is now in a deep- > > water zone, and that it is now too late to back out! > > So long, good bye, Howard. > > > ======================== > LOL! Starting to drown in the paramattha-dhamma deeps, eh? ;-)) ... S: Don't worry, Tep and others will be joining you very soon ;-)) Btw, your comments to Jon (#75862) about being placed in all the different 'camps' and the dissection was very funny indeed...LOL! Metta, Sarah ========= #75979 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge hantun1 Okay Sarah, You win! I can never out-debate you. One of the qualities that I admire in you is that you have all the answers for anything all the time! :>)) Metta and respect, Han #75980 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (06) sarahprocter... Dear Han & Jon, --- han tun wrote: > Dear Jon, > I am glad you appreciate my presentations on the > Perfections. I will keep on going. > But ‘footers’ are not my doing! > The credit or otherwise goes to Yahoo!:>)) ... S: Yes, they're very funny. I also had in mind to make a quip about a couple, esp. the Drama queens one, but Jon was thinking the same way:-) It's OK, Han - everyone knows it's Yahoo and not you! :>)) Metta, Sarah > > "Moody friends, Drama queens". =========== #75981 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon, (James*) --- nidive wrote: > > S: I could refine it further by saying that it is the development > > of understanding and awareness of whatever conditioned dhamma > > *appears* at this moment. There are many dhammas arising and > > passing away at any moment, but only one dhamma ever appears at a > > time. > > I think by "dhamma" here, you mean a rupa, a cetasika, a citta or > nibbana. ... S: Yes. .... > But is a corpse a rupa? Seeing a corpse is different from seeing a > rupa. A corpse is a concept according to you. ... S: Yes. A corpse is a concept representing various rupas. If we say we see a corpse, it'll depend on the understanding whether we know that in truth, only visible object is seen and whether we're using concepts for convenience. Understanding paramattha dhammas doesn't mean we stop talking about corpses and computers. .... > > > S: If we really understood what dhammas are, what understanding is, > > what awareness is, what anatta means, then there'd be no need for > > further elaboration. In a way it is simple - Sariputta didn't need > > long explanations to get the message. > > So why didn't the Buddha teach satipatthana in DN 22 the way you have > expounded it? Why beat about the bush? Could it be that the audience > of DN 22 are dimwits? ... S: Apart from a very few key disciples, such as Sariputta, most people needed to hear a lot more detail. We need to hear a lot, lot more to really get the message. Perhaps we are dimwits when it comes to understanding the Dhamma! .... >But if they were dimwits, wouldn't it have been > better to teach them the simpler version (your version) than the > complicated version as laid out in DN 22? Why leave them with the > hard job of summarizing the simpler version from the complicated > version? Why leave chances for error in the process of summarizing > and interpreting? ... S: In different contexts, the Buddha and his disciples gave long and short, detailed and summarized explanations. It depended on the listener. If we've all read and discussed the Satipatthana Sutta many times, we don't need to quote it in full every time we have a discussion here! ... > >S: However, we're so used to being lost in a world of concepts, so > > used to think Self can direct the show, so used to thinking in > > terms of people and things existing, so very unused to > > understanding what seeing is, what visible object is, that we need > > to hear a lot of explanation and detail to get the point. > >SB: I don't understand why the five aggregates are called 'real', but the > person that is made up of the five aggregates is not 'real' (you call > it a concept). Is the sum of all the parts lesser than the individual > parts themselves? .... S: Visible object (rupa khandha) can be seen. Hardness (rupa khandha) can be touched. Attachment (sankhara khandha) can be directly known. 'The person' can only be thought about. It can never be seen, touched or directly known. 'The sum' is an idea. *Here's a good sutta quote for you and James. ('a being' is 'satto' as also used in the Radha Sutta, James quoted) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." **** > There does not exist independently an aggregate of form by itself, or > an aggregate of feelings by itself, or an aggregate of perceptions by > itself, or an aggregate of consciousness by itself, or an aggregate > of mental constructions by itself. ... S: In this realm, no. (Of course, rupas do arise and fall away in non-sentient beings all the time. Also, no rupas in the arupa brama realm...) ... > The five aggregates are mutually dependent on one another and comes > together as a "package", as a "summation". In actual reality, they > cannot be separated from one another. ... S: Yes, they are dependent on one another, but still they have distinct characteristics, functions, manifestations and proximate causes. They can be known specifically and understanding the different characteristics, the clear distinction between namas and rupas, is the path taught by the Buddha. ... > > S: .... No, satipatthana only > > refers to the understanding of a dhamma at "this moment". By > > understanding the characteristic of visible object as visible > > object (rupa khandha) at this moment, it is evident that any other > > visible object (past, future, internal, external....etc) all are > > just rupa khandha, mere elements, not things or body or people. > > This is good & logical deduction, but is such deduction satipatthana > on the "present moment"? Wouldn't the mind have to leave the "present > moment" to form such a deduction? ... S: No. At the moment of precisely understanding the characteristic of a dhamma as khandha, as impermanent etc, there's no doubt about the nature of realities. Like we read in the Vism, when there is the understanding of the imperanence of dhammas, all doubt about rebirth is eradicated. The same with understanding dhammas as khandha. No more doubt that past, future, internal, external conditioned dhammas are also khandha or dhatu or ayatana. Excellent points you've raised. Metta, Sarah ====== #75982 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 4:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge .. Biting My Head Off.. sarahprocter... Dear Tep (& Ken H), --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > He spent a few decades or lifetimes following what he now considers > to be wrong practices and rightly or wrongly (depending on how you > see it), likes to try and help others get straight to true Dhamma! > > > > He is an interesting guy, without any question. But his dancing style > and his kind of "tune" are still out of synch with me. It might take > me a few more trials, before we may finally finish the dance. ... S: Oh yes, we all have to practice together to get in sync (or synch)...Even when we think we have the same tune and have mastered the steps, we slip or even fall... Patience, courage and good cheer as you finish the dance together:-)) Metta, Sarah ========= #75983 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 4:25 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" philofillet Hi James Personally, I don't have any doubt that the Buddha wants us to eventually arrive at the knowledge that there are no people. I like SN 5:2-524, "'One to whom it might occur, "I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' or I'm anything at all' - is fit for Mara to address." ANd we are all fit for Mara to address. That's what the "stright-to- parmattha' folks don't appreciate - we are all in grave moral danger and they are fiddling with anatta while mind burns with greed, hatred and delusion. I think there are not people in ultimate terms but we are nowhere near having the kind of insight that makes that relevant. For now, there are people to be considered all the time, including ourselves. Only Sexiness of Wisdom Syndrome could cause people to post things like "there are only dhammas discussing." Ha! Just popping by, and out again. Hope all is well. Metta, Phil #75984 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" hantun1 Dear Sarah, Amidst serious discussions going on, can I write something on a lighter vein, without offending you? > S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! Han: I will not be able to accept this. In Burma, we use one acronym ‘BLR’ which means Beyond Local Repair. If a vehicle is declared as BLR, it is written off the ledger and auctioned off. So also, in this case, kindly treat me as BLR for not accepting this and write me off!:>) Respectfully, BLR Han #75985 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 3:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, you boggle my mind sarahprocter... Hi Tom, Glad to see you joining in discussions. Welcome to the list: --- tom wrote: > >Scott: What about the idea that all three ('door', 'jar', and 'me') are > > concepts and have no ultimate reality? > > > > What do you think about that old chestnut? .... >T: Yes, they are all just concepts.Cluster-beings. ... S: Look f/w to your further clarifications and witty thread with Scott. Why not introduce yourself and tell us where you live - and a little more about your interest here? (If you feel inclined to do so!) [Also, we ask everyone to make it clear whom they are addressing here (even if it's 'All' or 'Anyone'). Also we ask everyone to sign off with a (preferably real) name, to avoid confusions. TIA to any other newcomers too!!] Hope to chat more later, Metta, Sarah ========== #75986 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 5:43 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, There may be awareness of particular rúpas but not of the nåma which experiences them. Then we are bound to take the experience for self. Or we may be merely thinking about nåma and rúpa and be forgetful to be aware of thinking. In that case we may take thinking for self. We read in the “Dispeller of Delusion”, the commentary to the “Book of Analysis”, to the second Book of the Abhidhamma (Ch 7, Classification of the Foundations of Mindfulness) about reasons why the Buddha taught the four Applications of Mindfulness, namely of the body, of feeling, of citta and of dhammas. One of the reasons is as follows: Or alternatively, it is in order to abandon the perversions (vipallåsa) of the beautiful, the pleasant, the permanent and self. For the body is foul, and herein beings are perverted (into regarding it as beautiful) by the perversion of the beautiful. The first foundation of mindfulness is stated in order to abandon that perversion by showing them the foulness therein. And as regards feeling and so on [1], taken as “pleasant, permanent, self” feeling is dukkha, citta is impermanent and dhammas are non-self. And beings are perverted as to these by the perversions of the pleasant, the permanent and self. The remaining three (Applications of Mindfulness) are stated in order to abandon those perversions by seeing dukkha etc. [2]therein. Thus, they should alternatively be understood to be stated as four, no less, no more, in order to abandon the perversions of the beautiful, the pleasant, the permanent and self. The Buddha taught the “Application of Mindfulness of the Body” because we all cling to the body. We are so used to taking care of the body, to beautifing it or to adorning it, that we are ignorant of our clinging. When we read in the section on Mindfulness of the Body about the “Repulsiveness of the Body” we can be reminded that what we take for “our beautiful body” are only rúpa elements which are not beautiful, impermanent and do not belong to a self. We should not select one Application of Mindfulness in order to abandon a specific perversion. Any nåma or rúpa which appears can be object of understanding. If there is mindfulness only of rúpas of the body, but not of nåma, we shall not know rúpa as different from nåma and right understanding cannot develop. Citta is impermanent, it arises and falls away each moment. When seeing arises and then hearing, seeing has fallen away, because there cannot be seeing and hearing at the same time; each citta can experience only one object at a time. This can remind us of the impermanence of citta, but when it is said that the contemplation of citta can help one to abandon the perversion of permanence, it does not mean that mindfulness of rúpa, feeling or dhamma are excluded. Only through mindfulness of whatever reality appears, can the first stage of insight be reached, when nåma is realized as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. It is only at a higher stage of insight that the impermanence of realities can be penetrated. ---------- 1.Namely citta and dhamma. 2. dukkha, impermanence and non-self. ***** Nina. #75987 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Ken) - In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:22:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard and Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, James & Ken - > > In a message dated 9/3/2007 8:24:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > ""In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be > > found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > > (Yamaka Sutta)" > ============================= > Ken, do you have a link for that sutta? I'd like to read it. James, what > is inadequate in that sutta as an example? > > With metta, > Howard Oh bother, I didn't want to get into sutta analysis. It gets too complicated and distracts from the original point. But, since you have asked, Howard, I will oblige (yes, I play favorites ;-)). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You LOSE, Ken! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- The Buddha, the Tathagata, is too vast to be comprehended or defined. That sutta is entirely about enlightened beings that cannot be traced or comprehended here on Earth or after paranibbana. I was asking about ordinary people, who are quite often defined by the Buddha as the `five clinging aggregates'. I would like a quote from the Buddha stating that the ordinary person doesn't exist. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, yes. After I sent my post I thought that might be what you'd say. That's why I wanted to see the sutta. Do you have a reference for the sutta, James. I'd still like to look it over. As for persons existing, I of course, believe there are persons - I'm not a lunatic. I'm sure Ken believes people exist as well, in the same way as you and I do, else he wouldn't be writing us. It's not really a question, I think, of beings existing, but rather a question of what it precisely *means* for a being to exist, of *how* (i.e., in what way) a being exists. OTOH, from a *certain* perspective, I don't believe that even paramattha dhammas, i.e. khandhic elements, exist! ----------------------------------------------- Contrary to what Ken H. claims, I haven't moved the goal posts. Metta, James ============================= With metta, Howard P.S. Sending this message via my new HP 2.4 gigahertz computer with 24" flat-screen monitor, superb Bose speakers, and new Canon photoprinter, having finally gotten rid of my years-old, multiply-malfunctioning, infuriating dinosaur Gateway 500 that operated at 500 megahertz. Ahh! Now I know nibbana! ;-)) #75988 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Sarah, James, and Ken) - In a message dated 9/4/2007 3:02:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Sarah, - It has been a controversy like you said. That controversy is, however, not seen in the Sutta-pitaka. S: The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! T: You are right : I can see why further elaborations and comments on the original words of the Teachings can end up in that conclusion of "no Buddha!!". The controversy continues in the mind of a disbeliever. Tep ============================== I think it is hard to find Pali suttas that speak of "no person". As would James, I too would like to see some. It happens that there are loads of Mahayana sutras along these lines, especially among the perfection of wisdom suttas. (So, those core DSG-ers who think little of Mahayana might want to reconsider their evaluation a bit.) With metta Howard #75989 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nilovg Hi Howard, you formulated wisely. As to 'exist', I also like to be careful. It all depends what one means by it. It may smell of substantialism. I am afraid I am influenced by you. Nina. Op 4-sep-2007, om 15:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It's not really a question, I > think, of beings existing, but rather a question of what it > precisely *means* > for a being to exist, of *how* (i.e., in what way) a being exists. > OTOH, from > a *certain* perspective, I don't believe that even paramattha > dhammas, i.e. > khandhic elements, exist! #75990 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 8:30 am Subject: Re: Another Observation about Mindfulness nidive Hi Jon, > > If there is "insight with jhana as basis", there would also be > > "insight without jhana as basis". Am I right to say that? > > Certainly (and I have never suggested otherwise, have I?) > > > Consequently, one can claim that full awakening is attained by > > means of insight alone. Am I right to say that? > > Absolutely correct. Very glad to hear it said! Then prima facie, it proves that you have an aversed bias towards samatha since Kimsuka Sutta says both insight & samatha are needed to issue in the accurate report of nibbana. Do I have a case? > As far as I know there's no particular significance in the number > 7. On the other hand, the Buddha himself often explained something > in multiple ways, so I wouldn't see this as indicating lack of > understanding. It indicates speculation & uncertainty as to what the Buddha is saying. > But I think you make this judgement based mainly on the fact that > your own interpretation is different, and you disagree with > theirs! You've not been able to point to any objective shortcoming > in the commentary to this sutta. I have pointed it out. It says that the sutta can be interpreted in 7 *different* ways and (d) is one of them and I have said that (d) is insufficient for crossing over the floods. Also, (d) & (b) contradict each other. Annihilation is wrong view. (b) says annihilation causes one to sink, but (d) says annihilation causes one to be swept away. If you are not convinced of the inadequacy of the commentary, I can only say that you have not given much thought to it. You just accepted what the commentary says on blind faith, which is what I don't do. > While you arguments are always persuasive, I hope you won't mind if > I express a preference for studying the commentaries in more detail > before making a final judgement on the question of whose is the > more credible ;-)) Well, if you find any pleasure in doing so. Swee Boon #75991 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > Okay Sarah, > You win! ... S: But you've told me your secret before - when you agree, it doesn't necessarily mean you agree! It just means you wish to finish the discussion as quickly as possible:-))LOL! ... > I can never out-debate you. > One of the qualities that I admire in you is that you > have all the answers for anything all the time! :>)) ... S: Oh, sorry for being argumentative and trust me, I seldom have the answers any of the time! :>)) Metta, Sarah ======= #75992 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 5:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/4/2007 11:26:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, you formulated wisely. As to 'exist', I also like to be careful. It all depends what one means by it. It may smell of substantialism. I am afraid I am influenced by you. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! I apologize for that! ;-) I learn from you as well, of course, Nina - a lot! I think it is wonderful when people who value the Dhamma leave themselves open to examining various perspectives on it. I think that none of us here has the "inside track". :-) ---------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #75993 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Conditions Ch 13, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, As to life faculty, jívitindriya, there are two kinds: nåma- jívitindriya and rúpa-jívitindriya. Nåma-jívitindriya which is a cetasika, one of the seven “universals” [1] arising with every citta, controls and maintains the life of the associated dhammas. It conditions the associated dhammas and the rúpa produced by them by way of faculty-condition. As to rúpa- jívitindriya, this is classified separately in the “Patthåna” [2]. It maintains the life of the kamma-produced rúpas it has arisen together with in one group. It is related to them by way of faculty-condition. In the groups of rúpa produced by kamma there is always jívitindriya, whereas in the groups of rúpa produced by citta, temperature and nutrition there is no jívitindriya. So long as there is life faculty, there will be feelings. The five kinds of feelings which are pleasant bodily feeling, painful bodily feeling, pleasant (mental) feeling, unpleasant (mental) feeling and indifferent feeling are faculties. We can experience that bodily pain is a faculty, a “leader” or controlling principle in its own field. It controls the experiencing of the “flavour” of an unpleasant object and it can make us suffer intensely. Even though we are in pleasant surroundings we cannot rejoice when we suffer pain. At such a moment we cannot experience anything else but pain. The faculties of pleasant bodily feeling, pleasant mental feeling, unpleasant (mental) feeling or indifferent feeling condition the dhammas arising together with them by way of conascent faculty-condition. We read in the “Visuddhimagga” (XVI, 10) about the functions of the faculties which are the five feelings: ... That of the faculties of pleasure, pain, joy and grief, is to govern conascent states and impart their own particular mode of grossness to those states. That of the equanimity faculty is to impart to them the mode of quiet, superiority and neutrality. ---------- 1.The seven universals are the following cetasikas: contact (phassa), volition (cetanå), vitality (jívita or jívitindriya), concentration (ekaggatå cetasika) and attention (manasikåra). 2. This rúpa has not been classified among the prenascent faculties, the sense bases, neither has it been classified among the conascent faculties. It does not control the dhammas it arises together with at the moment of its arising, but after that moment, at the “static phase”. That is why it has been classified separately. When compared with nåma, rúpa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, or, when we take into consideration that there are three moments of citta: its arising moment, the moment of its presence and the moment of its falling away, rúpa lasts as long as three times seventeen moments, fiftyone moments of citta. At its aring moment rúpa is too weak to condition other realities. During the moments of its presence, before it falls away, rúpa-jívitindriya conditions the dhammas it has arisen together with by way of faculty-condition. ***** Nina. #75994 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 9:59 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" nidive Hi Sarah, > The following is a re-quote from an earlier message with further > elaboration from the commentary to this text to clearly show there > really is no person, no being, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha!! I think there is a difference between 'no self' and 'no person'. Take the Vajira Sutta which you quoted in another post (which I will reply on another day): What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara? Do you take a position? This is purely a pile of fabrications. Here no living being can be pinned down. Here "assume a 'living being'" means that one assumes a self view. This is evident when the question is posed: Do you take a position? This is further proven to be correct by Mara's questions: By whom was this living being created? Where is the living being's maker? Where has the living being originated? Where does the living being cease? So, Sister Vajira is telling Mara not to assume a self to be within the five aggregates. A self cannot be identified among the five aggregates. But is there 'a person'? Yes, conventionally speaking as Sister Vajira attests to. Just as when, with an assemblage of parts, there's the word, chariot, even so when aggregates are present, there's the convention of living being. Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: (1) there are the five individual aggregates, (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being, and (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' known conventionally as a person or living being. Swee Boon #75995 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner 9. nilovg Dear Han, I am sorry to have confused you. Op 4-sep-2007, om 11:50 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > If we cannot try to be aware of wrong view or try to > eradicate wrong view, then what can I do? > > Your last post was clear to me. It was very good. Now > it confuses me. ------- N: You first summarized: This wrong view will be lessened with the development of pa~n~naa. You felt at ease with this. And it is correct. But then I spoke about the eradication of wrong view by the sotapanna. He/she did not try to be aware of it or try to eradicate it. Because so long as we have an idea of 'I am trying', the wrong view of self slips in. When understanding of all kinds of realities grows, without selecting particular realities, there are conditions for the lessening of wrong view. As you said before: you are so used to the idea that you have to try and so when you hear the opposite it may be confusing to you. There is viriya, energy or effort, it is a perfection as you know, but this is a cetasika, non-self. In the practice we may forget that it is non-self. As you will agree, we cannot direct awareness to be aware of wrong view or of any reality. When wrong view arises and we understand more about it, it can be object of awareness. Understanding of whatever reality appears can be developed. It helps to let come what comes and not think too much about the future. I hope I have straightened out a few things? Nina. #75996 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 11:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge nilovg Hi Howard, what is the inside track? Nina. Op 4-sep-2007, om 18:11 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I think that none of us here > has the "inside track". :-) #75997 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 11:45 am Subject: two kinds of truths. Meaning and letter. nilovg Dear friends, I quote from Robert K's study forum a few posts on paramattha sacca and conventional truth, from a psot by Ven. Dhammanando and from what I wrote: N: I would like to use a quote from Rob Edison, now Ven. Dhammanando: Rob Ed: “Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. QUOTE "What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamaٌٌa), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaٌٌatti). QUOTE "What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) Is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). QUOTE E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what Belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) QUOTE "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta) ------- N: I would like to quote from Kindred Sayings I, Sagaathaavagga, 3, Sword suttas, 25, the Arahat (B.B. Connected Discourses): QUOTE ..."If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, 'I speak', And he might say,'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expresions." ---- Note: QUOTE Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: "Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self, they do not violate conventional discourse by saying,'The aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them."... --------- Hi Piotr, QUOTE(Piotr @ Aug 18 2006, 04:16 AM) * thank you for creating new topic on this issue. I'm trying to investigate it a bit and understand. In one post there is a quote from the commentary: "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be." But, in fact, in SuttanipÄ?ta (888), Buddha declared: "There is only one truth and no second. Ekaṃ hi saccaṃ na dutiyamatthi" The word truth (sacca) can denote five different things (you will find these listed somewhere in the Vibhanga Commentary, = Dispeller of Delusion). When we speak of truth in the context of the two truths it is just being used in its common sense of a truthful utterance. But in the Kalahavivaadasutta the word is being used in a special sense according to the Mahaaniddesa and the Commentaries. The so- called "truths" that the various outsider teachers are quarrelling about are in fact views (di.t.thi), but the "one truth" proclaimed by the Buddha refers to either the path or nibbaana. Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu -------- N: In another post Ven. Dhammanando gave about seven translations of the Yamaka sutta: In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." He analysed the differences. Ven. Thanissaro is more mystical and translated according to his nature. Each of them translated according to his character. ------ It is so important in which way the two truths are explained and one cannot be careful enough. We have to understand the meaning and the letter of the texts and have to know how to express this in language. This brings me to Andrew's second sutta about the four patisambhidas:10. Và disutta, Arguments 014.10. Bhikkhus, these four are arguments. What four? Bhikkhus, there is an argument which concludes according to the meaning not the letters. There is an argument which concludes according to the letters not the meaning. There is an argument which concludes according to the meaning and the letters. There is an argument which concludes neither according to the meaning nor the letters. Bhikkhus, these four are arguments. Bhikkhus, it is not possible that an argument could not be concluded according to meanings and letters endowed with reasons, conditions, causal relations and intended meaning.< PTS has: It is impossible that one possessed of the four analytical powers should be at a loss both in the meaning and in the letter. **** N: This last (reasons, conditions, causal relations and intended meaning.) refers to the four patisambhidas: knowing attha (meaning), cause (dhamma), language or definition (nirutti) and wisdom that knows both, pa.tibhaana. I looked at the Co. When asked for an exegesis he comes to a halt. He does not know the vyanjana, the letter. That is, the right way of expressing the meaning in language. Those who have the distinction of the four patisambhidas know both: the meaning and the letter and can express it in language. The Buddha and his great disciples were endowed with four patisambhidas. According to the Co this is not possible anymore today. ***** Nina. #75998 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 8:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/4/2007 2:45:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, what is the inside track? Nina. ============================ In this context: Indisputable knowledge/perfect understanding. More generally, it refers to an advantageous position. I believe it is a sports metaphor, perhaps from racing. With metta, Howard #75999 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 4, 2007 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge hantun1 Dear Sarah, > > H: Okay Sarah, you win! > S: But you've told me your secret before - when you agree, it doesn't necessarily mean you agree! It just means you wish to finish the discussion as quickly as possible:-)) LOL! Han: It is my fault that I told my secret to you:>) -------------------- > > H: One of the qualities that I admire in you is that you have all the answers for anything all the time! :>)) > S: Oh, sorry for being argumentative and trust me, I seldom have the answers any of the time! :>)) Han: See! I told you I can never win:>) -------------------- It is really very good to talk with you, Sarah. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han