#78000 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 2:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') buddhistmedi... Hi DC, - I appreciate the reply and the patience. Because I understand your thinking better. But there are more work to do, I guess. :-) Tep === #78001 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 3. ... Some Comments ... shennieca Hello Scott, all, Scott: Manasikaara or attention arises with each and every citta. Elaine: Why does manasikaraa arises with each and every citta? Citta is translated as mind/consciousness and manasikara is wise-attention. A person who is consciousness does not necessary have wise-attention. What is this citta that you talk about? Is your interpretation of citta different from ‘consciousness’? Would anyone get wiser if they know the sentence, ‘manasikaara arises with every citta’? I think a person only becomes wise when he actually ‘knows’ with direct knowledge what manasikara really is. ----------------------------- Scott: Sati is only with kusala citta, and pa~n~naa more rarely still, and then again, only with kusala citta. You are calling sati 'awareness' then? Elaine: Yes, sati is awareness (mindfulness). Everyone of us has awareness (sati), if you don’t have awareness you will always be clumsy, for e.g. stepping into manholes while walking on the street, not aware you are touching a hot stove etc. that is the meaning of not having sati (aware/mindful). When you have sati (awareness/mindfulness) you are aware of your surroundings. You are aware of your speech, actions and thoughts. But there are gross level sati and very sharp sati. When sati becomes very sharp, insight knowledge will arise. Why and How? With sharp mindfulness/awareness you will be able understand dukkha, anicca and anatta. The Mahaviharikas give the reasons why a puthujjana cannot see dukkha, anicca and anatta (taken from a post by Bkk. Dhammanando in another forum). The characteristic of Anicca does not become apparent because, when *rise and fall* are not given attention, it is concealed by continuity. The characteristic of Dukkha does not become apparent because, when *continuous oppression* is not given attention, it is concealed by the postures. The characteristic of Anattâ does not become apparent because, when *resolution into the various elements* is not given attention, it is concealed by compactness. When sati (mindfulness) is very sharp, it will be able to observe the ‘rise and fall’, ‘continuous oppression’ and ‘dissolution into the various elements’, and when this is observed with direct knowledge, a person realizes anicca, dukkha and anatta. But sad to say, sati can only becomes sharp during meditation. When the mind is calm and full awareness is given to the breath, the meditator is able to see the nature of the breath. The true nature of the ultimate realities - dukkha, anicca and anatta can be observed within our own body, we don’t need to seek it outside or read from a book. We need to meditate but not everyone who meditates will get enlightened, but we still have to meditate, because if we don’t give it a try, we won’t know. [I sound like I meditate a lot, right? I am the laziest meditator ever.] Scott, I would like to know something, when you say ‘Sati is only with kusala citta’. What exactly do you mean or understand from this sentence? Imo, sati (mindfulness) is aware of both kusala and akusala citta, please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------ Scott: How would 'one' know the difference? Elaine: I don’t understand your question. Do you know when you are hungry, do you know when you are happy and when you are sad? Do you ask yourself, how would I know the difference? What makes you ask this question? Is it because you have convinced yourself that there is no “you”? This is a long post. Please forgive me if the wordings in this mail are harsh. Please help to correct my mistakes. Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine ----------------------- #78002 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 5:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') shennieca Hi Tep, all, Thanks for the weblink to AN 4.49. E: Why do puthujjanas fail to see dukkha, anicca and anatta in their ordinary everyday experience? T: T: My quick answer to that question is : because they have 'perversions of perception'( sa~n~naa vipallasa). E: Yes, you are right. Another answer that I got from Bkk Dhammanando from another forum (I hope he won’t mind me quoting him here), the reasons given by the Mahaviharikas are as follows: They attribute it to concealment by the seeming compactness of mass (samūha-ghanatā), compactness of function (kicca-ghanatā) and compactness of object (ārammaṇa-ghanatā), the perception of this compactness (ghana-saññā), and various other deluded perceptions (nicca-saññā, atta-saññā, subha-saññā etc.). The characteristic of anicca does not become apparent because, when *rise and fall* are not given attention, it is *concealed by continuity*. The characteristic of dukkha does not become apparent because, when *continuous oppression* is not given attention, it is *concealed by the postures*. The characteristic of anattā does not become apparent because, when *resolution into the various elements* is not given attention, it is *concealed by compactness*. "When the resolution of the compact is effected by resolution into elements, the characteristic of anattā becomes apparent in its true nature." (Path of Purification XXI 3-4) Dhammapāla's commentary: "Resolution of the compact" is effected by resolving [what appears compact] in this way: "The earth element is one, the water element is another," etc., distinguishing each one; and in this way: "Contact is one, feeling is another," etc. distinguishing each one. "When the resolution of the compact is effected" means that, what is compact as a mass, and what is compact as a function or as an object, has been analysed. For when material and immaterial dhammas have arisen mutually steadying each other, then, owing to misinterpreting that as a unity, compactness of mass is assumed through failure to subject formations to pressure. And likewise *compactness of function* is assumed when, although definite differences exist in such and such dhammas' functions, they are nevertheless taken as one. And likewise *compactness of object* is assumed when, although differences exist in the ways in which dhammas that take objects make them their objects, those objects are nevertheless taken as one. But when [these compactnesses] are seen after resolving them by *means of insight* into these elements, *they disintegrate like froth* subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere dhammas occurring due to conditions, and are empty. (Paramatthamañjūsā 825) <(end)> Bhante gave a very detailed response. :-)) I hope it is useful. I hope we can see the elements disintegrate like froth, one day. :-)) Sincerely, Elaine --------------------------- #78003 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 5:10 pm Subject: Abhidhamma, Suttas & Meditation truth_aerator Hello all. I really love the suttas and have read most of the Nikayas (DN,MN,SN, parts of AN and KN). I found suttas to be VERY deep, even in such non- technical works such as sutta-nipata or even Udana. Those who think that suttas are shallow, are either shallow themselves or are already fully awakened. Suttas have a very certain and pragmatic flavour to them and you can see that they were said by the same person. However when it comes to AP it totally changes. To me, personally, Suttas seem to be MORE deep than AP. Furthermore while there isn't controversy about Suttas, AP is different (and its origins are too similiar to mahayana sutras). Many of the deepest Suttas, I personally interpret as all out attack on what developed later on in AP or especially in its commentaries. But then re-reading the suttas, they make even stronger emphasis on practical aspect rather than theoretic. For example the most frequent path to Arahatship especially in DN runs as follows: 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 (and possibly more suttas.) Kayagatasati sutta also finishes with 4 Jhanas & many abhinnas Also Upanisa Sutta: Suffering (dukkha), Faith (saddha), Joy (pamojja), Rapture (piti), Tranquility (passaddhi), Happiness (sukha), Concentration (samadhi), Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassana), Disenchantment (nibbida), Dispassion (viraga), Emancipation (vimutti), Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana) (notice that knowledge and vision comes after samadhi) No mention of mastery of higher teachings. In fact even when it comes to the Suttas themselves, only Ananda knew all of them (and he remained as sotapanna until he started to seriously meditate). It doesn't seem likely (or possible) that other Arahants knew more than maybe few dozen (at best) suttas. After all, Buddhist books didn't exist at that time. And their heavy meditating schedule certainly didn't allow for much study anyways. Also examining the 37 factors of awakening it would be very tough to see where heavy book study fits in. The closest thing is Pan~n~na, but a) if one looks through the suttas than it doesn't suggest AP - it deals more with 4 NT and DO. b) As I understand, full and perfect pa~n~na develops at Arahatship stage anyways. So one would definately know quite a bit of "Higher Dhamma" through reaching Arahatship. c) If Abhidhamma was required for the path, then it would be OFTEN mentioned in the suttas. But as I've said, higher/further wisdom appears to be a result not a cause for Arahatship. In many suttas Buddha states that Anapanasati when properly developed fullfills 4 satipathanas and these develop 7 factors of awakening and results either in Arahatship or stream at the time of death. After all, if this one thing perfected leads to Arahatship... I keep asking myself, are defilements (craving for existence, lack of sense restrain for the mental consiousness) keeping me off the cushion and at the table? It is hard for me to stop intellectualizing and reading Dhamma and about Dhamma... I am really having a tough time with this (meditation & study fighting for time)... After all, how many people in Buddha's time mastered Abhidhamma first and then Meditation from which they've gained Arahatship? The Suttas are of course a must, since they contain deep meditation instructions (I like girimananda sutta a lot). But hundreds if not thousands of pages of AP??? Any comments, suggestions, opinions on this matter? (I am in the process of reading some old threads regarding this matter). Lots of Metta, Alex #78004 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World reverendagga... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" > wrote: > > How interesting! The BOTH of you are so correct! bhikkhu aggacitto #78005 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World truth_aerator > How interesting! > The BOTH of you are so correct! > > bhikkhu aggacitto > Thank you very much, Bhante. Best wishes, Alex :) #78006 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 7:20 pm Subject: Re: S's e-card from Bkk (3) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Although he's not young and has had some health problems > recently, in the discussion he's very lively, articulate, with a strong > voice and fires back as well as he's fired at!! A very lively and > enjoyable session with great questions and discussion. Thanks, Han! (Yes, > believe it or not, but face-to-face, Han and James swap roles somewhat - > Han, the lively rebel and James, the listening diplomat;-)) Thanks for thinking of me in your reflections. I am surprised to hear that Han is more agressive face-to-face. I just wouldn't have guessed it. But I guess people who read my posts would also be surprised to learn that I am soft-spoken and non-combative face-to- face :-). Funny how conditions work in ways that we can't see or understand. Metta, James #78007 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi DC, all, DC: I have seen quite few people mentioning about: citta that knows vedana that feels etc. For you to ponder about. Elaine: I have pondered about it, and I don’t understand what is this "Citta that knows vedana’. This sentence translates into English is: "Consciousness that knows Feelings". It is common knowledge that only things that have Consciousness knows Feelings. A plant and a rock that does not have Consciousness will not know Feelings. This "citta that knows vedana" sounds like as if we can pluck this particular citta out from our stream-of-consciousness and say, "there, there, I see it, this is the citta that knows vedana". Before we can even bat an eyelid, that citta has already fallen away. So, this "citta that knows vedana", I don’t understand at all. How could anyone understand it is beyond me. Insight comes from knowing the rise and fall of the dhamma (regurgitated from book knowledge). I personally have not experienced the rise and fall of dhamma. But I have heard that during meditation, when sati is very sharp, the moment the meditator notes rising of the abdomen, rising disappears, when the meditator notes the falling of the abdomen, falling disappears. At this stage, some insight knowledge will arise and s/he will know what anicca is. Usually, meditation teachers don’t tell the students these experiences because the students will "unintentionally" imitate what they heard and report their imaginary experiences to the teacher. But the teacher will asks more detailed questions and cross-examine them to check if the meditators are telling the truth. If someone goes and says "I understand the rise and fall of dhamma", I cannot begin to fathom the questions that the meditation teacher will ask that person. Only experienced teachers will know what questions to ask and check if the meditator is telling the truth. I have not seen the true nature of dhamma so I don’t know where and how to start asking these questions. I don't understand the "rising and falling of dhamma" that is always repeated here but I accept it by faith (saddha) that it is true. May we be well and happy. :-)) Sincerely, Elaine ------------------------------------ #78008 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han, To Nina, Sarah and James hantun1 Dear Nina, Sarah and James, My computer was out of order for a few days. It is alright now, but is still very fragile like the owner, and I have to handle it with care! Nina and Sarah, I will write on the discussion points at the Foundation on 10 October 2007. But I will have to go slow. The will is there but not the flesh is! Anyway, I doubt others will be interested, because the discussion points are old topics which were discussed many times before. James and Sarah, I was also surprised that I appeared to be more aggressive face-to-face. I still consider myself as a humble person willing to be corrected and admonished. I can only echo James’ words, “Funny how conditions work in ways that we can't see or understand.” Respectfully, Han #78009 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 6:48 pm Subject: Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba reverendagga... Hellow Everybody! I thought that i was going to Burma,but after spending 3 month's observing vassa in the forest monestery of Suan Mokhh, i found out that i needed to go to Malaysia to get my 60 day visa.The Thai authorites say the border run is only good for 90 day's within a 6 month period. i would like to discuss the topic of GANDHABBA. The discription of this dhamma study group (officialy)is to better learn and discuss Theravada Buddhism, that in mind i would say that the GANDHABBA is something of not little import to look at. The tathagatagarbha(GANDHABBA)is an UNCONDITIONED self which is within ALL beings and which is fundamentally eternal. The denial of which is taught to have negitive kammic consequences. Ven.Gotama when teaching "anatta" was teaching NOT a conventially understood metaphysical assertion but a practical strategy to help one overcome the typical conventional constructs that would inhibit their liberation.Other wise,just What is it then that is being reincarnated?Is it not SOMETHING? While nibbana is to be experienced,more so than conceptionalised, NEVER THE LESS what is it otherwise that strives to end dukkha and experience nibbana? M.N.sutta#36 is to be referenced on this. In M.N. sutta#77(amongst other places in the Pali Canon) Ven.Gotama makes mention of the("mind made body"),in term's that make it abundantly clear that he was discussing what we today call "astral projection" or o.o.b.e.(the brain is not the same as the mind).Ven Gotama tward the end of M.N.sutta#36 does not say that it is irrelavent as to weather or not the soul exists or not but weather or not it exists AFTER death to be irrelavent concerning the topic of enlightenment. For most today,this misundersranding finds it's origin in the work of Dr.Rhys Davids and the Pali Text Society. MAY THE BUDDHA'S, DEVA AND ANGEL'S BLESS ALL OF YOU! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78010 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han, To Nina, Sarah and James sarahprocter... Dear Han (& James), --- han tun wrote: > Dear Nina, Sarah and James, > > My computer was out of order for a few days. It is > alright now, but is still very fragile like the owner, > and I have to handle it with care! .... :-) ... > > Nina and Sarah, I will write on the discussion points > at the Foundation on 10 October 2007. But I will have > to go slow. The will is there but not the flesh is! > Anyway, I doubt others will be interested, because the > discussion points are old topics which were discussed > many times before. .... S: I'm sure others will appreciate your presentation as usual, Han. I'm sure you will have already prepared it beautifully, but take your time whilst your computer or its owner are fragile:-) .... > > James and Sarah, I was also surprised that I appeared > to be more aggressive face-to-face. ... S: I didn't say aggressive and didn't intend anything with negative connotations at all. A 'lively rebel' was what I said, picking up on your own description of yourself as a rebel. In other words, instead of just politely agreeing (when you didn't in fact agree) this time, you challenged the comments, made it clear when your questions hadn't been properly answered and so on. Lively, enjoyable and useful for everyone. I always like to encourage everyone (whether at the Foundation or here) to pursue points rather than just agreeing or keeping quiet. I think we learn and consider more in this way. .... >I still consider > myself as a humble person willing to be corrected and > admonished. I can only echo James’ words, “Funny how > conditions work in ways that we can't see or > understand.” ... S: Always true! Expect the unexpected! Metta, Sarah ====== #78011 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Nov 3, 2007 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. dcwijeratna Dear Elaine, Thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply, re. Citta that knows or vedana that knows or whatever, Just like you, I cannot understand it either. That is why I said "please ponder about''. Here is a just one thought about the matter, really one aspect. This is contrary to my experiece. I communicate with other fellow beings through 'language'. Now the verb "know" is used in English like: I know, he knows. There is a world of differnce between these two expression. When I say, I know, it is based on my experience. On the other hand, if I say 'he knows', that is not based on my direct experience. My statement has no validity. It could turn out to be true or false. Thiw happens to a few times daily. I don't think I need to give you examples. The reason is, I have know way of knowing other peoples mind. Before this discussing this matter further we have to see whether we can agree on the above. There is no point going beyond that, if you are not convinced of that fact based on your own direct experience. So, please respond, at least as a personl favour to me. I am also keen to solve this riddle. Please think very very hard on this matter. Because what I stated above is simple and obvious to me. There seem to such a lot of people who seem to be able to know other poeples mind. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78012 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 12:02 am Subject: Re: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') .. Anattaa once more ... buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine, - It clear from your nice presentation that the 'anattaa characteristic' is not apparent to the worldlings, because it is concealed by continuity. "When the resolution of the compact is effected by resolution into elements, the characteristic of anattaa; becomes apparent in its true nature." Vism XXI 3-4 The wrong view, miccha-ditthi, of seeing 'compact' in formations is described by words like the followings. Taken as assumed misinterpreting "But when [these compactnesses] are seen after resolving them by *means of insight* into these elements, *they disintegrate like froth* subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere dhammas occurring due to conditions, and are empty." With that kind of insight the observer is no longer one with the wrong view on compactness : s/he sees the dhammas the way they really are. The nice thing is : we can see anattaa too, without convincing ourselves of 'no self'. Thanks. Tep === #78013 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 12:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Howard (and Jon), - I like your answer because it makes sense! > > (question) > T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental > construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana) ? For example, let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be useful as an object of satipatthana now? > > Howard: >For strictly samatha meditation, one may, and typically does, meditate on nothing but a mental construct. For vipassana meditation and in-tandem meditation, one begins with mind-constructed percepts and constructs as object, but, if the meditating goes very well, proceeds to finer levels of awareness, eventually to the paramatthic level. >As for awareness of a citta, it is at best a fresh memory that one is aware of. I'll leave the usefulness of that to others to decide for themselves. T: Thank you for the perfect answer to my question (above). The key idea is to proceed from concepts(mental constructs) towards the ultimate realities eventually. One may begin his/her intellectual study at the abhidhamma level, but without the power of samatha & vipassana it is hard for me to understand how & why "awareness" of the paramattha dhamma can be experienced by anyone who does not meditate. Tep === #78014 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 12:26 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 1. philofillet Hi Nina > Thus, nutrition, heat (the climate) and the kusala citta that is > engaged with Dhamma have influence on the body, they cause lightness, > plasticity, wieldiness. OK,I can see this. I guess it was lightness, plasticity, wieldiness used to apply to mentality I was thinking of. That is used, isn't it? But that wouldn't be derived rupa. I'm confused now. Are there cetasikas "lightness, plasticity, wieldiness?" I've been neglecting my Abhidhdamma studies. I think I remember someone saying that a certain attitude in a discussion was due to unwieldiness of citta, and I thought that was contrived sounding. How could a citta that falls away in a moment have the characteristic of "unwieldiness" etc? Maybe I'm remembering this completely wrong. Metta, Phil #78015 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han, To Nina, Sarah and James nilovg Dear Han, happy to hear from you. Old topics still interest others, always, I would think. Connie now kindly leads Perrfections, Truthfulness. But I still would like your comments, although you have handed over the leadership. You always have good comments. Nina. Op 4-nov-2007, om 4:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Nina and Sarah, I will write on the discussion points > at the Foundation on 10 October 2007. But I will have > to go slow. The will is there but not the flesh is! > Anyway, I doubt others will be interested, because the > discussion points are old topics which were discussed > many times before. #78016 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 12:31 am Subject: Worthy is the Arahat! bhikkhu0 Friends: Mission Completed! Laid down is all burden! Finally Free! The Buddha once said about The Arahat: The Perfected Worthy One: For a Disciple thus released, whose mind dwells in pure peace, there is nothing to be added to what has been done, and nothing more remains for him to do. Just as a rock of one solid mass of granite stone stands unshaken by any wind, even so do neither forms, nor sounds, nor smells, nor tastes, nor contacts of any kind, whether attractive or repulsive, disturb an Arahat. Imperturbable is his mind, gained is release! AN 6:55 He who has considered all dualities, all differences, all contrasts here, who is never more stirred or perturbed by anything in the entire world! Such Peaceful One, freed from rage, elevated above sorrow, & without fumes of longing, he has passed beyond birth, decay & death... Sn 1048 .... Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * .... #78017 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han, To Nina, Sarah and James hantun1 Dear Sarah, S: I didn't say aggressive and didn't intend anything with negative connotations at all. A 'lively rebel' was what I said, picking up on your own description of yourself as a rebel. In other words, instead of just politely agreeing (when you didn't in fact agree) this time, you challenged the comments, made it clear when your questions hadn't been properly answered and so on. Lively, enjoyable and useful for everyone. I always like to encourage everyone (whether at the Foundation or here) to pursue points rather than just agreeing or keeping quiet. I think we learn and consider more in this way. Han: I know you have no intention of negative connotations about me. Even if you had, I would not mind! I might even take pride in being called a rebel, or something worse :>) When you call me a ‘lively rebel’ it is even better! I always want to be a ‘good rogue’ :>) Now, seriously, I began to understand Khun Sujin more with each meeting. That’s why I could make myself clearer, and I politely insist if my questions hadn’t been properly answered. The credit also goes to you, since you whispered to me what Khun Sujin meant on many occasions. I will be writing the ‘Report’ on the meeting very soon, and I will depend heavily on you and Jon to correct me if my reporting is inaccurate. Respectfully, Han #78018 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:25 am Subject: Re: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') .. Anattaa once more ... reverendagga... Hi Tep! In other word's...Do not let the package fool you does not mean that something has not been cognitively "wraped". VERY GOOD! bhikkhu aggacitto #78019 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. nilovg Hi Tep, ------N: When satipatthåna is developed only a paramattha dhamma is the object of awareness, not a concept. T: But when satipatthåna is not yet developed, what can be the object of awareness, if not a concept? .......... N: I use awareness in the sense of sati. Awareness or mindfulness. When there is forgetfulness, objects such as visible object or sound are experienced very often. These are ruupa-dhammas, they are paramattha dhammas, but they are not known as such. When sati and pa~n~naa are being developed, there is a beginning of understanding them as not a person, not a thing, but only a dhamma. A dhamma or reality, or paramattha dhamma, that is anattaa. ---------- N: Only paramattha dhammas have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå, non-self, which should be realized as they are, so that defilements can be eradicated. T: Past and future khandhas are concepts, and yet they have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå, non-self, which should be realized as they are, so that defilements can be eradicated. .......... N: I have it heard more often that khandhas are taken to be concepts. In that case the object of satipatthana or of the eightfold Path would be concepts. Understanding would have to be developed of concepts and this seems very strange to me. The three conditioned paramattha dhammas can be classified as five khandhas. Thus the khandhas are conditioned naama and ruupa. Let me first quote from a Survey of Paramattha Dhammas re khandhas: The term khandha refers to the dhamma which can be described as past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near. Hence khandha is sankhata dhamma, the dhamma which is conditioned, which arises and falls away, and thus, it can be described as past, present, future, etc. Whereas asankhata dhamma, nibbåna, is the dhamma which does not arise, which is unconditioned . ... We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (III, Khandhå-vagga, First Fifty, Ch 5, § 48, The Factors) that the Buddha, while he was at Såvatthí, explained to the monks about the five khandhas : I will teach you, monks, the five khandhas and the five khandhas that have to do with grasping. Do you listen to it. Khandhas are naama and ruupa that arise and fall away. They are not concepts. Take feeling now, it falls away after it has arisen. It is khandha, how could it be a concept? A concept could not have the three lakkhanas. See S III, § 9: < Body, monks, is impermanent, both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, monks, the well-taught ariyan disciple cares not for a body that is past, is not in love with a body to be, and for the present bosy seeks to be repelled by it, seeks dispassion for it, seeks the ceasing for it.> The same about the other khandhas. Ruupakhandha includes all ruupas, but it is here translated as body. ---------- N: It is beneficial to remember that seeing, hearing and the other sense-cognitions are vipåkacittas, cittas which are results of kamma. T: Isn't such "remembering" a concept? If it is, then how can it be useful as an object of sati? -------- N: Here I mean by remembering; do not forget that... Pay attention to the fact that... #78020 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 1. nilovg Hi Phil, Op 4-nov-2007, om 8:26 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > I guess it was lightness, plasticity, wieldiness > used to apply to mentality I was thinking of. That is used, isn't it? > But that wouldn't be derived rupa. I'm confused now. Are there > cetasikas "lightness, plasticity, wieldiness?" I've been neglecting my > Abhidhdamma studies. I think I remember someone saying that a certain > attitude in a discussion was due to unwieldiness of citta, and I > thought that was contrived sounding. How could a citta that falls away > in a moment have the characteristic of "unwieldiness" etc? ----------- N: There are three ruupas that are lightness, plasticity, wieldiness and we have been talking about these ruupas. There are also cetasikas, naamas, that are lightness of citta and lightness of the (mental) body, namely cetasikas. Thus these pertain to naama. I quote: Visuddhimagga, Ch. XIV, 144. Intro: In the following paragraphs, the Visuddhimagga deals with six pairs of sobhana cetasikas that arise with each sobhana citta. Of each pair one cetasika is a quality pertaining to the accompanying cetasikas (kaaya or the mental body), and one a quality pertaining to citta. They perform their functions so that kusala citta and cetasikas can apply themselves to daana, siila or bhaavana. They are indispensable for the performing of kusala, they support the kusala citta, each in their own way. The first pair is tranquillity of body, kaaya-passaddhi, and tranquillity of citta, citta-passaddhi. Tranquillity or calm is not only necessary for samatha, but it has to accompany each kusala citta. Calm is opposed to restlessness, uddhacca, which prevents the arising of kusala citta. When there are conditions for kusala citta, calm performs its function while it accompanies kusala citta. There is no need to aim for calm first as a condition for kusala citta. It arises already when kusala citta arises. Text Vis.:145. (xviii)-(xix) The light (quick) state of the [mental] body is 'lightness of the body'. The light (quick) state of consciousness is 'lightness of consciousness'. They have the characteristic of quieting heaviness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. Their function is to crush heaviness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. ------ Vis. 146: 146. Text Vis.: (xx)-(xxi) The malleable state of the [mental] body is 'malleability of the body'. The malleable state of consciousness is 'malleability of consciousness'. They have the characteristic of quieting rigidity in the [mental] body and in consciousness. -------- Pliancy (muduta) of citta and cetasikas perform their function in assisting kusala citta. They suppress mental rigidity. When someone is stubborn in clinging to wrong view there is mental rigidity, one is not openminded to the Dhamma. Because of conceit he may not want to listen to true Dhamma and thinks that his opinion is the best. Malleability or pliancy suppresses such mental rigidity and causes the citta to be non-resistant, openminded to the Truth of Dhamma. --------- Text Vis.: (xxii)-(xxiii) The wieldy state of the [mental] body is 'wieldiness of body'. The wieldy state of consciousness is 'wieldiness of consciousness'. N: Wieldiness, kammaññataa, is workableness, readiness for wholesome action. Text Vis: They have the characteristic of quieting unwieldiness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. Their function is to crush unwieldiness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. N: The Tiika explains unwieldiness as non-application to daana, siila and other meritorious deeds. It refers to the defilements, beginning with sense desire (kaamacchandaa). Or unwieldiness pertains to the four akusala naamakkhandhas that are striving in that way. When one is overcome by sense desire or aversion, there is mental unwieldiness. Wieldiness is indispensable for any kind of kusala. ------------ The Tiika summarizes the six pairs of tranquillity, lightness, mallleability, wieldiness, proficiency and rectitude. They all assist sobhana citta and its accompanying cetasikas so that citta and cetasikas are alert, healthy and efficient in performing kusala. They are classified as six pairs, one pertaining to citta and one pertaining to the mental body, cetasikas. The Tiika gives another reason why they are classified as twofold. ----------------------- Note 65, taken from the Tiika: 'And here by tranquilization, etc., of consciousness only consciousness is tranquilized and becomes light, malleable, wieldy, proficient and upright. But with tranquilization, etc., of the [mental]body also the material body is tranquilized, and so on. This is why the twofoldness of states is given by the Blessed One here, but not in all places' (Pm.489). N: Thus we see that the good qualities of tranquillity, lightness etc. also condition bodily phenomena. ---------- N: As to your Q. < How could a citta that falls away in a moment have the characteristic of "unwieldiness" etc?>, it has that charactreitsic only for that extremely short moment of its presence. But the kusala citta arises in a series of seven javanacittas and the sobhana qualities are accumulated, so that they can arise again and again. Nina. #78021 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) hantun1 Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) Dear All, Topic: Too much emphasis on anatta and no-person. Before the meeting at the Foundation on 10 October 2007, Sarah and Jon offered me breakfast at the Hotel. There, I told them that there has been too much emphasis on anatta and no-person. I appreciate that certain things need to be reminded all the time, but I sometimes feel that anything that is too much is not productive. I have given an example of a new Army cadet in Bangkok. He was forced by the senior cadets for his minor negligence to drink pints and pints of water. He died soon afterwards with water congestion of lungs and other vital organs. Now, water is essential for life, but given too much and too soon it can cause the termination of the life that it supports. Even so, if someone is harping all the time on anatta or no-person, I would just like to speak the opposite of it, although I do not reject the teaching of no-person. In fact, I use ‘no-Han’ approach and ‘yes-Han’ approach depending on the situation. If someone abuses me I consider that he is not abusing Han Tun, because there is no Han, and the anger within me dies down very quickly. On the other hand, when I am meditating or counting prayer beads in front of our home altar, I consider that it is Han who is meditating or counting the beads. At that time, I cannot abandon the wrong view of ‘I’. If I were to ‘pay’ for that wrong view, I am prepared to pay. I don’t say that what I am doing is correct, but it is my nature and I cannot help it! Another point of my argument was in relation to my post # 76362 addressed to Tep. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76362 In that message I wrote that proponents of no-person refer to Vism XVIII, 24, 25, 28 under the chapter on Purification of View. I said that in the same chapter, in paragraphs 1 and 2, it is mentioned that purification of virtue and purification of consciousness are like the ‘roots’ and the rest of the purifications are like the ‘trunk.’ Therefore, my contention was if a person has not attained the first two steps of the ‘roots’ how can one expect him to master the third step of purification of views, where teaching on no-person is advocated. All these facts were put before Khun Sujin for her comments. When I said I cannot help considering that it is ‘I’ who is meditating in front of the home altar, she agreed that no one can help it. [It is a bit of a consolation!] However, as regards, the seven steps of Visuddhimagga, she said that pa~n~naa is necessary for each of the steps, and that it is not strictly sequential. There is a back-looping [the word coined by me], and the higher visuddhimagga steps can also support the lower steps. And even for the very first step of purification of virtue, the right view and the right understanding or pa~n~naa is needed. In this way, she refuted my reasoning given in my message # 76362. Agreeing with her that right view and right understanding or pa~n~naa is needed in every step of visuddhimagga, I asked her how can I develop pa~n~naa? She said that pa~n~naa is the understanding of the realities with right awareness (samma sati). She asked me what is sati? Is it real or concept? I could not answer. She said that sati without understanding is just a concept, and there must be ‘conditions’ for sati to arise. I cannot draw any conclusion out of this discussion. Perhaps Sarah and Jon might be able to do it. For me it does not really matter. As I said earlier, I use both ‘no-Han’ approach and ‘yes-Han’ approach, depending on the situation. Respectfully, Han #78022 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A few thoughts jonoabb Hi Evelyn Nice to see you here again. Let me have a go at answering some of your questions. Evelyn wrote: > Question number 1: > Do you believe that Buddhist people worship the Buddha, that Buddhist > people worship the statue of Buddha??? Therefore the worship of Buddha > is similar to worship of a God-like being, or that of a God. > OR > Is there no worship of Buddha and rather it is the concept of the > teachings of the Buddha??? > In the suttas we see reference to recollection of the Buddha (Pali: buddhaanussati), Dhamma (dhammaanussati) and Sangha (sanghaanussati). These recollections are forms of kusala involving the recollection of the virtues and attainments of the Buddha, the importance of the teachings and the merit of the attainment of enlightenment. As far as I know there is no mention in the teachings about ''worship" of the Buddha (let alone of a statue of the Buddha). > Question number 2: > In life we can either achieve enlightenment and therefore attain > nirvana; or we can be reborn to another life or go back many lives and > work our way back up the chain again. > Here is the question. > Do you believe that we, as humans, make the decision that if we are > not ready for enlightenment and nirvana, that we decide to be reborn > as human or as a lesser form like a fish??? > Do we as humans decide to be reborn due to our karma or do we just > repeat our human lives until we achieve enlightenment and nirvana??? > One of the kinds of kilesa that we all have, although not necessarily as apparent as some other kinds of kilesa, is the desire for further becoming (bhava-tanha). Unless and until this defilement is finally eradicated, it is unavoidable that we will continue to be reborn in different existences. The development of insight to the level of enlightenment is something that takes aeons and aeons to complete. For those of us born in this day and age, it is a safe bet that there are several lifetimes yet to go! > Question number 3: > Who else has achieved enlightenment and nirvana other than the Buddha? > Other arahants (including previous Buddhas and paccekha-buddhas). No-one else. > Question number 4: > As it is written, Buddha before his death said that he had attained > enlightenment. But who made the decision that he actually attained > nirvana??? > If you are asking about how this accomplishment can be verified, the answer I think lies in a study of the teachings he left behind. > Question number 5: > Some people in Buddhism believe that the Buddha will be reborn and > have a second coming. > Here is the question. > Why would the Buddha be reborn if he achieved enlightenment and > nirvana??? Wouldn't the Buddha then never return because he did in > fact achieve complete enlightenment and nirvana. > I've not heard this particular belief before. But there will be other Buddhas in the future (as there have been in the past), so we are told. > Those are a few of the questions that I had on my mind and have been > discussing with a few people. Hope that I did not confuse anyone but I > thought that I could get a good response here and some good answers. > I hope these brief answers give you something to consider. Please let me know if I can add anything further. > I will write more later with my thoughts, but for now these few are a > good beginning. > > Take care, have a good and peaceful weekend. > Hope you're having a good weekend (the weekend is almost over here in Hong Kong). Jon #78023 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 4:06 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhatrue Hi Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) > > Dear All, > > Topic: Too much emphasis on anatta and no-person. James: LOL! This is a great description of your meeting with K.S.! When I read it, I honestly felt very sorry for you, Han. There you were, trying to get straightforward answers to straightforward questions, but instead you got the runaround. It wasn't a Dhamma discussion; it was more like a trial or a mind game. > All these facts were put before Khun Sujin for her > comments. When I said I cannot help considering that > it is `I' who is meditating in front of the home > altar, she agreed that no one can help it. [It is a > bit of a consolation!] However, as regards, the seven > steps of Visuddhimagga, she said that pa~n~naa is > necessary for each of the steps, and that it is not > strictly sequential. There is a back-looping [the word > coined by me], and the higher visuddhimagga steps can > also support the lower steps. James: This is not true. The Buddha's path is strictly sequential. It doesn't make any sense to state that the higher steps can support the lower steps! Yes, there is panna at each step, but even the panna is sequential! It is important to realize that the Buddha's path is a gradual one which follows sequential steps. Those who do not realize this cannot possibly follow the Buddha's path because they can't see a path, they only see a destination. And even for the very > first step of purification of virtue, the right view > and the right understanding or pa~n~naa is needed. In > this way, she refuted my reasoning given in my message > # 76362. > > Agreeing with her that right view and right > understanding or pa~n~naa is needed in every step of > visuddhimagga, I asked her how can I develop pa~n~naa? > She said that pa~n~naa is the understanding of the > realities with right awareness (samma sati). She asked > me what is sati? Is it real or concept? I could not > answer. James: Han, I don't blame you for becoming speechless during this dialogue with KS. The moment you try to talk sense, she becomes confrontational and asks leading questions. It is truly a pointless endeavor. I hope it showed you how deeply people can be entrenched in their wrong views- so entrenched that they don't listen to others or try to understand other's perspectives. I will read the rest of your reflections of the meeting with great interest. This post may inspire some member responses, but I can't guarantee I will be able to respond in kind I have been extremely busy lately. Metta, James #78024 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 11/4/2007 12:31:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Hellow Everybody! I thought that i was going to Burma,but after spending 3 month's observing vassa in the forest monestery of Suan Mokhh, i found out that i needed to go to Malaysia to get my 60 day visa.The Thai authorites say the border run is only good for 90 day's within a 6 month period. i would like to discuss the topic of GANDHABBA. The discription of this dhamma study group (officialy)is to better learn and discuss Theravada Buddhism, that in mind i would say that the GANDHABBA is something of not little import to look at. The tathagatagarbha(GANDHABBA)is an UNCONDITIONED self which is within ALL beings and which is fundamentally eternal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Bhante, with respect, Sir, I think you are in error. When referring to a gandhabba not as a celestial musician, but in the context of rebirth, this was a conventional reference to a being ready for rebirth. At the moment of death in the life prior to the current fortunate one, "we" were such a gandhabba; i.e., the "being to be reborn". At the very next moment of consciousness, "we" were in our new life - a transition as immediate as any moment-to-moment transition we currently experience. The point of a "gandhabba" in the matter of rebirth is simply that a dying "being" is the primary condition for the arising of a reborn "being". A moment of dying within a stream of namarupic events is requisite for the subsequent moment of birth. That is all. There is no "soul" that is plunked down, and talk of "descent into the womb" was merely standard, everyday speech, much as we currently speak of a person today as having "passed on". As for the substantialist "tathagatagarbha" notion, that does NOT come from Theravada, Sir, but from a school of thought within Mahayana. In discussing that, Sir, you are *not* discussing Theravada Buddhism. In fact, the notio n of "an UNCONDITIONED self which is within ALL beings and which is fundamentally eternal" is the atman notion of Hinduism and Vedanta. It is not even part of Mahayana, and it is an even starker digression from original Buddhism than the personalist error corrected by Moggaliputta Tissa. --------------------------------------------------------------- The denial of which is taught to have negitive kammic consequences. Ven.Gotama when teaching "anatta" was teaching NOT a conventially understood metaphysical assertion but a practical strategy to help one overcome the typical conventional constructs that would inhibit their liberation.Other wise,just What is it then that is being reincarnated?Is it not SOMETHING? --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha's Dhamma does NOT contenance any "something" that is plunked down from body to body - that is, it does NOT countenance reincarnation, a substantialist soul theory. It teaches this/that conditionality. Rebirth taught by the Buddha is a subtle teaching, and is definitely not the old reincarnation theory warmed over. As for the denial that has negative kammic consequences, it is the denial of rebirth and kammic consequence. The Buddha's teaching of these is quite different from the soul theories of his predecessors. ------------------------------------------------------------------ While nibbana is to be experienced,more so than conceptionalised, NEVER THE LESS what is it otherwise that strives to end dukkha and experience nibbana? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is striving, but no "one" who strives, acting but no actor, experiencing but no experiencer. That is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha. Talk of "one who strives, acts, and experiences" is just that - mere talk. It is not Dhamma. ------------------------------------------------------------------- M.N.sutta#36 is to be referenced on this. In M.N. sutta#77(amongst other places in the Pali Canon) Ven.Gotama makes mention of the("mind made body"),in term's that make it abundantly clear that he was discussing what we today call "astral projection" or o.o.b.e.(the brain is not the same as the mind). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that is likely so. But what of it? What relevance does that have to the atta-view you are urging? --------------------------------------------------------------- Ven Gotama tward the end of M.N.sutta#36 does not say that it is irrelavent as to weather or not the soul exists or not but weather or not it exists AFTER death to be irrelavent concerning the topic of enlightenment. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The SOUL, Bhante? This is not Theravada, Sir. It is not Buddhism. It is not the Dhamma. -------------------------------------------------------------- For most today,this misundersranding finds it's origin in the work of Dr.Rhys Davids and the Pali Text Society. MAY THE BUDDHA'S, DEVA AND ANGEL'S BLESS ALL OF YOU! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto ================================== With metta, Howard #78025 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 4:52 am Subject: Perfections Corner (33) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, 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. ------------------------------ We read in the Commentary to the "Itivuttaka": "The Buddha is called bhagavaa because people are steadfast in their loyalty towards him since he is always intent on the benefit of all living beings in the world, and determines in his great compassion to teach the Dhamma. He teaches the Dhamma so that all beings could acquire steadfastness in siila, in samaadhi, the calm that is freedom from defilements, and in pa~n~naa. The Buddhist followers, both monks and layfollowers, should be sincere in their loyalty to the Buddha, and they can express this by offering all kinds of gifts, such as flowers, incense, unguents and other things by which they can honour him." We can understand that the Buddha who is truthful and sincere and who is intent on the welfare of other beings in the world has eradicated all defilements. People can see his great compassion and his wisdom, and for this reason their loyalty to the Buddha, the Exalted One, surpasses their loyalty to anybody else. We read in the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct", "Miscellaneous Sayings": "Only the man of wisdom is skilful in providing for the welfare of all beings.... Not deceiving, undertaking to give support to others, and not uttering speech that deviates from the truth, this is called practice with truthfulness." This is the practice of the Sammaasambuddha, the Exalted One. This is skilfulness in providing for the welfare of all beings, by teaching them the way to eradicate attachment. He shows the danger of akusala and explains the way to develop kusala. He does not deceive, he tries to give support to others and does not utter speech that deviates from the truth. This is called practice with truthfulness. If someone is not truthful in the practice that leads to the realization of the noble Truths, he will be attached to possessions, honour and fame; he will encourage others to follow a practice that does not lead to the eradication of defilements. Some people say that one should just practise and not study, that it is not necessary to have understanding of the Dhamma, whereas others say that one should first study and have understanding before one practises. Whom should we believe? We should consider ourselves what the right cause is that brings the appropriate effect. If we trust another person we should know for what reason. Is it because he is famous, or because he explains the right cause that brings the appropriate effect and is able to help people to have right understanding of the Dhamma? ===to be continued, connie #78026 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 4:52 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 5 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 357. "Duggatigamana.m magga.m, manussaa kaamahetuka.m; bahu.m ve pa.tipajjanti, attano rogamaavaha.m. 358. "Eva.m amittajananaa, taapanaa sa.mkilesikaa; lokaamisaa bandhaniiyaa, kaamaa mara.nabandhanaa. 359. "Ummaadanaa ullapanaa, kaamaa cittappamaathino; sattaana.m sa.mkilesaaya, khippa.m maarena o.d.dita.m. 360. "Anantaadiinavaa kaamaa, bahudukkhaa mahaavisaa; appassaadaa ra.nakaraa, sukkapakkhavisosanaa. 361. "Saaha.m etaadisa.m katvaa, byasana.m kaamahetuka.m; na ta.m paccaagamissaami, nibbaanaabhirataa sadaa. 362. "Ra.na.m taritvaa kaamaana.m, siitibhaavaabhika"nkhinii; appamattaa vihassaami, sabbasa.myojanakkhaye. 363. "Asoka.m viraja.m khema.m, ariya.t.tha"ngika.m uju.m; ta.m magga.m anugacchaami, yena ti.n.naa mahesino. Pruitt: 355. Because of sensual pleasures, men enter enthusiastically into the way that has several forms [and], that leads to a realm of misery, bringing disease to themselves. 356. In this way, sensual pleasures are enemy producing, buring, defiling, the lures of the world, constraining, the bonds of death. 357. Sensual pleasures are maddening, deceiving, agitating the mind, a net spread out by Maara for the defilement of creatures. 358. Sensual pleasures have endless perils; they have much pain, they are great poisons; they give little enjoyment; they produce desire, drying up the virtuous party. 359. Since I have caused such misfortune because of sensual pleasures, I shall not return to them again. I shall always delight in quenching. 360. Desiring the cool state, I have crossed over the intoxication of sensual pleasures. I shall dwell vigilant when all bonds are destroyed. 361. I [shall] follow that friefless, stainless, secure, straight, noble eightfold path by which the great seers have crossed. RD: Because of worldly lusts mankind is drawn By woeful way to many a direful doom - Where ev'ry step doth work its penalty. *383 (355) Breeders of enmity are worldly lusts, Engendering remorse and vicious taints. Flesh baits, to bind us to the world and death. (356) Leading to madness, to hysteria, To ferment of the mind, are worldly lusts, Fell traps by Maara laid to ruin men. (357) Endless the direful fruit of worldly lusts, Surcharged with poison, sowing many ills, Scanty and brief its sweetness, stirring strife, And withering the brightness of our days. (358) For me who thus have chosen, ne'er will I Into the world's disasters come again, For in Nibbana is my joy alway. (359) So, fighting a [good] fight with worldly lusts, I wait in hope for the Cool Blessedness, Abiding earnest in endeavour, till Nought doth survive that fetters me to them. (360) THIS is my Way, the Way that leads past grief, Past all that doth defile, the haven sure, Even the Ariyan Eightfold Path, called Straight. *384 There do I follow where the Saints *385 have crossed. (361) *383 Lit., Bringer-along of its (the way's) own affliction. *384 'Ujuko naama so maggo.' 'Straight' is the name that Way is called. (Sa.my. Nik., i. 33.) *385 Mahesino, as in 350. ===to be continued, connie #78027 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 5:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) dcwijeratna Dear Han tun, I took the liberty of sending my comments and observations on your post on the "Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1)" as it was addressed to "all". Grateful if you would clarify what this "Foundation" is? 1. I was attracted to this group by its name Dhammastudygroup. For us traditional Buddhists, Dhamma is : "svaakhaato bhagavata dhammo, sandi.t.thiko, akaaliko, ehipassiko, opanaiko, paccattam vditabbo, vi~n~nuuhiiti." I wish to focus on the first phrase only: "svaakhaato bhagavata dhammo" which means "the dhamma is well-proclaimed by the Buddha. Thus to study dhamma is to study the teaching of the Buddha Gorama. Not what we imagine it to be but what can be established by methods normally available to us as human beings. 2. On the other hand a non-Buddhist or a student of philosophy, may wish to study Buddhism as a phiosophy. Of course, then the word Dhamma is not appropriate. There are so many schools of thought that call themselves Buddhists. But "philosopy of Buddism" is a valid topic for discussion. "Ehipassiko does not mean see and come but come and see" 3. Most of the discussion of this group is on "Abhidhamma pi.tka". There are two possible interpretations of the word Abhidhamma. That it is a "collection of texts", relating to what is called "Abhidhamma". Abhidhamma as a mere name that is not related to Dhamma. If not, Abhidhamma has to be considered as a later derivation from the Dhamma. In the former case, Abhidhamma need not be discussed in the Dhammastudygroup. It is not dhamma. It is adhamma. In the latter case, if one considers abhidhamma as derived from the Dhmma, What one should really study is Dhamma and use abhidhamma to assist this study. Dhamma is supreme. 4. But one thing is clear, it is not possible, it is not possible to question the fundamentals of Buddha vacana. Or give any interpretations, you fancy, to them. It is necessary to find an explanation within the Buddha word itself. Such questions belong to a different area. Religious debates. 5. Too much emphasis on anatta and no-person. Anatta is the "unique" concept of Dhamma. It means 'that there is nothing called atman or self or soul' int the teaching of the Buddha, that is our understanding. It is not there for understanding by mere-mortals. According to Dhamma, only arhants can understand this. And according to Dhamma, there is a way for understanding anatta. That is the Noble Eightfold Path. So according to dhamma it is a total waste of time. There are other issues also. (1) If you are questioning anatta, you are questioning my religious beliefs? This discussion is really about God, but disguised in "Abhidhamma terminology" of the Theravadins. Topic: Too much emphasis on anatta and no-person. 6. Comments I now refer to: "All these facts were put before Khun Sujin for her comments" I am little perplexed by this statement? Why did you facts before Khun Sujin? Who is Khun Sujin? Somebody like a moderator or is an authority? Or an arahant? Even if she is an arhant, I think it is more appropriate for her to write her own comments on the matter? I hope I have made myself clear. Discussion of anatta is inappropriate in a Dhammastudygroup. Else change the name to "Philosphy of Buddhism--discussion group". We who are simple humans, who take Gotama the Buddha as our Teacher (satthaa) can then leave the philosphers to carry on their endless debates. With kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78028 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba dcwijeratna Dear Howard, I just want to say, I appreciate your explanation. I have nothing to add to it. About a month ago I made a presentation on Rhys Davids. I am sure, you have seen somewhere in his Buddhism, The Buddha was born a hindu, lived as a hindu and died a Hindu; and that the Buddha's enlightenment is a mystery. And he along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma. He was the most influential and was able to influence all the subsequent generation of Western Buddhist scholars through PTS and PED. You are so eloquent on this subject, I am beginning to suspect you have made a deep study of this subject. Well now my question: Do you have any publications? If so I shall be most grateful to if you would let know where I can procure them. Highest regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Alex has aired similar views. I also made some remarks on a related subject to Han Tun. They may be interesting. #78029 From: "dhammanando_bhikkhu" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 5:28 am Subject: Re: Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba dhammanando_... Bhante, > i would like to discuss the topic of GANDHABBA. The discription of this > dhamma study group (officialy)is to better learn and discuss Theravada > Buddhism, that in mind i would say that the GANDHABBA is something of not > little import to look at. The tathagatagarbha(GANDHABBA)is an UNCONDITIONED > self which is within ALL beings and which is fundamentally eternal. The gandhabba teaching has nothing at all to do with the tathaagatagarbha ("Tathaagata- matrix" or "Buddha nature") doctrine. The latter is a Mahayana Buddhist concept, without any parallel in the Theravada. The reference you give in support of your view, MN. 36 (the Mahaasaccaka Sutta), deals with the Bodhisatta's austerities and his progress to awakening. It has nothing to say about gandhabbas at all. I think it was probably MN. 38, the Mahaata.nhaasankhaya Sutta that you had in mind. Here the Buddha says: "Bhikkhus, the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but it is not the mother's season, and a gandhabba is not present - in this case there is no conception of an embryo in a womb. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and it is the mother's season, but a gandhabba is not present - in this case too there is no conception of an embryo in a womb. But when there is the union of the mother and father, and it is the mother's season, and a gandhabba is present, through the union of these three things the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place." But how do you get from this to "an unconditioned self which is within all beings and is fundamentally eternal" ? The above passage doesn't describe the gandhabba at all; it just says that there has to be one present if conception is to take place. The Theravada commentaries define gandhabba in this context as "a being departed from there" (tatruupaga satta), or as "one who has to go" (gantabba), both glosses meaning a being that has passed away and is to be reborn. When translated into abhidhammic terms it refers to the rebirth-linking consciousness, which is a momentary phenomenon, not an eternal, unconditioned self. > Ven.Gotama when teaching "anatta" was teaching NOT a conventially > understood metaphysical assertion but a practical strategy to help one > overcome the typical conventional constructs that would inhibit their > liberation.Other wise,just What is it then that is being reincarnated?Is it > not SOMETHING? In Theravada teaching there isn't any kind of entity that undergoes rebirth. Rather, the falling away of the last consciousness of one life conditions the arising of the first consciousness of the next life. > While nibbana is to be experienced,more so than conceptionalised, NEVER THE > LESS what is it otherwise that strives to end dukkha and experience nibbana? There isn't any being, or soul or eternal gandhabba who strives to end dukkha. Rather, the striving to end dukkha and the experiencing of nibbaana are impersonal operations that occur as a result of an encounter with the Buddha's teaching on the part of a suitably disposed mental continuum. > In M.N. sutta#77(amongst other places in the Pali Canon) Ven.Gotama makes > mention of the("mind made body"),in term's that make it abundantly clear > that he was discussing what we today call "astral projection" or > o.o.b.e.(the brain is not the same as the mind). I'm afraid it's not abundantly clear to me. Though it's not apparent in MN. 77, if you look at the other account of the mind-made body in the Saama~n~naphala Sutta (DN. 2) it's clear that this is an ability developed on the basis of a mastery of the jhaanas. As such it would seem to be something quite different from modern out-of-the-body experiences. The latter are generally described as spontaneous occurrences that happen to people who have not necessarily undertaken any sort of bhaavanaa at all, e.g., when undergoing general anaesthetic or coming very close to death. Furthermore, those who have these experiences don't describe themselves as possessed of "a body having form, mind-made, with all its limbs, lacking no faculty" (MN. 77). Rather, they usually describe themselves as having been disembodied, yet able to see, and in some cases to hear. > For most today,this misundersranding finds it's origin in the work of > Dr.Rhys Davids and the Pali Text Society. I wouldn't agree with this assessment. For a pioneering work Thomas Rhys Davids' scholarship has stood the test of time pretty well and is in large measure fairly faithful to the Theravada understanding. It's his wife Caroline, in some of her later writings, who is responsible for promoting certain mistaken ideas about the Buddha and his teaching -- most notoriously the idea that the Buddha was an attavaadin. Best wishes, Dhammanando #78030 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 5:43 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Dear DC, Other things came up. =================== > DC: 1. That we are normal human beings. That is puthujjana. > > Sukin: Yes. > > DC: 2. We get knowledge only through our five senses. > [The sixth sense is really memory has stored our previous experiences. > I can think of only something that I that I have experienced previously. > > Sukin: I am not sure. Do you take into account the difference in the > mode of knowing between sanna, citta and panna? And do you also > consider the fact that at the mind door, there can be knowing > conditioned by Avijja or by Panna and the latter can have as > object `ideas' as well as `realities'? > ........................]]] > > Now to (1) one you have agreed. But to (2) you have not. So that is the difficulty. Let me explain it further. > > When I said that we are normal human beings, what I meant was: One day I (DC) see you. With that I form a picture. We would normally say in the mind. But really we don't know it. It could be in the brain. But the formation of this picture or an image is a fact. S: O.K…… ==================== DC: From then onwards, I say I know you. If I say see you again later, I recognise you with respect to the 'image that I had formed'. That is to say I know you. S: O.K…… ===================== > Now to me, that is the only way of knowing, But you say "I am not sure". So that is the problem. S: I don't see why you must insist on this. Sure this is probably your own basis to then interpret for example, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, a certain way, namely, because the perception of people and things and postures is what you "know", you conclude that the practice to be necessarily starting from this same kind of perception as basis. That you think that one must observe this conventional person in action is based on this idea that *this is all we know / experience*. In response to this my first set of questions is: On what understanding do you base this to be true, namely the kind of observation being the Path? How is this related to the realities of the five khandhas in that the mindfulness and understanding of the one leads to the mindfulness and understanding of the other? In other words, how do you convince yourself about the need to do what you are doing as a means to get where you want to go to? In fact, what *do* the Khandhas mean to you at this point in time? Didn't you at some point need to be convinced about the distinction between `concept and reality' in all this? If so, are you saying that in your case the understanding leads to the conclusion of a need to *do* something in order to get results? And that OTOH, in my case, to keep on considering about Dhamma and dhammas and coming to the conclusion of there being no-control is wrong? Aside from what you have stated above, what "understanding" do you go by as a result of which you see the Dhamma as being worthy of pursuit? In short, what in your opinion is the difference in outlook between an "uninstructed worldling" and a "kalyana putthujana"? Does the latter end up simply encourage one another to "meditate" or do they discuss the Dhamma and encourage the development of understanding no matter what the occasion is? If also the latter, to what extent? Most importantly when you come to the conclusion of there being just these five senses from which all your experiences are ever based, how you know this, i.e. how do you distinguish hearing from seeing, and these from smelling, tasting and touching? And if indeed you are able to see them as separate, why insist on the `mental picture' as being the only basis from which to further investigate. Besides don't you think it possible at any point to distinguish between the sense experiences and the following moments of `thinking' about these? =================== >You ask me: "Do you take into account the difference in the mode of knowing between sanna, citta and panna?" But the only way of knowing for me is what I described above. So we are at a deadlock. S: But it doesn't have to be. We can always bring out the basic premises, at the root of which is "view", for discussions. Sometimes it feels as if you are willing to discuss only if the discussion move a certain way. As I said in an earlier post to you, the problem is of "view" and this leads to the difference in how we read and interpret the Texts. So in fact it is never a case of Sutta vs. Abhidhamma position, and therefore to bring this in only takes us away from the real issue. From your point of view, mine is the Abhidhamma / commentarial perspective and this is *not* Dhamma. From where I stand, yours is not the Sutta perspective, but your own, therefore *not* Dhamma. This being the case, should we not then value discussions and this not only with the development of our own understanding in mind, but also that of the other person? Surely one or both of us is wrong, and wrong leads to more wrong. Here the need to correct one's view at the intellectual level becomes imperative. How can it be hoped that any Right Understanding be conditioned to arise in the process of engaging in a prescribed practice, when the intellectual understanding is wrong? Does this reasoning not resonate with you? =================== > I'll elaborate a little: Words like, sanna, citta and panna are different. They are not formed in the way described above. You can't point out "citta" to me and say "Hey DC, there is something over there. Let's call it citta". So that is the end of our ability to communicate with each other about citta. S: Hey, but I thought that I could!!? Were you a Christian or Muslim with no interest in the Dhamma, then perhaps I should not have any expectations. Surely you have heard about citta, sanna etc, but perhaps you have some preconceived notions about their use, so much so that even while I make reference to them in terms of what everyone knows, namely, seeing, thinking, tasting etc, you can't help but conclude that I am using it abstractly? Is this it? I know that this is not the point you are making here, but it is the point "I" am making! ;-) According to you, I am projecting an "idea" on to experiences. I think this to be in fact *your* problem. You seem to be taking the reference to citta, sanna, panna etc, to be other than what it is meant to be and then projecting this on to me.(??) In other words I wish to communicate with you on the level at which you and everybody else can understand, but your resistance apparently seems to be too strong, having made up your mind about what constitutes the Dhamma both in principle and practice. Am I close? When I refer to citta, sanna and so on, I think about seeing, the perception of what is seen, and the understanding of all this as much as this arises in the moment. I am not referring to abstract ideas, but to all the experiences that you and I do all the time and can easily refer to, except that this we have no right understanding of, and it is here that the Dhamma comes in. And when this does come in, sometimes sure, we do move on to talk in general and "theoretically" about citta, cetasikas, rupa, conditionality and so on, however can be with full view of the fact that they "do" arises and can be gradually understood. Do you have reason to object to this? ===================== > In practice what happens is people who use these terms, have developed (abstracted) meanings to these words on some experience. Each one's meaning private to himself. S: True we develop this `understanding' using what means we have namely the accumulated understandings and misunderstandings. And sure, this would on and off involve lots of concepts clumsily used. However, there is one thing in common and which in fact is what motivates most of us to continue developing the understanding in our own way, and this is that `concept is concept' and `reality is reality' and that it is this latter which can and must be known directly. Therefore when concepts such as citta, sanna, vedana, panna, anicca, anatta etc. are used, there is implicit agreement that while we are all trying to grasp these as per our level of understanding, the corresponding realities to be known directly is such that only when these are known in a certain way and to a particular extent, can there ever be `true knowledge'. In other words hardness is hardness, thinking is thinking, impermanence is impermanence, the same for everyone who is on his way to "full understanding". Meanwhile in so far as there is agreement between any two persons on this distinction, I think it fair to say that we are indeed `on the same page'. OTOH, what you take to be `common understanding' and hence a valid basis to communicate with other about the Dhamma, that to me is "delusory" in so far as the correct understanding of the difference between concept and reality is not there. Not only is there lack of acknowledgement of them being only "concept", but also an encouragement both to oneself and in the other, to indulge in further proliferations such as this idea of "meditation". Try as you might DC, you *will not* go beyond agreed upon convention in doing what you do. Two meditators say, a teacher and his pupil, they can never go beyond the level of agreement / disagreement based on "labels". Therefore *never are they ever on the same page* as far as I can see, except by indirectly agreeing to be so. =================== DC: Then in trying to discuss these matters, they get into endless arguments. Even culminating in killing each other. The best example to my mind is the word God. The God of the Jews is different to that of the Christians, that is different to that of Islam, and to that of Hindus. Hindus is the the most instructive. See the different pictures of their gods. This is the way I understand citta, etc. S: I think you need to reconsider all this and then perhaps you will stop making the kind of comparison. =================== > I hope that clarifies my position. S: I may have misunderstood you, in which case please do explain further. Thanks in advance. Metta, Sukin. #78031 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:09 am Subject: Re: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. .. Tep's Two Points ... buddhistmedi... Dear Nina (Howard, Scott, Elaine, Han), - Thank you for the reply to my post (message #77991). The theme is about the concepts that do have the three characteristics and so they can be objects of meditation too (as stated in many suttas, including DN 22). Of course, there are concepts that are not useful for samatha or vipassana bhavana. > >T: But when satipatthana is not yet developed, what can be the object of awareness, if not a concept? > >T: Past and future khandhas are concepts, and yet they have the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anattaa, non-self, which should be realized as they are, so that defilements can be eradicated. ............... N: I have it heard more often that khandhas are taken to be concepts. In that case the object of satipatthana or of the eightfold Path would be concepts. Understanding would have to be developed of concepts and this seems very strange to me. The three conditioned paramattha dhammas can be classified as five khandhas. Thus the khandhas are conditioned naama and ruupa. N: Khandhas are naama and ruupa that arise and fall away. They are not concepts. Take feeling now, it falls away after it has arisen. It is khandha, how could it be a concept? A concept could not have the three lakkhanas. .............. T: Somehow I've got a feeling that the points I made have not been well communicated ! Below I am going to explain the theme of the discussion further. Please be patient with me. You may laugh and shake your head at my ignorance. You can think of me as a dhamma fool. But I shall be glad and satisfied if you can show me where the misunderstandings lie, so that I may correct them and can become a wise man in the dhammas! Point 1. Past and future khandhas do not arise here and now; they are recalled or mentally reconstructed. Hence they are concepts (citta sankhara or mental constructs as Howard wisely put it). Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, a corpse) and also in this quote: >Nina: See S III, 9: < Body, monks, is impermanent, both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, monks, the well-taught ariyan disciple cares not for a body that is past, is not in love with a body to be, and for the present body seeks to be repelled by it, seeks dispassion for it, seeks the ceasing for it.> >N: The same about the other khandhas. Ruupakhandha includes all ruupas, but it is here translated as body. T: In the above quote the Buddha taught that a body/khandha in the past and in the future should not be grasped with clinging. It is an example of how concepts are used for satipatthana development. The following sutta quote makes it clear (to me) that although the five khandhas in the past or future are not realities in the present moment (and so they are NOTarising or passing away now), they are used as objects of satipatthana in the present moment. I repeat: since the meditator recollects a past or a future khandha, rather than experiencing it here & now, they must be concepts, i.e. some mental constructs. And yet, the Buddha, our greatest Teacher, recommended that they be used in contemplation. Now, am I confused here? Nina's quote: .................. Tep === #78032 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:10 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 17, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, We should not try to pinpoint all the different conditions for the nåma and rúpa which appear. However, the study of different conditions helps us to understand that there isn’t anybody who can control realities, that realities arise because of their own conditions. Nobody can cause the arising of seeing. There was also seeing in past lives and there will be seeing in next lives. Seeing always sees visible object. The object of seeing is always the same, but the thinking about what is seen changes. We ourselves and other people were different beings in past lives with different ways of thinking and we shall be different again in lives to come. We think with cittas conditioned by root-condition, hetu-paccaya; these cittas can have akusala hetus or sobhana hetus. On account of what is seen or heard there is happiness or sorrow, but we are ignorant of realities. If there can be mindfulness of one reality as it appears through one of the six doors, we shall know the difference between the moments of mindfulness of a reality and the moments there is thinking of an image of a “whole”, a person or a thing. By being mindful of just visible object or sound we learn to distinguish between the objects appearing through the five sense-doors and the mind-door. When there is right understanding of a reality as it appears one at a time, we do not expect other people to behave as we would like them to. Someone may insult us, but if we can see that there is nobody who can hurt us we shall be less inclined to take unjust treatment personally. When words of praise and blame are spoken to us, the hearing is result produced by kusala kamma or akusala kamma. When we think about the meaning of the words which were spoken to us defilements tend to arise. We take what we hear very seriously and we forget that what is experienced by hearing is only sound. Depending on our accumulations we may be afflicted on account of what is heard, we think about it for a long time. We are so affected by what others say or do to us because of clinging to ourselves. Life is short, a moment of experiencing an object is very short. If there were no citta which experiences an object, the world and everything in it would not appear. The sotåpanna who has no more wrong view about person or self understands that there are only conditioned nåma and rúpa, no people. We forget that the citta which hears only hears sound, that in realty there isn’t anybody’s voice, not my voice or someone else’s voice. When we do not expect praise we shall be less affected by blame. When we are insulted we will be less resentful. We should learn to forgive. Forgiving is a kind of dåna, generosity, and at such a moment there is kusala citta instead of akusala citta. ******* Nina. #78033 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 3. ... Some Comments ... scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for the reply. I'll respond to it point by point, over the next few days. I appreciate this opportunity because in replying I am able to consider Dhamma, which can be a most peaceful opportunity. Me: Manasikaara or attention arises with each and every citta. Elaine: "[1]Why does manasikaraa arises with each and every citta? [2]Citta is translated as mind/consciousness and manasikara is wise-attention. A person who is consciousness does not necessary have wise-attention. [3]What is this citta that you talk about? [4]Is your interpretation of citta different from 'consciousness'?" Scott: 1) It is in the nature of reality that each citta has cetasikas arise as conascent condition; there are 52 mental factors, if I'm not mistaken. Manasikaara is one of the sabbacitta saadhaara.naa cetasikas; it also arises in company of six others (phassa, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, cetanaa, ekagataa, and jiivitindriya). These seven arise with each and every citta - at each moment of consciousness. 2) Manakikaraa is merely 'attention'. 'Yoniso-manasikaraa' is 'wise-attention'; 'ayoniso-manasikaraa' is, I guess, 'unwise-attention'. It is good to know, in theory first of course, that not everything one thinks of as yoniso-manasikaraa is necessarily that particular sort of attention. Learning that there can also be unwise attention may at least condition the later ability to distinguish these two experientially. I'm afraid that I don't know quite what you mean when you note that a 'person who is consciousness does not necessary have wise-attention'. If you mean that wise-attention (yoniso manasikaraa) does not always arise, you are correct. It is much more likely that one mistake ayoniso manasikaraa for yoniso manasikaraa. Here, your point: "Would anyone get wiser if they know the sentence, 'manasikaara arises with every citta'? I think a person only becomes wise when he actually 'knows' with direct knowledge what manasikara really is", is worth considering, although I'm not sure what it means for 'a person' to 'get wise'. In this case, I would amend the statement, knowing now that there are two sorts of manasikaraa which can arise, and suggest that it would be important to directly know the characteristics and qualities of yoniso versus ayoniso manasikaraa, so as not to go off on a tangent, thinking that ordinary attention is something more. 3)See UP on 'citta'. 4)See #3 above, and the way I understand citta theoretically is that it is somewhat synonymous with 'mano' and 'vi~n~naana', but check it out yourself, if you wish. See you later. Sincerely, Scott. #78034 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:24 am Subject: Re: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') .. Anattaa once more ... buddhistmedi... Hi Bhikkhu Aggacitta, - I appreciate your feedback : > >T: > > With that kind of insight the observer is no longer one with the > > wrong view on compactness : s/he sees the dhammas the way they > really > > are. > > > > The nice thing is : we can see anattaa too, without convincing > > ourselves of 'no self'. > > ........................... > > Hi Tep! > In other word's...Do not let the package fool you does not mean > that something has not been cognitively "wraped". > VERY GOOD! > bhikkhu aggacitto > ....................... T: May I assume that "cognitively wrapped" means a mental fixation that is conditioned by a wrong view (and attachment) ? Tep ==== #78035 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:25 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Twos, Ch II, § 10) that the Buddha said: Monks, these two things conduce to the confusion and disappearance of true Dhamma. What two? The wrong expression of the letter (of the text) and wrong interpretation of the meaning of it. For if the letter be wrongly expressed, the interpretation of the meaning is also wrong..... Monks, these two things conduce to the establishment, the non- confusion, to the non-disappearance of true Dhamma. What two? The right expression of the letter and right interpretation of the meaning. For if the letter be rightly expressed, the interpretation of the meaning is also right.... In the course of time the Buddhaís teachings will be corrupted and then disappear. The last holy site we visited was Bodhgaya. Here one of our group read a text about the disappearance of the teachings. The “Dispeller of Delusion” (the commentary to the Book of Analysis, commentary to Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge) is one of the texts explaining about the disappearance of the teachings [1]. We read (431): For there are three kinds of disappearance: disappearance of theoretical understanding (pariyatti), disappearance of penetration (paìivedha) and disappearance of practice (paìipatti). Herein, pariyatti is the three parts of the Tipiìaka; the penetration is the penetration of the Truths; the practice is the way.... Further on we read that of the Scriptures first the Book of the Patthåna (Conditional Relations) of the Abhidhamma disappears, and then successively the other Books of the Abhidamma. After that the Books of the Suttanta will successively disappear. We read: But when the two Pitakas [2]have disappeared, while the Vinaya Pitaka endures, the teachings (såsana) endure. Also the Vinaya will disappear. Further on the text states that there are three kinds of complete extinction: Complete extinction of defilements, complete extinction of the aggregates (khandhas) [3] and complete extinction of the relics. Herein, complete extinction of the defilements took place on the Wisdom Seat, the complete extinction of the aggregates at Kusinåra [4] and the complete extinction of the relics will take place in the future. It is then explained that all the relics will gather together and will go to the “Great Wisdom Seat” in Bodhgaya. We read: Heaped up on the Great Wisdom Seat, they will become one solid mass like a pile of gold and will emit six-coloured rays... We read that they will be burnt by the fire element and that then the teachings have come to an end. ------------- Footnotes: 1. This has also been explained in the Commentary to the “Dialogues of the Buddha”, the “Sumangala Vilåsiní” (III, no. 28, the Faith that satisfied). 2. The Abhidhamma and the Suttanta. 3. The five aggregates or khandhas are: rúpakkhandha, all physical phenomena; vedanåkkhandha, feelings; saññåkkhandha, remembrance or perception; sankhårakkhandha, formations or activities, including all cetasikas other than feeling and perception; viññånakkhandha, consciousness, including all cittas. 4. At the final passing away of the Buddha there was the extinction of the khandhas; they would not arise again because there were no more conditions for rebirth. ******** Nina. #78036 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. .. Tep's Two Points ... nilovg Hi Tep, Op 4-nov-2007, om 15:09 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Please be patient with me. You may laugh and > shake your head at my ignorance. You can think of me as a dhamma > fool. ------- N: Of course I could never think this way if someone comes to another conclusion. I need time to answer, because work is heaped up. Be patient with me. Nina. #78037 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba upasaka_howard Hi, DC - In a message dated 11/4/2007 8:26:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Dear Howard, I just want to say, I appreciate your explanation. I have nothing to add to it. About a month ago I made a presentation on Rhys Davids. I am sure, you have seen somewhere in his Buddhism, The Buddha was born a hindu, lived as a hindu and died a Hindu; and that the Buddha's enlightenment is a mystery. And he along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma. He was the most influential and was able to influence all the subsequent generation of Western Buddhist scholars through PTS and PED. You are so eloquent on this subject, I am beginning to suspect you have made a deep study of this subject. Well now my question: Do you have any publications? If so I shall be most grateful to if you would let know where I can procure them. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is very flattering (and so, not so "good" for me! ;-) In any case, no, no publishing on Dhamma topics. I don't deem myself qualified for that. (My only publishing has been of technical journal articles in math, logic, and theoretical computer science.) ----------------------------------------------------- Highest regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Alex has aired similar views. I also made some remarks on a related subject to Han Tun. They may be interesting. ============================= With metta, Howard #78038 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) nilovg Dear Han, thank you for your report. There is a lot to say about the right conditions for sati and pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path. I shall render parts of the discussions later on, when time permits. They touch on this delicate subject (or hot subject?) All of these questions are for pondering over. Hard to say everything that can be said about them within a short time. It also depends on the listener: to what extent is he ready to receive certain topics of Dhamma? How to develop pa~n~naa is a good question of yours. Nina. Op 4-nov-2007, om 11:01 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > She said that sati without understanding is > just a concept, and there must be ‘conditions’ for > sati to arise. #78039 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 7:17 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Dear Han (Nina, James, etc.), - It is a great initiative of yours to ask Khun Sujin how to develop panna and to make the relevant comment about "too much" no-self may be harmful. It does not surprise me that she asked you back, rather than replying or defending. Challenge is sometimes an effective defence. >Han: Agreeing with her that right view and right understanding or pa~n~naa is needed in every step of visuddhimagga, I asked her how can I develop pa~n~naa? She said that pa~n~naa is the understanding of the realities with right awareness (samma sati). She asked me what is sati? Is it real or concept? I could not answer. She said that sati without understanding is just a concept, and there must be `conditions' for sati to arise. >Han: I cannot draw any conclusion out of this discussion. T: You were put in the loop that has no beginning and no ending. Tep ==== #78040 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 7:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... My friend DC, - I read your comment about DSG, discussion of anataa, and Khun Sujin with some cofusion. Essentially, you wrote : >DC: I was attracted to this group by its name Dhammastudygroup. For ustraditional Buddhists, Dhamma is : "svaakhaato bhagavata dhammo, sandi.t.thiko, akaaliko, ehipassiko, opanaiko, paccattam vditabbo, vi~n~nuuhiiti." I wish to focus on the first phrase only: "svaakhaato bhagavata dhammo" which means "the dhamma is well-proclaimed by the Buddha. Thus to study dhamma is to study the teaching of the Buddha Gorama. Not what we imagine it to be but what can be established by methods normally available to us as human beings. ... ... ...etc. >DC: Who is Khun Sujin? Somebody like a moderator or is an authority? Or an arahant? Even if she is an arhant, I think it is more appropriate for her to write her own comments on the matter? >DC: I hope I have made myself clear. Discussion of anatta is inappropriate in a Dhammastudygroup. Else change the name to "Philosphy of Buddhism--discussion group". ............................ T: The confusion is : if you are disappointed with DSG, why don't you quit ? There are several other Internet Buddhist discussion groups to choose. The objective of this group is shown on its Home page. Description A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the `realities' of the present moment). The group started in Bangkok in the early 1970's under the guidance of the Thai Theravadin teacher Khun Sujin Boriharnwanaket. .................... Do you think the discussion here deviates from the objective? Let's discuss it as members should (I am not in the DSG Management), if you want to. Off-list email is fine too. Tep ==== #78041 From: "Robert" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 7:43 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Han, I wish you all the luck in the world in getting answers to questions such as "how can I develop pa~n~naa?" at DSG, but I am afraid the chance of success is vanishingly small. I often asked this type of question here, but, although the members here were very kind in their attempts to answer my questions, I am afraid their answers were always incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you will have a similar experience. I am always very interested in asking simply "how can I live my life wisely and skillfully, so as to cause less harm, do more good, and find some peace in my life?" To me it seems like a straightforward question, but there is the difficulty that the question implies an 'I' that is 'doing', which will cause a flurry of answers - equal in intensity to the efforts of our good firefighters to stamp out the wildfires we had recently here in San Diego - about there being neither an 'I' or a 'doing' . Yet, I know that all that refute the 'I' and the 'doing' are themselves living their lives everyday, which does in fact involve taking on a role in their lives, which is an 'I', and unless they sleep all day, they are in fact 'doing'. So I have never been able to understand why it is anathema to discuss said 'I' and 'doing'. I guess it is ultimately that these kinds of questions do not interest them as much as they interest me. The members here are knowledgeable and write very informative posts, so I still enjoy reading here. I have been seeing you and Tep keeping up the good game and am glad to see that you both are posting here right now. It makes DSG even more enjoyable to read. Best Regards, Robert A. #78042 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 8:49 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 3. ... Some Comments ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, T: "I don't understand why you always ask me to define almost every term I am using..." Scott: Because you and I seem to use the same terms differently and because any good discussion clarifies terms of use. T: "...I have already said a number of times that the conventional truths and ultimate truths are coexisting and inter-connected; they are not dichotomy." Scott: I know, Tep, and I disagree with you which is why merely repeating the same point without clarifying it is not really a discussion - its pounding a nail. You've sidestepped the clarification I was requesting. T: "I hope the following excerpt from Bhikkhu Bodhi's article may convince you to expand your rigid viewpoint. When you become more flexible, then please let me know and I'll be extremely glad to continue the discussion with you." Scott: Continue or not, Tep, as you prefer. Either way is fine. Bhikkhu Bodhi: "The Abhidhamma method of exposition, however, rigorously restricts itself to terms that are valid from the standpoint of ultimate truth (paramatthasacca): dhammas, their characteristics, their functions, and their relations. Thus in the Abhidhamma all such conceptual entities provisionally accepted in the Suttas for purposes of meaningful communication are resolved into their ontological ultimates, into bare mental and material phenomena that are impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen, empty of any abiding self or substance. But a qualification is necessary. When a distinction is drawn between the two methods, this should be understood to be based on what is most characteristic of each Pitaka and should not be interpreted as an absolute dichotomy. To some degree the two methods overlap and interpenetrate." [end of quote] Scott: This discusses methods of exposition. There is a difference between sacca and dhamma when it comes to the qualifier 'paramattha'. You are failing to distinguish between a method of exposition and that which is being examined. In the case of the ultimates, the "bare mental and material phenomena that are impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen, empty of any abiding self or substance", these are all there is and there never is anything else. They don't exist in half form or in conceptual form but only as they are, whether perceived or not. You view seems to suggest that these are not realities until the moment of 'perception'. Sincerely, Scott. #78043 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba truth_aerator > > P. S. Alex has aired similar views. I also made some remarks on a related subject to Han Tun. They may be interesting. >>> This is not so. I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE". I do NOT subscribe to Atta belief. What you probably had in mind, was a discussion about antara-bhava. A) It doesn't require a self. In fact it contradicts "atta" doctrine. How can atta transmigrate? It is an contradictory "unchanging subject" (atta) & "changing subject" (transmigration). B) In any case, the issue of Antara-Bhava which IS found very briefly in Pali Canon IS NOT RELEVANT. Get awakened HERE AND NOW! Lots of Metta, Alex #78044 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) hantun1 Dear James, DC, Nina, Tep, Robert, Thank you very much to all of you for your kind interest and for your valuable comments. I have nothing more to add, but to say that I have noted your valuable comments for my future reference. Respectfully, Han #78045 From: Elaine Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 3. ... Some Comments ... shennieca Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply. I have a few more questions. Scott: 1) It is in the nature of reality that each citta has cetasikas arise as conascent condition; there are 52 mental factors, if I'm not mistaken. Manasikaara is one of the sabbacitta saadhaara.naa cetasikas; it also arises in company of six others (phassa, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, cetanaa, ekagataa, and jiivitindriya) . These seven arise with each and every citta - at each moment of consciousness. Elaine: Thank you for writing all these Pali words. What do you ‘actually’ understand from the text that you wrote above? Can you distinguish every sanna, every cetana, every jivitindiya and every conascent condition? Do you know when this conascent condition has already arisen? How? ----------------------------- Scott: It is good to know, in theory first of course, that not everything one thinks of as yoniso-manasikaraa is necessarily that particular sort of attention. Learning that there can also be unwise attention may at least condition the later ability to distinguish these two experientially. Elaine: Can you give examples of yoniso manasikara (wise attention) and ayoniso manasikara (unwise attention)? What is this "later ability" to distinguish these two experientially? ------------------------- Scott: It is much more likely that one mistake ayoniso manasikaraa for yoniso manasikaraa. Elaine: Can you give an example when someone has mistaken ayoniso manasikara for yoniso manasikara, can you give an actual real life example? (as in conventionally someone doing something). -------------------------------- Scott: I'm not sure what it means for 'a person' to 'get wise'. Elaine: What is it that you are really sure of? How does the ‘not-self’ get anything (wise and unwise)? What is your definition of ‘get wise’? I don't understand your interpretation of 'a person' or 'no person', can you please explain it again? Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine #78046 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 3. ... Some Comments ... scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for your reply. Sincerely, Scott. #78047 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba moellerdieter Dear DC, you wrote: ' About a month ago I made a presentation on Rhys Davids. I am sure, you have seen somewhere in his Buddhism, The Buddha was born a hindu, lived as a hindu and died a Hindu; and that the Buddha's enlightenment is a mystery. And he along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma. He was the most influential and was able to influence all the subsequent generation of Western Buddhist scholars through PTS and PED.' D: I wonder whether you have thought about the situation of the West hundred or more years ago . Very little was known about culture and religion in the East .Only the pioneers of language studies made it possible that first ideas of that great wisdom could spread. Westeners know nowadays ('on the shoulder of the giants') that some of their translations/ interpretations have been wrong, but should one not be careful to belittle their contributions e.g. for the spread of Buddhism and grateful now able due to their base work to recognise their errors? When you state 'And he (Rhys Davids) along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma' , the question comes into my mind, what efforts have been made by e.g. Ceylonese/Sri Lankian scholars to correct misinterpretations in order to avoid the mislead influence at a proper time? I remember a sharp critc by a prominent Thai Buddhist scholar about Schopenhauer being said to be one of the first to introduce Buddhism in the West. But it was him and after him many other pioneers who initiated first interest in the Dhamma. Max Muller ( a Protestant all his life) was 'one of the founders of Indian Studies who virtually created the discipline of comparative religion' and T.W. Rhys Davids (posted to Ceylon for some time ) wrote articles for his monumental work 'Sacred Books of the East' and founded the Pali Text Society. R.D. managed to convince his wife for the first translation of the Dhamma Sangani ... much more to say .. but perhaps some ideas for a new presentation of this subject ? Isn't the following a beautiful quotation? Buddhist or not Buddhist, I have examined every one of the great religious systems of the world, and in none of them have I found anything to surpass, in beauty and comprehensiveness, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. I am content to shape my life according to that path." (T:W.Rhys Davids) with Metta Dieter #78048 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Han, To Nina, Sarah and James hantun1 Dear Nina (and Connie), I will read some more materials on Perfection of Truthfulness, including U Shwe Aung’s articles, and I will post if I find something useful. Thank you very much for your kind encouragement. Respectfully, Han #78049 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba upasaka_howard Hi, Alex and all - In a message dated 11/4/2007 1:25:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE". =========================== We are on the same page in this matter, Alex. As the Buddha taught in the Kaccayangota Sutta (SN 12.15): "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." As for what "the world" means in the foregoing, I believe it is made clear in AN 12.45 that it is nothing other than the contents of the five heaps, for in this sutta the Buddha teaches the following: "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." Incidentally, for those here who think I am really off the mark with my phenomenalism, when Gotama became the Buddha and when the Buddha passed away, did an objective external world, "the cosmos", cease"? Yet the Buddha speaks of "cessation of the cosmos". To speak of the cosmos, as the Buddha does in SN 12.45, as being, arising, and ceasing all "within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect" strikes me as a clear formulation of a phenomenalist perspective. With metta, Howard #78050 From: "colette" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 9:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) ksheri3 Good Morning Tep, Don't you think that "Theravadan", as an aspect of the Dharma, is THEORY? It has to be theory since there really isn't a person alive to dictate that it is the only fact. > The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, As for the "practice" part of the statement, the theory isn't practiced very well if there are not different opinions, beliefs, blah blah blah. Off List is not a very good place to debate the matter of our own existance and it's realativity to a concept. Why should we hide a discussion such as that when we may find that we are all empty shells or who knows what? I think that if I'm an empty shell then I'm the first person that should know about it before any other schmuck. And if I am an empty shell then isn't it my obligation to transform that consciousness so that I can have the chance to rise above being "just another schmuck"? I noticed others replied to your confusion so lets read them and see what else the moderators decided to connect up close to this confused post. toodles, colette #78051 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 11:25 am Subject: "Objective/Ultimate" reality. DN#15, and SN 12.15 truth_aerator Hi All, In DN#15 Buddha has taught that Vinnana depends on Nama-Rupa and Nama- Rupa itself depends on Vinnana. You cannot have something apart from Consciousness and Consciousness apart from something to be conscious of. 5 Aggregates fit very nicely into 6 sense consciousness, and 5 aggregates fit well into DO. When talking about the world, the Buddha has called dependent origination to be origination of the world. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html Also the Buddha described the world by 5 aggregates: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.082.than.html "Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html "Now what, monks, is old karma? The eye is to be seen as old karma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear ... The nose ... The tongue ... The body ... The intellect is to be seen as old karma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old karma." SN35.145 "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. SN22.95 – Foam There are two extremes: Everything exists, everything doesn't exist. Tathagata teaches by the middle (ie dependent origination, conditionality, mutual interdependence). - SN 12.15 . There is NO such thing as objective reality. How so? If Vinnana would cease, would nama-rupa be discerned or experienced? No. Only when there is vinnana can there be "something", "nothing", "both" or "neither". It is contradictory to say that "nama-rupa" can be outside of vinnana. If it is so, then it is NOT EXPERIENCED. If something is NOT experienced then it is a) irrelevant and b) non provable c) can't be "reality" much less ultimate. If nama-rupa is with Vinnana then it cannot be said to be independent and objective reality in itself. Furthermore the statement itself that "there is rupa independent of consciousness" is a subjective (conscious) statement rather than an objective fact. Now how can there be fact without it being experienced? It is like declaring that green giant Dragons exist on Earth right now even though we are not seeing them. None of the above statement say that Vinnana is independent of nama-rupa and is its cause. That would be Idealism which isn't what Buddha taught. Neither is Vinnana a byproduct of Nama-Rupa. Both of them simultaneously depend on each other like 3 sticks leaning on each other. Remove one, and they all fall apart. Now a typical question of a Realist may run as follows. "Lets say that person standing over there goes unconscious. Why didn't the world disappear and we are still talking?" Answer: Your consiousness didn't cease, mine consciousness didn't either. Thus for us there IS object of consciousness. For that person without consciousness there aren't any concepts and aren't any categories of "existence, non-existence, both, neither". Another critical question: "If there is no objective reality, how can two people read the same thing? For example this text?" Answers: a) Similarity of perceptions (consciousness). b) None of this goes outside of the range of cognizing. c) Since ultimately self cannot be proven to exist, other person equally does not have self existence either. So I am not talking about "Solipsism" or many selves existing somewhere. There are just vinnana dependent on nama-rupa. This BTW also shows why beginning of Samsara is not discernable. Because when Buddha looked back in his previous lives he could recollect only nama-rupa inside vinnana (his consciousness). He couldn't be conscious of unconscious moment before consciousness first appeared. You can't be conscious of unconsciousness. Furthermore time-space requires consciousness to be discerned, experienced and defined. Thus there couldn't be something or any duration before the consciousness first appeared. Thus none of the categories are ultimate, even (vinnana & nama-rupa mutual interdependence). Vinnana and Nama-Rupa CAN cease precisely because they are not self and do not belong to self. Speaking about "self", craving conceit and views (tanha, mananna, ditthi) just LOVE ultimate categories. Ultimate categories suggest stability (and thus happiness), something the delusion of self craves and wants to stand on wants to appropriate and depend on......... In one of the Sn suttas, the Buddha has said about fate of Arahant. And in another, Ven. Sariputta has said that language goes only as far as 6 sense go. When 6 senses cease "existence, non-existence, both, neither" do not apply. Thus without consiousness, the fate of "Arahant" cannot be described in any of those 4 ways. AN4.174 Heck, there wasn't a substantial Arahant to begin with (yamaka sutta). Lots of Metta, Alex #78052 From: Elaine Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 11:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) shennieca Hello Robert A, Oh wow! I think you have captured the whole essence of DSG perfectly. The DSG notion of the "no-I" and the "no-doing" is contradictory from the actual real life stuffs that they are actually doing. They are sitting at the PC typing, thinking and doing things. Yet they are saying "no-I" and "no-doing". It is as if there is this mystical "not-I" that is "not doing", did some things on their behalf. Furthermore, from what I understand, this "doing things" whether it is a good or bad thing, they won't know. Someone asked, "and how would 'one' know?" As if one does not know if he has done something good or bad. Really? You mean we won't know what is kusala from akusala? Why? Then how could anyone go to heavenly realm by not knowing all these things? The questions about pa~n~na, how does it arise? If the answer given is "from the right conditions without "you" having to "do" anything about it" - hmmm, that I cannot agree. According to some, "considering" the dhamma will make pa~n~na arise. What is there to consider? The Dhamma is soo deep, it can only be understood with sati-sampajanna. Pa~n~na cannot arise with mere consideration of the Dhamma. If it were that easy, there will be many of Arahants / philosophers on earth, eh? Best wishes, Elaine ---------------------------- #78053 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 1:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) truth_aerator Hello all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hello Robert A, > > Oh wow! I think you have captured the whole essence of DSG perfectly. The DSG notion of the "no-I" and the "no-doing" is contradictory from the actual real life stuffs that they are actually doing. > > They are sitting at the PC typing, thinking and doing things. Yet they are saying "no-I" and "no-doing". It is as if there is this mystical "not-I" that is "not doing", did some things on their behalf. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very good observation. IF we read Buddha's original discourses we will see a difference (a subtle one) from the above discussion. Buddha has stressed putting the teaching into PRACTICE and to ask THE PROPER QUESTIONS (yoniso manasikara). ----- "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of- the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. " - mn2 --------- "Knowledge" has to come from direct experience - PERIOD. Only direct experience is what truly matters... Suffering (dukkha), Faith (saddha), Joy (pamojja), Rapture (piti), Tranquility (passaddhi), Happiness (sukha), Concentration (samadhi), Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassana), Disenchantment (nibbida), Dispassion (viraga), Emancipation (vimutti), Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana) Upanisa Sutta (notice on what Knowledge and Vision depends... :) ) >>>>> >The questions about pa~n~na, how does it arise? If the answer given is "from the right conditions without "you" having to "do" anything about it" - hmmm, that I cannot agree. >>>>>>>>> 5 Faculties: Conviction, persistence, mindfulness, samadhi, discernment (panna). Notice a possible step by step development saddha -> viriya -> sati - > samadhi -> panna. One has conviction, develops good qualities while abandons bad ones, develops mindfulness that reaches samadhi from which liberating Panna arises. Arising and Passing away seems like 13th step of Anapanasati. Considering that 4 Jhanas (samadhi) came just right before Panna, it is not unlikely that Panna develops through Jhanas. ------ And what is the faculty of discernment? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with discernment of arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to the right ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is called the faculty of discernment. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html Also in other suttas samma ditthi is generally described as 4 NT. One discerns, 'This is stress.' One discerns, 'This is the origination of stress.' One discerns, 'This is the cessation of stress.' One discerns, 'This is the practice leading to the cessation of stress.' 'One discerns, one discerns': Thus one is said to be 'discerning.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html ------------ "And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view... (right view is the opposite of the wrong view written above) "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view." — MN 117 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma- ditthi/index.html -------------- Also another factor that goes into Wisdom is samma-sankappo (Right resolve) "And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html ------------ "The purpose of discernment is direct knowledge, its purpose is full comprehension, its purpose is abandoning." - mn43 > According to some, "considering" the dhamma will make pa~n~na arise. What is there to consider? The Dhamma is soo deep, it can only be understood with sati-sampajanna. Pa~n~na cannot arise with mere consideration of the Dhamma. If it were that easy, there will be many of Arahants / philosophers on earth, eh? >>>>>>>> Satipathana is called "ekayano maggo" (Direct Path or the Only Way)... Meditation like anapanasati develops satipathana (mn118)... Direct path doesn't mention scholasticism (though basic sutta knowledge is a must). Those who studied the history of Buddhism are very well aware of the kind of things that scholasticism has brought.... Lots of Metta, Alex #78054 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Objective/Ultimate" reality. DN#15, and SN 12.15 upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/4/2007 2:26:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi All, In DN#15 Buddha has taught that Vinnana depends on Nama-Rupa and Nama- Rupa itself depends on Vinnana. You cannot have something apart from Consciousness and Consciousness apart from something to be conscious of. ================================== Our perspectives seem identical, Alex. It is what I refer to as my "phenomenalism". Have you ever read any of William James' "radical empiricism"? With metta, Howard #78055 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Objective/Ultimate" reality. DN#15, and SN 12.15 truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Our perspectives seem identical, Alex. It is what I refer to as my > "phenomenalism". Have you ever read any of William James' "radical empiricism"? > > With metta, > Howard > I've probably encountered that term (radical empiricism) and maybe some quotes of that author . However I have not read book by that author. I generally don't like to read non-buddhist books and I generally avoid them. Notion of consciousness & object of consiousness being interdependent I've got from meditation experience. Lots of Metta, Alex #78056 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 3:35 pm Subject: "Higher" Philosophies, Dukkha and actual practice... truth_aerator Thus have I thought... Some say there are 75 dhammas. Some say there are 100 dharmas. Some say we directly see dhammas. Some say that we see mental representations of dharmas. Some say that in each second 75 dharmas pass by. Some say that in each second billions of dhammas pass by... Some say there is a store house consiousness (alaya vinnana)... Some proclaim Emptiness from self... Some proclaim Emptiness from another... Some proclaim sunyata-sunyata... How does all this effects the practice such as anapanasati or even N8P? When one's cloth are on fire, thoughts about existential status of fire is kinda out of place... The immedeate concern is how to put it out as fast as possible and get rid of pain... No amount of dialectic will put out the pain... Thinking about this my mind had a light bulb flash moment... #78057 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch 17, no 3. ... Some Comments ... buddhistmedi... Dear Scott, - You are my dhamma-discussion friend (not a fiend), no question about it. So let's continue our unfinished converstaion. :-) > >T: "...I have already said a number of times that the conventional truths and ultimate truths are coexisting and inter-connected; they are not dichotomy." >Scott: I know, Tep, and I disagree with you which is why merely repeating the same point without clarifying it is not really a discussion - its pounding a nail. You've sidestepped the clarification I was requesting. T: Does it mean you also disagree with Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote that I posted last time? [Bhikkhu Bodhi's main point is that there should be no competition between the Suttanta and Abhidhamma methods - - i.e. they "overlap and interpenetrate".] It is very much the same as what I said above. BTW I like that analogy -- "pounding a nail" ! Yes, it is only noisy and nothing else. .......... >S: This discusses methods of exposition. There is a difference between sacca and dhamma when it comes to the qualifier 'paramattha'. You are failing to distinguish between a method of exposition and that which is being examined. In the case of the ultimates, the "bare mental and material phenomena that are impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen, empty of any abiding self or substance", these are all there is and there never is anything else. They don't exist in half form or in conceptual form but only as they are, whether perceived or not. Your view seems to suggest that these are not realities until the moment of 'perception'. T: Realities (phenomena) are what they are, one's perceiving of them do not alter the truths. Right perception of the realities alters one's view from wrong to right, and from 'not seeing & not knowing' to 'seeing & knowing' them the way they truly are. That has been my view on the dhammas. Tep === #78058 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 6:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. .. Tep's Two Points ... buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - Please take your time. I know that a good, thorough reply cannot be written in a hurry. Thanks. Tep ==== #78059 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 7:02 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Colette (and Good Evening), - I am glad to read your comment on the key sentence of DSG's objective, i.e. "The discussions include matters of both theory and practice,". It should be interesting to find out how they "practice" the paramattha dhammas, since they have said : 'no one is practicing' or 'doing' anything, anywhere. C: As for the "practice" part of the statement, the theory isn't practiced very well if there are not different opinions, beliefs, blah blah blah. T: The main trouble has been caused by different opinions that are stemming from the worldlings' viewpoints (that have not yet purified). C: Off List is not a very good place to debate the matter of our own existance and it's realativity to a concept. Why should we hide a discussion such as that when we may find that we are all empty shells or who knows what? T: You are right that good and useful dhamma discussions should never be hidden from other members. But I only suggest an off-list communication when there are opinionated views that may be damaging. Thanks. Tep === #78060 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 9:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) sarahprocter... Hi Tep (DC & Colette), --- Tep Sastri wrote: ... > T: You are right that good and useful dhamma discussions should never > be hidden from other members. But I only suggest an off-list > communication when there are opinionated views that may be damaging. ... S: :-))Interesting! Could you give us an example of these 'damaging' 'opinionated views', Tep? This was the last comment of DC's which you responded to: DC "Discussion of anatta is inappropriate in a Dhammastudygroup. Else change the name to "Philosphy of Buddhism--discussion group". " S: Does this mean that you agree with DC's comment or think that stressing anatta in the Buddha's teaching is one of those 'damaging' 'opinionated views'? Is the development of understanding visible object as anatta now a 'philosophy of Buddhism', DC? Is the development of understanding of seeing consciousness now as seeing consciousness, not atta at all, a 'philosophy of Buddhism'? Here's an extract from an earlier post I wrote, picking up on the lines you appreciate from the sutta: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/54621 >From the Udana (#10, Baahiya, Masefield transl): ..... “Therefore, Baahiya, you .should so train yourself that with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen, that with respect to the heard there will be merely the heard.......cognised.....” ..... S: So looking at the additional commentary notes (transl by Masefiled, PTS): ..... “ ‘With respect to the seen....merely the seen (di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m)’: with respect to a sight-base (ruupaayatane) (there will be) merely that seen by means of eye-cosnciousness......eye-consciousness, with respect to form (ruupe), beholds mere form (ruupa.m) alone”. When there is awareness of eye-consciousness, it is this experiencing of visible object which is known (by eye-cosnciousness). When there is awareness of visible object, it is just the characteristic of what is seen (by eye-consciousness) which is known. ........ S: Now, you might rightly say that this explanation is only from the commentary. However, I see no difference when I look at the suttas themselves. For example, recently some of the Samyutta Nikaya suttas in the Salayatanasamyutta section have been discussed. Here’s one: .... 35:68 Samiddhi (4) (Bodhi transl with a Pali phrase inserted): “ ‘Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the world, the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, might there be the world or the description of the world?” “Where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, eye-cosnciousness, things to be cognized by eye-consciousness, there the world exists or the description for the world. [Yattha kho samiddhi atthi cakkhu atthi ruupaa atthi cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m atthi cakkhuvi~n~naa.na vi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa, atthi tattha lokl vaa lokapa~n~natti vaa] “Where there is the ear.....the mind, where there are mental phenomena, mind-consciousness, things to be cognized by mind-consciousness, there the world exists or the description of the world.” (then the reverse is given, ‘when there is no eye’ etc)."< ***** S: Is this philosphy or actuality? Look forward to any further comments. .... Metta, Sarah ======= #78061 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. sarahprocter... Dear DC (Sukin & Tep), --- Sukinder wrote: > Dear DC, > > In case the reason is that you forgot. This is to remind you that you > have not yet responded to post #77615 of mine. ... S: :-) Poor DC! Now Sukin & Tep have both reminded me that he and I were having some discussions on the origins of the Abhidhamma, paramattha, omniscience and so on which seemed to 'die'.... I just did a quick search and DC, I'm not sure that you replied to #77010, #76687 and possibly #76625....I mention them because you repeat your point about the Abhidhamma not being Buddha vacana and so on. Metta, Sarah ======= #78062 From: Elaine Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi DC, all, Sorry about the late reply. I agree with you, it is impossible to read other people’s mind unless that person has mind-reading ability (abhinna superpower). DC: There seem to such a lot of people who seem to be able to know other peoples mind. Elaine: Mind reading ability? It is doubtful unless they have proven themselves to be accurate. ------------------------ DC: There is a world of difference between these two expressions. When I say, I know, it is based on my experience. On the other hand, if I say 'he knows', that is not based on my direct experience. My statement has no validity. Elaine: Yes, that’s true. If you say you have experienced something, how can someone else invalidate it? Unless that someone knows for sure that the thing is totally false and imaginary. If my friend tells me she has experienced namarupa, I am not going to tell her that she is ‘imagining’ it. --------------------- I have a few questions for the Abhidhammikas. This ‘Citta that knows Vedana’. Is the Citta in every human being the same or is it different? About this ‘Citta that knows Vedana’. I don't know what this "knowing" is. I hope we can get some replies from the Abhidhammikas soon. Sincerely, Elaine ---------------------- #78063 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba dcwijeratna Dear Dieter, This is with respect to your e-m addressed to me. You wrote: >:Dear DC, ' About a month ago I made a presentation on Rhys Davids. I am sure, you have seen somewhere in his Buddhism, The Buddha was born a hindu, lived as a hindu and died a Hindu; and that the Buddha's enlightenment is a mystery. And he along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma. He was the most influential and was able to influence all the subsequent generation of Western Buddhist scholars through PTS and PED.' >D: I wonder whether you have thought about the situation of the West hundred or more years ago . Very little was known about culture and religion in the East .Only the pioneers of language studies made it possible that first ideas of that great wisdom could spread. Westeners know nowadays ('on the shoulder of the giants') that some of their translations/ interpretations have been wrong, but should one not be careful to belittle their contributions e.g. for the spread of Buddhism and grateful now able due to their base work to recognise their errors? ................................... DC: I think you are reading too much into my post. (1) I was talking about the interpretation of Dhamma. Not about the spread of what you call "Buddhism". Your statement above is therefore based on a faulty inference. I have not so far uttered a word about "spread of Buddhism". Technically the contribution of RhD's to the spread of "Buddhism", has been recognised by me when I say "He was the most influential..." The word most is a superlative--that is no body greater than him. It would help if discussions are based on careful reading. For the Buddha's advice on this reference can be made to DN 1. .................................. When you state 'And he (Rhys Davids) along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma' , the question comes into my mind, what efforts have been made by e.g. Ceylonese/Sri Lankian scholars to correct misinterpretations in order to avoid the mislead influence at a proper time? DC: I really do not wish to answer this question. I am discussing scholarly interpretations in general and not by any particular group. But to satisfy your curiosity, here are my views: Nothing, I think, as far as I am aware. Sri Lankan scholars--Western educated-- were trained in England by English scholars who were, as I mentioned influenced by Rhys Davids. By the way, this is an interesting problem. When a religion gets transmitted or spread, it is really a two way process; not one way. [I make a sharp distinction beween the Dhamma and a religion] It modifies the belief systems of both the transmitter and the receiver. ........................ >D: I remember a sharp critc by a prominent Thai Buddhist scholar about Schopenhauer being said to be one of the first to introduce Buddhism in the West. But it was him and after him many other pioneers who initiated first interest in the Dhamma. Max Muller ( a Protestant all his life) was 'one of the founders of Indian Studies who virtually created the discipline of comparative religion' and T.W. Rhys Davids (posted to Ceylon for some time ) wrote articles for his monumental work 'Sacred Books of the East' and founded the Pali Text Society. R.D. managed to convince his wife for the first translation of the Dhamma Sangani ... much more to say .. but perhaps some ideas for a new presentation of this subject ? DC: I am not aware of the Thai Buddhist Scholar, so I really can't say anything about what he has said. But in the scholarly world, generally Schopenhauer is considered the pioneer of Buddhist studies in the West. I think my ealier response would be sufficient for the rest of the above para, except I wish to say Something about Mrs. R.D. She was, in my opinion, the most perceptive of Buddhist scholar of her generation. But what happened to her ultimately, She introduced "Self " into Buddhism. Lot of people blame the lady for that and really her later works are not even consulted by scholars any more. Because of her contribution to the "Abhidhamma studies", they attribute it to the schock of losing her son in the first World War. But I don't think so. She only analysed and articulated her husbands interpretation of the Dhamma. Something interesting: Schopenhauer wrote before, Rhys Davids, and RhD had been in Germany, but there is no mention of Scopenhauer in RhD. I find it little strange. Schopenhauer's fame has spread long before RhD commenced writing. >D: Isn't the following a beautiful quotation? Buddhist or not Buddhist, I have examined every one of the great religious systems of the world, and in none of them have I found anything to surpass, in beauty and comprehensiveness, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. I am content to shape my life according to that path." (T:W.Rhys Davids) DC: I actually tried out to find out where it is. I could not find it in the literature. Certainly it is beautiful. But his comparison is restricted to virtue, "sila", etc. Because he accepted only that part. He was fascinated by the Buddhist ethics. And had he thought deeper, it would have dawned on him that there is very little to choose between different religious traditions. If you look at the Dhammapada, you will note that a whole chapter is devoted to Brahamana. In Ethics, there are no absolutes. with Metta Dieter #78064 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 11:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya sarahprocter... Hi Elaine & all, Thank you for all your replies and pursuing many helpful topics. --- Elaine wrote: > E: Do you know whether the chief monk is practicing Samatha or > Vipassana meditation at the Vulture’s Peak? You said some Satipatthana > Sutta questions were raised, so I presume that he is practicing > Vipassana. .... S: First we need to agree on what is meant by samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. These terms mean many things to many people. In an absolute sense, the terms refer to the development of particular kinds of consciousness accompanied by wisdom. Of course, the wisdom of vipassana is different from the wisdom of samatha. .... > S: I think we have a different understanding of what 'calmness' is and > what 'vipassana' is. As I understand the meaning of vipassana, no one > can practice it. It refers to the development of insights through > satipatthana. > > E: Yes, I think we understand it differently. Vipassana comes from 2 > words, Vi + Passana. Vi means “in various ways” and Passana means > “seeing”, so Vipassana means, “seeing in various ways”. What do you > understand by Vipassana? ... S: Yes, vipassana means eseing clearly. Specifically, it refers to the insights which see namas and rupas as they really are as elements, devoid of atta. ... >When you say no one can practise Vipassana, > that literally means, “no one can practise seeing in various ways”. This > seeing is with the mind’s eye, which will lead to wisdom. No? ... S: It is panna which 'sees clearly'. It is panna which penetrates the characteristics of visible object, seeing consciousness, sound, hearing consciousness and other dhammas which appear now. .... > E: It is impossible for me to analyze my thoughts whether it is kusala > or akusala when it comes to judging calmness. > > In your opinion, is calmness always necessarily Akusala? ... S: No, never. Calmness accompanies every moment of kusala and no moments of akusala. I apologise if anything I've said gave any other idea. ... > I think calmness is a precursor to insight. I don’t mean you need > Jhana to get to Insight, but some level of calmness is necessary. Ohhh > ok, now I see it, maybe your understanding of calmness and mine is > different? ... S: There cannot be insight (or any kind of panna, even pariyatti (intellectual right understanding) without calmness. This doesn't mean there has to be any focussing on calmness in order for right understanding to develop. We read in various suttas (for example, SN:1.46,(6) Nymphs), about "right view running out in front" where right view is 'vipassanaa-sammaaditthi'. It clears the way by understanding the khandhas and so on, so that later the ariyan path factors can arise and eradicate the defilements. .... > My meaning of calmness is, the mind is not agitated, this calmness may > lead to deeper calmness such as one-pointedness of the mind, and > hopefully to Right Concentration, Samma-samadhi. .... S: I think that calmness (pasaddhi cetasika) and one-pointedness (ekagatta cetasika) are two distinct qualities. Usually, the concentration is wrong concentration. As you suggest, when it is right concentration, calmness accompanies it. Again, there is always right concentration at moments of panna, right understanding. Without the understanding being developed, however, wrong concentration and attachment will inevitably be taken for right concentration and calm. .... > > What does KS teach regarding Samma-samadhi? That it arises on its own > without having to do anything? This Samma-samadhi will not arise while > you are doing daily activities or while typing an e-mail reply and I’m > sorry to say that out loud in DSG. ... S: No need to apologise! A good point to discuss. There are many kinds and levels of samma-samadhi. If there is kindness or consideration now, then there is samma-samadhi accompanying the kusala citta. If there is generosity or wise reflection now, again there is samma-samadhi. If there is awareness and understanding of visible object now, then it is samma-samadhi of the path now. ... > When I do satipatthana, my cittanupassana ability is weak. > Cittanupassana is the ‘Contemplation of the Consciousness’ as mentioned > in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, or as, ‘the watching of the mind’. > > If you are able to watch the mind in your daily practise, sadhu to you > because that is the most admirable practice a person can ever have. Sort > of like an arahant who is forever mindful. ... S: Awareness is momentary. I don't understand it to be 'watching' of any kind or related to anything we do. Now, is there a consciousness with anger or attachment? If so, it can be known just when it appears as citta, not anyone or thing in the citta, not belonging to anyone either. Gone immediately! No use looking for it, otherwise it's bound to be attachment again. No need to even think about how much, how little, otherwise again, there's just more clinging to self:-) ... > E: Right now, while typing this e-mail, I feel rather calm. I'm not > angry, excited or sad. I think it is appropriate for me to be calm. I > don’t think it is attachment because I don’t seek it or feel unhappy > when it is gone. > > I don’t think any of us, who are puthujjanas can bravely say that we > have already let go of attachments. Have you let go of any attachments - > subtle and gross? The best that I can do when attachment (cravings, > greed) arises, is to be aware of it but it is very difficult to do, > everytime I have cravings to eat chocolates, I go and eat it > immediately. I am not too good with watching the mind yet. heheh. > Attachment to a person is the hardest to let go, I feel. .... S: I agree with you that attachment to a person is a very strong attachment and that all attachments are very pernicious. What you are saying is the truth about anatta and 'no control'. If self could direct attachment to disappear, it would be easy. We wouldn't need the Buddha's teaching. There isn't any self to 'let go' and when we wish to be free of any kind fo attachment, again it indicates a lack of detachment right then! .... Metta, Sarah p.s In a note to DC, you kindly asked DC, Tep, myself and others to say a little more about ourselves. I think it's fair enough to ask any of the DSG 'oldies' here this question too, so here are a few comments following your lead. Feel free to ask anyone else too! Old DSG members, feel very free to skip this! .... I'm in my 50s. I was born and grew up in England and studied psychology and criminology for my undergraduate hons.degree. I had had an interest in religions and psychology for quite a long time. When I graduated, I worked for a couple of months or so with severely handicapped children and teenagers and then set off overland to India (as planned for a long time) with very little money. I had just turned 21 and knew no one else with an interest in Buddhism and no one else who had travelled overland to India. I lived in a Tibetan tent in Bodh Gaya (and a Burmese vihara in Rajghir) for several months, studying the teachings (from the popular and well-known books) and meditating under Munindra's guidance (Mahasi-style), and also spending a little time with Goenka. I also spent several months living in a forest temple in Sri Lanka, strictly following 8 precepts and continuing the Mahasi-style practice. Everyone was very kind to me. I had intended to become a nun when I arrived and when I found this was impossible, lived liked one. Here, thanks to a good friend Ann, I listened to a tape of A.Sujin talking about present dhammas, talking about seeing a visible object or hearing a sound and immediately building up a long, long story about it. I appreciated that there really was no atta, no control, no need to follow any meditation practice or live anywhere in particular. I also read a draft manuscript of part of Nina's book, Abhidhamma in Daily Life, and the the first pages about namas and rupas were very helpful. I started reading Tipitaka texts and commentaries such as the Visuddhimagga and soon returned home to help family with various problems. I worked with delinquent adolescents and psychiatric patients and studied and listened to recordings made by Jon in Bangkok in my free time. I visited Nina and then accompanied her and A.Sujin to Sri Lanka twice and India once. Later I stayed a few times with A.Sujin in Bangkok too. Nina has always kindly sent me copies of all her letters and drafts of books like 'Cetasikas' in chapter form from the start. Of course, we had no internet then, not even electric typewriters, let alone computers Jon had already been studying with A.Sujin for many years and he helped publish and distribute Nina's books (ADL & BDL in two books initially) all over the world. He sent me boxes to England which I'd take to various temples. He accompanied A.Sujin to England. Later Jon and I got married there. (My mother and other family members are all in England. Jon's family are in Australia.) We've been in Hong Kong for nearly 25 yrs now. We've always worked very hard, but never felt this is any impediment at all to 'practice'. We've always been fortunate to be able to visit A.Sujin or have her visit us. Always she's reminded us of the present moment, regardless of the activity. So even when I've had no time to read or write or study the texts or when one of us has been very ill, I've had confidence that awareness can arise and be aware of present dhammas. I feel life is very free and easy when one doesn't have any idea about another time or place or activity being preferable for the development of satipatthana. Instead of leading to any kind of neglect or laziness, it has had the opposite effect, I find. I also have confidence that no matter how life turns out (whether we get our 'wishes' or not), the only thing that really matters is the development of understanding and the growth of detachment towards what is conditioned now, even as we speak. That was a little longer than intended! Metta, Sarah ======= #78065 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2007 11:06 pm Subject: The Immutable! bhikkhu0 Friends: Real & Absolute, but not to be Seen, Heard or Sensed! The Buddha once said about The Signless NibbÄ?na: There is that which is unborn, uncreated, unformed & unconstructed! If, Bhikkhus, there was not this unborn, uncreated, unformed and unconstructed, no escape from what is born, created, formed and constructed could ever be realized... But since there indeed exists that, which is utterly unborn, uncreated, unformed and unconstructed, the escape from this born, created, formed & constructed state can therefore indeed be realized!!! That which is born, that which is become, that which is conditioned, that which is dependent, that which is co-arisen, that which is created, that which is unstable, that which is the bridge between birth and death this seat of disease, with nutriment & birth as its cause, will perish...! It is nothing in which to cling or to rejoice... The escape from this is calm, beyond the sphere of logic, being that which is firmly stable, that which is unborn, that which is not co-arisen, but sorrow-free, & stainless, this realm is the final ceasing of states involving pain, the stilling of all construction, Bliss, Peace ... Udana – Inspiration: VIII - 3 The Signless NibbÄ?na: There is that state, where there is neither earth, water, fire nor any air, where there is neither solidity, nor any fluidity, nor heat nor any motion, where there is neither infinity of space or consciousness, nor nothingness, where no subtle state of neither-perception-nor-non-perception remains, where there is neither any ‘here’ nor any ‘there’ of this or any other world, where there is neither any sun, nor moon, nor planet, nor any universe at all, There, Bhikkhus, one cannot designate neither any coming, nor any going, nor any remaining, nor duration, nor any beginning & much less any ending... Neither is there any activity, nor any movement, nor any fixed stability, nor any ground, basis or source for a conditioning medium whatsoever... This unity - just this – is the End of Suffering. Udana – Inspiration: VIII - 1 .... Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * .... #78066 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological and Bodily Continuity - Gethin and Questions? sarahprocter... Dear DC, --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > Conclusion: The theory of momentariness (khanavaada) fails to explain > the continuity of the human being. ... S: Rather, I think that the continuity (santati)of consciousness, or of the khandhas can only be explained by uninterrupted arising and falling away of momentary cittas and cetasikas, following each other in succession by anantara paccaya. .... >One discordant note is the reference > to "Buddhist practice" [after Q1]. I have no personal knowledge of any > "Buddhist practicitioner" who has been in the least influenced by the > theory of momentariness. .... S: I think we need to consider what is meant by a 'Buddhist practitioner" too:-). Can awareness last for more than a moment? When attachment or ignorance arises, is there any 'Buddhist practitioner'? For that matter, when there is any understanding, is there any 'Buddhist practitioner'? .... > >Chris--The trouble is that you think you have time---But don't hurry. > We have > DSGM: But don't hurry. We have a long way to go. Haste makes waste. ... S: A long way, as you say......a long way, one moment at a time:-) ........ Appreciating all your good-humoured contributions and explanations. Metta, Sarah ======== #78067 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 12:17 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello Han, > > I wish you all the luck in the world in getting answers to questions such > as "how can I develop pa~n~naa?" at DSG, but I am afraid the chance > of success is vanishingly small. ++++++++++\ Dear Robert and Han http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html Right view "Friend, how many conditions are there for the arising of right view?" "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." Robert #78068 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 12:20 am Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) hantun1 Dear All, Topic: Puggala pa~n~natti There are many discussions on “no-person.” If there were no persons, why did the Buddha took the trouble to teach about puggalas in Puggala pa~n~natti, the fourth book of Abhidhamma Pitaka? The entire book is full of classifications of *persons*. I wrote to Sarah, vide my message #76751, about this issue. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76751 In my message, I wrote that in the book of Puggala pa~n~natti, in one place, the Buddha said there are four kinds of Dhamma-kathika (Dhamma Teachers): (1) One Teacher teaches very little; not dealing with the subject matter; and the audience does not understand whether what he teaches is in line with subject matter or not. (2) One Teacher teaches very little; dealing with the subject matter; and the audience understands whether what he teaches is in line with subject matter or not. (3) One Teacher teaches quite a lot; not dealing with the subject matter; and the audience does not understand whether what he teaches is in line with subject matter or not. (4) One Teacher teaches quite a lot; dealing with the subject matter; and the audience understands whether what he teaches is in line with subject matter or not. [The translations are my translations as I do not have the English translation of the Pali text.] From the above passage, it is very clear that there are definitely “persons”, namely, the teachers and the audience. So I asked Sarah how she would explain this? ==================== Sarah replied to me, vide her message #76788 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76788 The reply message was quite deep for me. For example, Sarah wrote, “When we read about different kinds of teachers or students, in fact there could be enlightenment now if there were enough understanding from the development of satipatthana and if the depth of the Buddha's teachings were really understood and penetrated.” ==================== Meanwhile, Nina explained to me about Puggala pa~n~natti Maatikaa, vide her message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76746 and confirmed that the five khandhas are citta, cetasika and ruupa, and that the Buddha classified them in many ways including as five khandhas, and also as dhaatus, as aayatanas, and also that they are present only at the moment of their arising. And also aayatana, dhaatu, and indriya are naama and ruupa, and present when they arise. Therefore, I take it that the entire Puggala pa~n~natti boils down to just naama and ruupa. ==================== In view of the above and based on Sarah’s reply I wrote to Sarah, vide my message #76792, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76792 I wrote that if in terms of realities there are only citta, cetasika and ruupa, or naama and ruupa, and everything else is not reality, and even with naama and ruupa, they are realities only at the moment of their arising, it would make my study of Abhidhamma very easy. I need just to learn naama and ruupa at the moment of their arising, and forget everything else! I also suggested that in view of the above, I think it will be better if we take out Puggala pa~n~natti from Abhidhamma Pitaka and put it in Suttanta Pitaka, because it is very similar to DN 33 and DN 34, and there is no place in Abhidhamma Pitaka for something which is not reality in the ultimate sense. ==================== All these facts were put before Khun Sujin for her comments. Khun Sujin said that when the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma, he taught the entire Abhidhamma and not in seven books. Only at the later Buddhist Councils, they were arranged in seven books for convenience. She added that there are only groups of dhaatus. As the groups of dhaatus are different, *names* are designated to differentiate one group of dhaatus from another group. Thus what we call ‘teacher’ is just a group of dhaatus. As regards taking it out of Abhidhamma Pitaka and putting it in Suttanta Pitaka, Khun Sujin, Jon and other participants said that pa~n~natti are mentioned in Abhidhamma, and Abhidhamma terminologies, such as khandha, aayatana, dhaatu, are also mentioned in suttas. Therefore, one should not consider sutta and Abhidhamma as two separate entities, and in fact they are complementary to each other. For me, despite whatever was said at the Meeting, I consider that there are *puggalas* and not just groups of dhaatus. I may be wrong, but I will stick to it. Respectfully, Han #78069 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological and Bodily Continuity - Gethin and Questions? sarahprocter... Dear Elaine, --- Elaine wrote: > Dear Sarah, all, > > Has anyone here experienced this "momentary mental factor which arises > at every single instant, with every single consciousness (citta), > falling away immediately?" ... S: You are referring to sanna (perception). I have no doubt that the Buddha and key disciples certainly directly understood its characteristic and nature of arising and falling away with every citta. Appreciating this helps us to understand that all such functions are performed by different dhammas, not by any self. It doesn't mean we will ever have a Buddha's wisdom:-). .... > I am hoping I will be able to realize the "..." in this lifetime, > through doing bhavana (mental development). ... S: Hoping for such results will not help! Detachment towards what is conditioned now is far more useful!! .... > By the way, how do you 'see' this "momentary mental factor...." > without bhavana? ... S: The momentariness or the arising and falling away of a conditioned dhamma can only be 'seen' through the development of satipatthana at the third stage of vipassana nana. So, there has to be bhavana, direct understanding of namas and rupas over and over again first. .... >Can you type an e-mail and realize this momentary > mental factor? Someone (I think RobK) once told me citta goes by soooo > fast, it is impossible to imagine how fast it is, so how are you able to > 'see' / 'understand' it, Sarah? ... S: Again, it's the function of panna to 'see' or know, not the function of any person. When there is an awareness of a dhamma, any dhamma, there is no idea of cittas going soooo fast or any other idea. Thanks for the good questions! Metta, Sarah ====== #78070 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. - to Sukin sarahprocter... Hi again, Elaine, --- Elaine wrote: > Oh I really like your explanation on pain. > > Sarah: It's impossible not to have experienced painful feelings. > However, they are brief conditioned dhammas that arise and fall away > like all other conditioned dhammas. Is there painful bodily feeling > appearing now? If not (for example, when there is seeing, hearing or > other experiences) , then it is just thinking about it. > > Elaine: The way you explain it is like how an Arahant experiences > pain. If you have mastered 'understanding' the arising and falling of > pain like that, congrats. You are not afraid of pain anymore. Sadhu to > you. ... S: Only an anagami has no more aversion or fear of any kind:-). Elaine, sometimes in your explanations you refer to being mindful of impermanence and so on. You also refer to nibbana. Without an understanding of the arising and falling away of feelings and other dhammas, there will never be any understanding of impermanence, let alone realisation of nibbana. Without a clear understanding of the conditioned nature of dhammas, there will never be an understanding of the arising and falling away of dhammas. Without a clear understanding of namas and rupas appearing now, quite distinct from each other, quite distinct from thinking about them, there will never be any more highly developed understanding. without hearing, considering and reflecting wisely on such namas and rupas, this direct understanding (vipassana) cannot arise either. So this is why, to my mind, bhavana begins here and now with the wise reflection and consideration about what exactly namas are and what exactly rupas are. I know you appreciate bhavana and practice in another way and thank you for sharing your ideas and reflections on this as well. Metta, Sarah ========= #78071 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) hantun1 Dear Robert, Thank you very much for quoting MN 43. I study it more carefully, inserting Pali words. Right view (sammaa-ditthi) "Friend, how many conditions are there for the arising of right view?" "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another (parato ca ghoso) and appropriate attention (yoniso ca manasikaaro). These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." "And assisted by how many factors does right view have awareness-release as its fruit & reward (ceto-vimutti-phalaa ca hoti ceto-vimutti-phalaa-nisamsaa ca), and discernment-release as its fruit & reward (pa~n~naa-vimutti-phalaa ca hoti pa~n~naa-vimutti-phalaa-nisamsaa caati)?" "Assisted by five factors, right view has awareness-release as its fruit & reward, and discernment-release as its fruit & reward. There is the case where right view is assisted by virtue (siila), assisted by learning (suta), assisted by discussion (saakacchaa), assisted by tranquility (samatha), assisted by insight (vipassanaa). Assisted by these five factors, right view has awareness-release as its fruit & reward, and discernment-release as its fruit & reward." ---------- Respectfully, Han #78072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) nilovg Dear Han, As always, your remarks are inspiring, inviting to contemplate more. Op 5-nov-2007, om 9:20 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > For me, despite whatever was said at the Meeting, I > consider that there are *puggalas* and not just groups > of dhaatus. I may be wrong, but I will stick to it. -------- N: I think that it is so helpful to take up the book and see what we can learn. I take at random: Human types by Two, 7: We may see someone else being greedy but what about ourselves? When there is mindfulness we can see food as a medicine for the body. This whole book is like a mirror of Dhamma. We can learn more about the different cittas, akusala cittas and kusala cittas that arise. We also know that they do not last at all, they fall away immediately. Thus, actually, when we say: a person 'has' such tendency, in truth at one moment the citta may be kusala citta, and at another moment the citta may be akusala. We need not reason much about dilemmas as to person or dhaatu, let us see what we can learn. Nina. #78073 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 200, 201 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 200, 201 Intro: In the following sections, it is explained in which ways vi~n~naa.na, which is in this context vipaakacitta, conditions naama, the accompanying cetasikas, and the ruupa which is the heart-base and other materiality. And it is stated that also the formation- consciousness, which is akusala citta or kusala citta motivating kamma producing rebirth-consciousness, conditions ruupa that originates from kamma. Text Vis. 200: 4. 'By manner of condition': here: Resultant-consciousness conditions Mentality in nine ways, Then basis matter in nine ways, And other matter in eight ways; Formation-consciousness conditions This matter in a single way. The rest of consciousness conditions This matter as the case may be. ******* Text Vis. 201: Rebirth-linking or some other kind of resultant consciousness is a condition in nine ways, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, kamma-result, nutriment, faculty, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, either at rebirth-linking or in the course of an existence, for that mentality called resultant, whether mixed with materiality or not. -------- N: This refers to vipaakacitta and its accompanying cetasikas. They are conascent, thus, they condition each other by way of conascence, mutuality, support, association. Vipaakacitta and the accompanying cetasikas condition one another by being vipåka. The realities involved in vipåka-condition are phenomena which are conascent, arising at the same time. They assist one another "by effortless quiet''. They are merely vipåka, they have no other activity. As to nutriment condition, this refers to mental nutriment. Just as physical food supports and maintains the body does mental nutriment support and maintain the accompanying dhammas. In the case of mental nutriment the conditioning dhamma is conascent with the conditioned dhammas. As to the mental nutriment which is contact, phassa, this is a cetasika which contacts the object so that citta and the accompanying cetasikas can experience it. As to the mental nutriment which is volition, manosañcetanaa, this is cetanaa cetasika which accompanies all eighty-nine types of citta, thus it can be of the jåti which is kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya. It coordinates the tasks of the citta and cetasikas it accompanies, and conditions them by way of nutriment-condition. As we have seen, kusala cetanaa and akusala cetanaa have a double function: they coordinate the tasks of the accompanying naama-dhammas and also, they motivate wholesome or unwholesome deeds that can bring a result later on. In that case they are “kamma operating from a different time”. But in this context only the mental nutriment that is conascent cetanaa of the jaati that is vipaaka is referred to. As to the mental nutriment which is viññaa.na or citta, this refers to each citta. Citta supports and maintains the accompanying cetasikas, it conditions them by way of nutriment-condition. As to faculty-condition, indriya-paccaya, faculty-condition, the conditioning dhamma (paccaya dhamma) has leadership, great control, over the conditioned dhammas (paccayupanna dhammas). Vipaakacitta which is mind-faculty is faculty-condition for the other dhammas arising at that moment. As to presence-condition and non-disappearanace-condition, this refers to citta and cetasikas which are associated. As to the expression, whether mixed with materiality, as we read in the Tiika to Vis. 148: < The Tiika states with regard to mixed or not (missita and amissita) that when it is mixed with materiality, the ruupa is nissaya-paccaya, foundation-condition for the citta. The heartbase is the physical base for citta and cetasikas, and at the moment of rebirth, the heartbase arises at the same time as the pa.tisandhi-citta, it is conascent foundation-condition. > ******* Text Vis.: At rebirth-linking it is a condition in nine ways, as conascence, mutuality, support, kamma-result, nutriment, faculty, dissociation, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, for the materiality of the physical [heart-] basis. -------- N: The rebirth-consciousness conditions in nine ways the heartbase that is produced by kamma and arises at the same time as the rebirth- consciousness. Instead of association-condition, dissociation- condition is mentioned. Naama is not the same as ruupa, it is not associated with ruupa, such as is the case of citta and cetasikas which are closely associated. With regard to the other eight ways of condition, these are the same as mentioned above. ---------- Text Vis.: It is a condition in eight ways, namely, as the above conditions omitting the mutuality condition, for materiality other than the materiality of the physical basis. ------- N: At the moment of rebirth in the human plane, kamma originates three decads of ruupas: the decad with the heartbase, with body- consciousnes and with sex. Only the rebirth-consciousness and the heartbase condition one another mutually, but this cannot be said of rebirth-consciousness and the other ruupas produced by kamma at that moment. ---------- Text Vis.: Kamma-formation consciousness is a condition in one way only, as decisive-support condition, for the materiality of non-percipient beings, or for the kamma-born materiality in the five-constituent becoming, according to the Suttanta method. -------- N: Natural decisive support-condition is very wide and when explained according to the Suttanta method, there are descriptions of circumstances and situations. The Tiika gives as examples the situation of living in a secluded place, or in a village, a city, a country, or being dependent on a person. Or the situation of obtaining with difficulty or with ease robes, the requisites of living. It states that such situations are not decisive support- condition of object for someone’s deportment. According to the Sutta method these circumstances are natural decisive support-condition. They are natural decisive support-condition only for ruupa, not for naama, the Tiika states. ------ Text Vis.: All the remaining kinds of consciousness from the time of the first life-continuum [consciousness following rebirth-linking] onwards should be understood as a condition for some kind of mentality-materiality as appropriate. But since the whole contents of the Pa.t.thaana must be cited in order to show how it acts in detail, we do not undertake that. ******* Conclusion: As we read: The rebirth-consciousness is followed by bhavanga-cittas and after that by other cittas experiencing different objects. These condition other naamas and ruupas in different ways. In this section we have seen how vipaakacitta conditions the accompanying cetasikas in nine ways, heart-base in nine ways, and other matter in eight ways. When we study the Dependant Origination we should also study the twentyfour classes of conditions. Otherwise misunderstandings may arise. For example, one may not realize that certain links refer to phenomena that condition one another while they arise at the same time. Whatever arises because of conditions has to fall away and it never returns. Nobody can exert power over naama and ruupa and cause them to last. ********* Nina. #78074 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:16 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 17, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, All kinds of wholesomeness should be developed along with right understanding because the clinging to self and the other defilements are deeply rooted. We have accumulated conceit and we do not notice it when it arises. We find it difficult to forgive others because conceit is obstructing. We keep on thinking, “Why did he do this to me”, because we find ourselves important. Forgiving is a means to have less conceit. When we perform good deeds we tend to cling to “our kusala”, we want to be a “good person”. As we have seen, even kusala can be a natural decisive support-condition, pakatúpanissaya- paccaya, for akusala. While we study the conditions we learn that there are many factors which can condition akusala citta. Sense objects can condition akusala citta by way of object-condition, object predominance-condition or object decisive support-condition. Akusala roots, hetus, condition akusala citta by way of root- condition, hetu-paccaya. When akusala citta arises there is not only one type of citta but seven types since each javana-citta conditions the next one by way of repetition-condition, åsevana-paccaya. When lobha-múla-citta arises it can be the object of lobha-múla-citta which arises later on, in another process, because we like being attached. We accumulate clinging from life to life; the lobha which arises now is a natural decisive support-condition for lobha arising in the future. We may have regret of our attachment and then attachment is the object of dosa-múla-citta with regret. Since we have accumulated such a great deal of defilements, our speech is produced more often by akusala citta than by kusala citta. We cling to speech and take it for self and “mine”. However, as we have seen, it is citta which produces the rúpa which is speech intimation while it arises at the same time. There is no self who decides to speak and then orders the occurrence of speech. Citta which produces rúpa conditions rúpa in many different ways: by conascence-condition, by dependence-condition, by nutriment-condition [1], by faculty- condition [2], by conascent dissociation-condition, by conascent presence-condition and non-disappearance-condition. Kusala citta or akusala citta which produces rúpa, for example the rúpa which is speech intimation, conditions that rúpa by way of root-condition. If citta is a predominant factor among the four factors which can be conascent predominance-condition, it conditions the rúpa it produces by way of conascent predominance-condition [3]. The study of conditions makes it clearer to us that our life consists of only fleeting phenomena which arise because of their own conditions. We are reminded that there is no self who could control the events of our life. --------- Footnotes: 1. Citta is one of the three mental nutriments and as such it can condition rúpa by way of nutriment-condition. 2. Citta is mind faculty, manindriya, and as such it can condition rúpa by way of faculty-condition. 3. Chanda, desire-to-do, viriya, energy, citta and vimamsa, investigation of dhamma, are four factors which can be conascent predominance-condition. Only javana cittas accompanied by at least two roots can be predominance-condition. ******** Nina. #78075 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:35 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, After the Buddha attained enlightenment under the Bodhi-tree he began to teach the Dhamma. He taught satipatthåna, the development of right understanding, from then on until his passing away. When the relics disappear on the Great Wisdom Seat the teachings have come to an end. Therefore, it was very meaningful that the text of the disappearance of the teachings was read near the Bodhi-tree. It reminds us not to neglect the study of the Dhamma the Buddha had penetrated at the time of his enlightenment, and above all, to develop right understanding in daily life, so that the meaning of the teachings can be realized. After the reading of this text we all asked the Triple Gem forgiveness of our faults and shortcomings through action, speech or thought. This is done each time we visit the holy sites, at the very end of our visit, and in this case it was near the Bodhi-tree. The Buddha explained the eightfold Path so that people could develop it and realize the four noble Truths, the Truth of dukkha, unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities that arise and fall away; the Truth of the origination of dukkha that is clinging; the truth of the cessation of dukkha that is nibbåna; the Truth of the Path leading to the cessation of dukkha, that is the eightfold path. When there isn’t anybody who can clearly explain the right practice, the development of the eightfold Path, people cannot develop it and they cannot realize the four noble Truths. When nobody in this world can penetrate the four noble Truths anymore, the world will be dark. The Dhamma will gradually disappear. At the last day of our pilgrimage, when we were in Patna, Acharn Sujin said: “The teachings are almost dying, let us develop right understanding”. We do not have to feel depressed when thinking of the disappearance of the teachings. On the contrary, we should have courage and cheerfulness to begin again and again developing right understanding. Each day Acharn Sujin exhorted us to take courage and to be cheerful. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (I, Sågåtha vagga, IV, Måra, Ch II, §6, The Bowl): On one occasion, at Såvatthí, the Exalted One was instructing, inciting and inspiring the monks by a sermon on the five khandhas of grasping (upadåna khandhas). And the monks with their whole mind applied, attentive and intent, listened with rapt hearing to the Dhamma. The Commentary (the Såratthappakåsiní) explains that the Buddha was instructing, teaching under different aspects the specific and general characteristics of the khandhas of grasping. The Buddha was enlightening, inciting and inspiring them. The Commentary explains that he exhorted them to have energy and endeavour. As we read in the sutta text, the monks listened with enthousiasm, with rapture, to the Dhamma. Thus, this text reminds us to be courageous and not to give up developing understanding, and to be cheerful, glad about the Dhamma. We discussed courage and cheerfulness because of the Dhamma several times. Acharn Sujin explained that when akusala citta arises we may dislike it, we may feel bad about it, but akusala can be realized as only a conditioned reality. Then we shall not try to do something else but the development of right understanding of what appears now, even if it is akusala. We have accumulated akusala for countless lives, and thus there are conditions for its arising. We shall not be downhearted but we can be courageous and glad to be able to know the truth. We may be discouraged about our lack of awareness and understanding, our lack of progress. We should not expect the arising of a great deal of understanding when it has not yet been accumulated. Understanding should be developed very naturally in our daily life and in that way we can live happily, without anxiety. We can rejoice in the Dhamma we learnt and take courage to continue developing right understanding. ******* Nina. #78076 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Dear Han Thanks for a very clear and comprehensive account of this part of the discussion. Although my own recollection is somewhat hazy, because of all that has passed since then, I'm sure that what you've said is a fair summary. As regards any conclusion to be drawn from the discussion (your final paragraph), I have a some thoughts. On the assumption (which you are inclined to agree with) that the development of the path means awareness and understanding from the beginning, I think the first step is to gain a better intellectual understanding of what awareness and understanding are and of the conditions for their arising/development. This is not a matter of mere book learning, as some would suggest, but of considering the teachings in detail and how what is said there relates to the present moment. Such kind of thinking can itself be kusala and may even involve moments of panna of a beginning level. A correct understanding at the so-called intellectual level is a necessary prerequisite for the arising of awareness. Hence Khun Sujin's questions to you about sati. There is much to be known, and there is a wealth of material in the Tipitaka and commentaries on the subject. Thanks again for this first instalment. Looking forward to the rest. Jon han tun wrote: > Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) > > Dear All, > > Topic: Too much emphasis on anatta and no-person. > > Before the meeting at the Foundation on 10 October > 2007, Sarah and Jon offered me breakfast at the Hotel. > There, I told them that there has been too much > emphasis on anatta and no-person. ... > > ... > > Agreeing with her that right view and right > understanding or pa~n~naa is needed in every step of > visuddhimagga, I asked her how can I develop pa~n~naa? > She said that pa~n~naa is the understanding of the > realities with right awareness (samma sati). She asked > me what is sati? Is it real or concept? I could not > answer. She said that sati without understanding is > just a concept, and there must be ‘conditions’ for > sati to arise. > > I cannot draw any conclusion out of this discussion. > Perhaps Sarah and Jon might be able to do it. For me > it does not really matter. As I said earlier, I use > both ‘no-Han’ approach and ‘yes-Han’ approach, > depending on the situation. > > Respectfully, > Han > #78077 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) hantun1 Dear Nina, Nina: This whole book is like a mirror of Dhamma. We can learn more about the different cittas, akusala cittas and kusala cittas that arise. We also know that they do not last at all, they fall away immediately. Thus, actually, when we say: a person 'has' such tendency, in truth at one moment the citta may be kusala citta, and at another moment the citta may be akusala. We need not reason much about dilemmas as to person or dhaatu, let us see what we can learn. Han: Excellent, Nina! Yes, we need not reason much about dilemmas as to person or dhaatu. We should see what we can learn from the Buddha’s Teachings, not only in this particular case, but also in all aspects of the Dhamma that the Blessed One had kindly taught us. Thank you very much Nina, and I shall ever be grateful. Respectfully, Han #78078 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 6 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 364. "Ima.m passatha dhamma.t.tha.m, subha.m kammaaradhiitara.m; aneja.m upasampajja, rukkhamuulamhi jhaayati. 365. "Ajja.t.thamii pabbajitaa, saddhaa saddhammasobhanaa; viniituppalava.n.naaya, tevijjaa maccuhaayinii. 366. "Saaya.m bhujissaa a.na.naa, bhikkhunii bhaavitindriyaa; sabbayogavisa.myuttaa, katakiccaa anaasavaa. 367. "Ta.m sakko devasa"nghena, upasa"nkamma iddhiyaa; namassati bhuutapati, subha.m kammaaradhiitaran"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. Pruitt: [The Buddha:] 362. See this Subhaa, the Smith's Daughter, standing [firm] in the Doctrine. Having entered the immovable [state] she meditates at the foot of a tree. 363. Today is the eighth day [since] she went forth full of faith, beautiful by reason of the true Doctrine, instructed by Uppalava.n.naa, with triple knowledge, leaving death behind. 364. This one is a freed slave, without debt, a bhikkhunii with developed faculties, unfettered from all ties, her task done, without taints. [Added by the Council:] 365. Sakka, the lord of beings, approaching by supernormal powers with a group of devas, reveres that Subhaa, the Smith's daughter. RD: See now this Subhaa, standing on the Norm, Child of a craftsman in the art of gold! Behold! she hath attained to utter calm; Museth in rapture 'neath the spreading boughs. (362) To-day, the eighth it is since she went forth In faith, and radiant in the Gospel's light. By Uppalava.n.naa *386 instructed, lo! Thrice wise is she and conqueror over death. (363) Freed woman she, discharged is all her debt, A Bhikkhunii, trained in the higher sense. All sundered are the Bonds, her task is done, And the great Drugs that poisoned her are purged. (364) To her came Sakka, and his band of gods In all their glory, worshipping Subhaa, Child of a craftsman in the art of gold, But lord of all things that have life and breath. *387 (365) When, on the eighth day after her ordination, she won Arahantship, attaining fruition, seated beneath a tree, the Exalted One uttered these three verses (362-364) in her praises, pointing her out to the Brethren. And the last verse was added by them who recited (the canon at the Council), to celebrate Sakka's adoration. *386 See Ps. lxiv. *387 Bhuutapati; issaro, lord or god of beings in the three planes of sense, says the Commentary; presumably gods, men, and animals. Note that she is not called Queen or Goddess, but pati (masculine). ===to be continued, connie #78079 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 3:16 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) philofillet Hi Nina >>> Thus, actually, when we say: a person 'has' such tendency, in truth at one moment the citta may be kusala citta, and at another moment the citta may be akusala. We need not reason much about dilemmas as to person or dhaatu, let us see what we can learn. I must say I disagree with this. I think the suttanta and certainly Vism. make it very clear that people have different tendencies and should therefore approach Dhamma in different ways. Vism. is especially clear about this. Very explicit, for example, talking about which meditation subjects are the most suitable for people of different tendencies. No doubt about this, Nina. Those sections of vism are not talking about dhammas, they are talking about meditators, and meditators are people. On the other hand, certainly true that it would be wrong to get locked into certain kinds of thinking based on a perception of what one's tendency is. "Let us see what we can learn", as you say very nicely. Yes. But the importance of reflecting on tendencies is well documented. It should *not* be said "at one moment the citta may be kusala and at another moment it may be akusala" if that means that the existence of prevalent tendencies is being denied. That would be just plain incorrect. Not to worry though. Just want to register my disagreement with the above! :) Metta, Phil #78080 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 3:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) hantun1 Dear Jon, Thank you very much for your feed-back, which is very useful. I am also grateful to know what is behind Khun Sujin's questions to me about sati. You know her very well, and you know exactly why she asks a certain question. That’s why I waited for you all to return to Hong Kong before I start reporting on the Meeting at the Foundation. I need such feed-backs! Respectfully, Han #78081 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:14 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Anatta of "Self" and the World dacostacharles Hi Alex, and D.C. DC, I think I agree with 'attaa' being used as a reference to the 'I' (i.e., First Person Singular Pronoun), and that the Buddhist world view is 'anatta'. Alex, do you consider the computer, you are working on, a delusion too? What ceases in an Arhat is not the "I" (or Arhant in this case), but desire for "the world", or self-interest, that leads to suffering. Just because you don't think of it, like in deep meditation, does not mean it does not exist. Now if you see all as a delusion then "yes." And "Yes," to the "Thought: I am" is a DEPENDENTLY ARISEN event. And it can be argued that ALL is dependently arisen, even the non-existent thoughts of "I, me, mine." However, what these words stand for have a different path - so to speak. They arise from conception leading to a successful birth of a being (containing both mind and a body). Feelings arise due to Desire; you can't get more personal than Desire. And beyond the 5 aggregates... What are the 5 aggregates? I will tell you: the components of "Selves." Buddha was teaching Anatta to counter the belief/view that there is a sixth aggregate. This sixth aggregate was believed to be eternal, unchanging, and uncompounded (the essence of life). The Buddha argued that "he" could not find this aggregate, and that all aggregates are temporal (arise/born and fade away/die), are dynamic (changing), and are compounded (have components). Because of these 3 characteristics (impermanence, changing, compounded-ness) nothing could be completely controlled in reality. Therefore, it is unwise to cling to them or believe you can control them, even as "I, me, or mine". Charles DaCosta #78082 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:46 am Subject: n scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "Does it mean you also disagree with Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote that I posted last time? [Bhikkhu Bodhi's main point is that there should be no competition between the Suttanta and Abhidhamma methods - - i.e. they "overlap and interpenetrate".] It is very much the same as what I said above." Scott: Overlapping and interpenetrating *methods*. Yes, I guess that makes sense. I reiterate, though, that I am asking about the object of sati, not the difference between the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma methods of exegesis. Sati, in my opinion, being cetasika, has its functions and characteristics no matter the level of development accorded to it. Its objects are also other realities, each having their own characteristics. You state: T: "...For non-ariyans, the object of sati is a dhamma...in the conventional sense." Scott: I do not understand the 'dhamma in the conventional sense' aspect of the argument. This is why I asked about concept, since this seems to imply that sati for non-ariyans is a different kind of sati than is sati for ariyans. This seems to imply that objects of non-ariyan sati are different than objects of ariyan sati. By 'conventional' I read 'pa~n~natti' (as construed by the ordinary person) since I can think of no other way in which this term could apply. A 'dhamma in the conventional sense' can only be concept, as far as I can tell. Is this the case you would like to make? T: "Realities (phenomena) are what they are, one's perceiving of them do not alter the truths. Right perception of the realities alters one's view from wrong to right, and from 'not seeing & not knowing' to 'seeing & knowing' them the way they truly are. That has been my view on the dhammas." Scott: What is 'right perception'? I thought for a moment you might be referring to the function of pa~n~naa, but that is right view. Whether undeveloped or weak in the case of the puthujjana, or highly developed as in the case of the arahat, sati is sati; its objects are, as noted above, other realities. I'm not aware of a conventional sati and a non-conventional sati. Are you referring, perhaps, to the lokiya/lokuttara distinction? Sincerely, Scott. #78083 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... scottduncan2 Tep, Sorry about the crazy topic heading 'n' below. I think I messed up trying to type 'pa~n~naa' with those curly things and hit some thing or other. Here is the real heading. S. #78084 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:54 am Subject: [dsg] Ignorance (was Re: �Cetasikas' study corner 433- You ain't seen nothin' ye scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "Sounds right to me. Taking the elements for something, for atta is miccha ditthi. As you later put it: 'If in this [one understands] the object to be non-void....'" Scott: Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. Later. Sincerely, Scott. #78085 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:04 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) ... Banana & Mango buddhistmedi... Hi Han, - I read your post twice and I am not sure if Sarah, Nina, or Khun Sujin directly answered the question you had asked. >Han: If there were no persons, why did the Buddha took the trouble > to teach about puggalas in Puggala pa~n~natti, the > fourth book of Abhidhamma Pitaka? The entire book is > full of classifications of *persons*. If your question was about banana, their answers were about mango. Tep ==== #78086 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? ksheri3 Good Morning Sarah, Luv that sheepish humor in the morning: > Could you give us an example of these 'damaging' 'opinionated views', Tep? ..... > "Therefore, Baahiya, you .should so train yourself that with respect to > the seen there will be merely the seen, that with respect to the heard > there will be merely the heard.......cognised....." > ..... colette: then where exactly does the mind come into play here? You seem to be of the opinion that the eye consciousness does not need the mind to cognize what the eye has seen or the ear has heard? Thus why do we need a mind if it's not used? Which brings up the ALAYA- VIJNANA. toodles, colette #78087 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Jon, If the first step is to gain a better intellectual understanding of what awareness and understanding are and the conditions for their arising/development, what are the steps that follow? Thank you, Robert A. #78088 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Robert, How does one develop appropriate attention? Thank you, Robert A. #78089 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological and Bodily Continuity - Gethin and Questions? dcwijeratna Dear Sarah, Thank you for your response to some post of mine. ....................... -- DC Wijeratna wrote: > Conclusion: The theory of momentariness (khanavaada) fails to explain > the continuity of the human being. ... S: Rather, I think that the continuity (santati)of consciousness, or of the khandhas can only be explained by uninterrupted arising and falling away of momentary cittas and cetasikas, following each other in succession by anantara paccaya. ................... I think this is about the Gethin's book. I just made an observation on Gethins' questions. My opinion now: "Yes, I agree with Gethin." Not becsuse of the arguments of Gethin. But because, that theory was never preached by the Buddha. Your thoughts are interesting. But what Gethin is talking about is not one's thoughts on the matter. The fact that theoery of momentariness fails to explain the observed phenomena. In a few suttas, the Buddha, equated the Vedic tradition to a file of blind men. The first couldn't see, the middle couldn't see and the last couldnt see. And they form a file by two blind people holding on to a stick. Like this: ....AstickBstickCstick... An endless chain like that. They have no clue to where they are going. When you talk of anantara paccaya etc. it is like that. As far as I know, nobody has ever claimed to have seen annatara paccaya or any other word that you may invent. So that is the validity of 'anantarapaccaya' according to the word of the Buddha. In short belief and faith are not part of the Buddha's teaching. It is part of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka as it stands today. Naturally, anybody who believes in Abhidhamma Pi.taka including the commentaries are included in that. ... S: A long way, as you say......a long way, one moment at a time:-) ........ Appreciating all your good-humoured contributions and explanations. Thanks for the compliment. But my statement is based on normal human beings, not "no-persons". In the context of "moment", my advise to go slow doesn't work. You have no control over the duration of each moment. Therefore about the whole journey. Though I started commenting on this piece, just for fun, I have an idea. It all depends on your response to the above. With kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. The posts you mentioned, not that I have forgotten them. I have some problems regarding formulating an answer. My difficulty will be less if I can send it to you without sending to the DSG. #78090 From: Elaine Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya shennieca Hi Sarah, Thank you for telling us about yourself. Your life story is very colourful and interesting. :-)) If you find KS's teachings are real Buddha dhamma, follow it and be a good Buddhist. May you be free from greed, hatred and delusion. As for me, I have faith in our Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. I'll stick to reading the Suttas and practise meditation. There is no more need for me to explain to you or you to explain to me our different understandings of Buddhism, I'm letting it go. I feel glad that you have shared your thoughts with me. Thank you. :-)) Sincerely, Elaine ----------------------------- #78091 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba jonoabb Dear Ven Dhammanando Many thanks for coming in with your comments on this point. Hoping that you've made a good recovery from your illness. With respect Jon #78092 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) dcwijeratna Hello Robert, If by attention is meant, mindfulness or awareness, I have found "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation", Nyanaponika, a very poplular book. It had very good books also. Best wishes, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78093 From: Elaine Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological and Bodily Continuity - Gethin and Questions? shennieca Hi Sarah, Thank you for your reply. You can understand what you write but I can't. There is no point in explaining further to me what these "pa~n~na" and "cittas". Thank you for your effort. May we be well and happy! May we get a glimpse of Nibbana in this lifetime! Sincerely, Elaine ---------------------------- #78094 From: Elaine Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. - to Sukin shennieca Hi Sarah, The same with this topic, I consider it closed. Thank you for the explanations. May we be free from ill-will, attachments and delusions. May we have unshakable faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Sincerely, Elaine ----------------------------- #78095 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Robert Robert wrote: > Hello Han, > > I wish you all the luck in the world in getting answers to questions such > as "how can I develop pa~n~naa?" at DSG, but I am afraid the chance > of success is vanishingly small. I often asked this type of question here, > but, although the members here were very kind in their attempts to > answer my questions, I am afraid their answers were always > incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you will have a similar experience. > > I am always very interested in asking simply "how can I live my life > wisely and skillfully, so as to cause less harm, do more good, and find > some peace in my life?" To me it seems like a straightforward > question, but there is the difficulty that the question implies an 'I' that > is 'doing', which will cause a flurry of answers - equal in intensity to the > efforts of our good firefighters to stamp out the wildfires we had > recently here in San Diego - about there being neither an 'I' or a 'doing' . > > Yet, I know that all that refute the 'I' and the 'doing' are themselves > living their lives everyday, which does in fact involve taking on a role in > their lives, which is an 'I', and unless they sleep all day, they are in > fact 'doing'. So I have never been able to understand why it is > anathema to discuss said 'I' and 'doing'. I guess it is ultimately that > these kinds of questions do not interest them as much as they interest > me. > Good to see you back. I can see that you have been considering things in your absence ;-)) I don't think the members you refer to actually *refute* the (idea of) "I" and "doing" in their own lives. What they are saying is that when it comes to the development of insight, what is described by the Buddha, as they understand it, is a development in which there is no "I" or "doing". They are not actually claiming that for themselves. I don't know if I've managed to explain that clearly. Jon #78096 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. jonoabb Hi DC (and Elaine) Not wanting to buy into your discussion, but would just like to suggest that the mention you have seen of "citta that knows vedana that feels etc." might be to "citta that knows" and "vedana that feels", rather than to "citta that knows vedana". According to what I have read citta (consciousness) is that which knows, while vedana (feeling) is the mental factor that feels. Both citta and vedana are said to be mere impersonal elements (dhatus), or dhammas. This of course is not how we experience things, but then it helps to know in what respect the world as it really is, as described by the Buddha, differs from the world as we currently perceive it. Jon #78097 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] India, Nepal memories - Oct. 2007 nilovg Dear Christine, thank you for your answer. I understand what you mean, Lodewijk also wondered about annihilation. Andrew and others answered about nibbaana. For me: nibbaana is too far away! I liked your remark that after India everything was as usual. Seeing in India or in Australia is the same. Nina. #78098 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello DC, Thank you for the recommedation of Nyanaponika Thera's book. I have found this book very useful for many years. I also often read "The Vision of Dhamma", a collection of Nyanaponoka's writings edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I will always feel indebted to Nyanaponika Thera because his publications from the Buddhist Publication Society were some of the only materials available in the United States on Theravada Buddhism in the early 70's, when I first started to get interested. Best Regards, Robert A. #78099 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) nilovg Hi Robert (and Jon) Op 5-nov-2007, om 15:48 heeft Jonothan Abbott het volgende geschreven: > I don't think the members you refer to actually *refute* the (idea of) > "I" and "doing" in their own lives. What they are saying is that when > it comes to the development of insight, what is described by the > Buddha, > as they understand it, is a development in which there is no "I" or > "doing". They are not actually claiming that for themselves. > > I don't know if I've managed to explain that clearly. -------- N: Jon put that very well. Often the idea of 'I am considering' comes in. Realizing the truth takes many. many lives. It is really a development. Nina. #78100 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Jon and Nina, Thank you for your efforts to explain things in a way I can understand. Jon, in your explanation, you hit at the heart of what I am having difficulty understanding. You say the DSGees acknkowledge the 'I' and 'doing' in their lives, but in the development of insight there is no 'I' and 'doing'. In this there seems to be some kind of separation between your life and the development of insight; that one has nothing to do with the other. For me, life is the essence of practice and ultimately is the source of insight. Thanks again for your efforts to answer my questions, Robert A. #78101 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Q. re Conditions, Ch 17, 3. the Khandhas. nilovg Hi Tep, ------- Tep: Point 1. Past and future khandhas do not arise here and now; they are recalled or mentally reconstructed. Hence they are concepts (citta sankhara or mental constructs as Howard wisely put it). ------- N: In Vis. Ch XIV, 188, there is a long explanation of the meanings of present, past, future. In the Suttas the meaning is more general, figurative, and in the Abhidhamma it is litteral, as moment, kha.na. When we read Suttas we have to be careful; so often what is said in a conventional way points to the ultimate meaning. Citta arises and falls away, and then it is past. I do not see how it would change into a concept when it is past. I quote only part of my remarks to the Vis. text. What I want to demonstrate is: that the subject of present, past, future is complex. There is much more to it than one my think. I want to be careful with the word concept. Thus, the first three are wider in meaning, not as precise, different from exactly this moment (ka.na) of citta or rupa that performs its function.> -------- Tep: Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, a corpse) ------- N: The fact that they have the three general characterisics shows that they are dhammas, not concepts. Concepts do not have these characteristics. You mention a corpse as example of a concept that can be object of satipatthaana. DN 22. Under Mindfulness of Body we read about many concepts, but we have to remember: in the Suttas we find the Suttanta method. The Buddha pointed to the truth of this moment in a very compassionate, gentle way, in language that could be understood by the audience. A corpse becomes like seashells, like a very fine dust and then there is nothing left of it. Our body now is like a corpse. All the ruupas fall away from head to toe, each moment, there is nothing left of it. They are replaced, produced by kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature, and thus it seems that the ruupas of the body last. We read in the Co to the Satipatthaanasutta (Soma Thera): It is repeated that he has to contemplate the body as the body. I quote:< Kayanupassi = "Contemplating the body." Possessed of the character of body-contemplation, or of observing the body. Why is the word "body" used twice in the phrase: "Contemplating the body in the body?" For determining the object and isolating it, and for the sifting out thoroughly [vinibbhoga] of the apparently compact [ghana] nature of things like continuity [santati]. Because there is no contemplating of feeling, consciousness nor mental objects in the body, but just the contemplating of the body only, determination through isolation is set forth by the pointing out of the way of contemplating the body only in the property called the body. In the body there is no contemplation of a uniform thing, apart from the big and small members of the body, or of a man, or of a woman, apart from such things like the hair of the head and the hair of the body. There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and derived materiality, in a body. Indeed the character of contemplating the collection of the major and the minor corporeal members, is like the seeing of the constituents of a cart. The character of contemplating the collection of the hair of the head, the hair of the body and the like is comparable to the seeing of the component parts of a city; and the character of contemplating the collection of primary and derived materiality is comparable to the separation of the leaf covering of a plantain- trunk, or is like the opening of an empty fist. Therefore, by the pointing out of the basis called the body in the form of a collection in many ways, the sifting out thoroughly of the apparently compact is shown. In this body, apart from the above mentioned collection, there is seen no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong belief, in many ways, in the bare groups of things mentioned above. > Note: the empty fist: there is nothing in it. -------- T: In the above quote the Buddha taught that a body/khandha in the past and in the future should not be grasped with clinging. It is an example of how concepts are used for satipatthana development. -------- N: Yes, when the suttanta method us used, concepts are mentioned, but they point to the anattaness of nama and rupa. In another sutta (an Auspicious Night, M.) the Buddha taught us not to hanker after what is past or long for what has not come yet. Just be aware of the present moment. This is how I take what is said of not clinging to past and future khandhas. Seeing is khandha, vi~n`naa.nakhandha. It is very real, I cannot think of it as a concept. ------- Nina. #78102 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) nilovg Hi Phil, I agree that people have accumulated different tendencies. But as you say, one should not get locked into certain kinds of thinking based on a perception of what one's tendency is. So hard to know what has been accumulated during all these aeons. Isn't there change? Or development? One can learn. One does not 'possess' tendencies, they are not mine. Nina. Op 5-nov-2007, om 12:16 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > On the other hand, certainly true that it would be wrong to get > locked into certain kinds of thinking based on a perception of what > one's tendency is. #78103 From: "Alyssa Ryvers" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 8:04 am Subject: Burmese Temples in North America aryvers Hi All, After a short e-mail exchange with Elaine, I realized that some of you might not be aware that there appears to be a large network of Burmese temples. To my knowledge, there is one in / around most major centres in North America, and from what I understand, at least one Venerable who communicates in English. I also know there is at least one in Taiwan, one in Jamica, and I suspect elsewhere in the world; perhaps someone else on the list who is familiar would elaborate. From my limited experience of what I have seen, many of the Venerables at these temples have been monks since novice, and have had a rigorous and profound education in dhamma. I have waited 20 years before finally finding someone profoundly versed in Dhamma. The following are links to the temple I attend in Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://mahadhammika.com/ http://mahadhammika.com/14-contacts-b.html (location | address) I will be resuming my Abhidhamma lessons in mid December, and anyone interested in attending please contact me, and we can co-ordinate a convenient time to meet with Bhante Kawwida. As it stands, I have been receiving private lessons (in English), and it would be great if more people could attend. Of course, there are regular services at the temple, and all are welcome to drop by anytime. Best wishes, Alyssa Ryvers Composer | Compositeur Music North Inc. www.musicnorth.com #78104 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 8:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta of "Self" and the World truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi Alex, and D.C. > > > Alex, do you consider the computer, you are working on, a delusion too? >>>>> Indirectly, yes. If I weren't deluded, I wouldn't be here. I would be paranibbana'ed. As Buddha has said... eye is old kamma. And so on with the rest of things. Lots of Metta, Alex #78105 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 10:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Jon and Robert and others , I hope you don't mind a comment between: Jon wrote: I don't think the members you refer to actually *refute* the (idea of) "I" and "doing" in their own lives. What they are saying is that when it comes to the development of insight, what is described by the Buddha, as they understand it, is a development in which there is no "I" or "doing". They are not actually claiming that for themselves. I don't know if I've managed to explain that clearly.' D: I missed a statement like that because it offers- as I see it - the chance to clarify misunderstandings: the development of insight leads to No-I/Self ( anatta ), the final fetter (mana/conceit )abolished at Arahant level. Up to that state anatta is a (hypo) thesis .., isn't it? Hence we , though agreeing to the point of (I/self) delusion , need training, meditation work ' analysing in detail the khandas in order to recognise : that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Only then the thesis can become a law (dhamma). What I suppose is that you and others members seem to believe in non action of the self (occuring only at the state of cessation of kamma ) and missing by that the request of the 3 fold Noble Path Training ( sila ,samadhi ,panna -corresponding to the path elements 3,4,5 ..6,7,8 and 1, 2 .) Please see for example Anguttara Nikaya III 82 ff..as well as other numerous others ) furthermore I like to refer to the Alagaddunapanna Sutta- M.N. 22: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html When I remember correctly , Khun Sujin mentioned that Sutta and Abhidhamma should not be considered as two separate entities but complementary to eachother. For the benefit of a complete picture , I believe our 'Abhidhammika' friends' could give a bit more attention to the sutta nikaya , trying to support their point from those sources and enable so more members to reach a consens understanding about the teaching. What do you think? with Metta Dieter #78106 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 10:49 am Subject: A Burmese monk testifies.. moellerdieter Hi all, for whom it may concern: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-515409,00.html with Metta Dieter #78107 From: Alyssa Ryvers Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Burmese monk testifies.. aryvers Thank you Dieter, for bringing this to our attention. With best wishes, Alyssa Ryvers Composer | Compositeur Music North Inc. www.musicnorth.com http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-515409,00.html with Metta Dieter #78108 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:45 am Subject: Damaging the Foundation? ksheri3 Good Morning Tep, > But I only suggest an off-list > communication when there are opinionated views that may be damaging. > colette: ANY and ALL views must, by definition, be opinions of an individual, WHICH MEANS that the view is opinionated THUS clearly indicating that your suggestion for an "off-list" discussion concerning ourselves HAS ULTERIOR MOTIVATION or A HIDDEN AGENDA. ---------------------------- > T: The main trouble has been caused by different opinions that are > stemming from the worldlings' viewpoints (that have not yet purified). > colette: Why how nice of you, to strike upon one of my oldest and most famous rationales for NOT JOINING GROUPS, ORDERS, ETC.! There isn't a monestary that has ever been built, including the Tower of Babel, that can hold the copywrite or copyright on doctrine that there isn't a way possible for them to prove that they are the creators of and still maintain as they were maintained when they first obtained the copyright or copywrite to creating the doctrine. What stream where can I step into a first time, get out, then step back into it and have it be the exact same experience? The minute, the second, those monks or whatever as if "the Grand Poo-ba" of Fred Flinstone's lodge, can possibly maintain that he never changed a single word or a single word's application to the doctrine? ... Okay, I'm gonna guess at my memory right now by hoping that I recall correctly that you are somewhere in Arizona USA, which means in the Chicago Tribune teritory of the Arizona Republic and the territory of a follower of that legendary statesman Pol Pot having a desire to return to the Hanoi Hilton with Paris, et al, a senator Mclean or something like that. Why does that name stick in my min d, right now? Anyway you are in that desert community that somehow has lush greens on which golf courses are to be found, or suburban lawns spring up in mass, also, in the middle of the desert where they were not found through the acts of nature but through the passasitic activity of humans, more specifically, the middle-class expanding and consuming everything they can, as if they were Aliens starring in the movie INDEPENDENCE DAY starring Will Smith. Why is it, being that you are in such a mainstream portion of the assembly line that produces robots, that you suddenly exspose your inherent nature of supremecy : "...from the worldlings' viewpoints (that have not yet purified)." colette: how do you know it's not purified? How do you know that people do not survive through LIQUIDITY and breathe Liquid Oxygen (LOX) since I've said that since 1980 when I began with Century City California, on Century Park East which was, at that time, part of the ABC Entertainment Center, which spanned between Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars? How do you know these people are not actually dead and only survive through the obtainment of LOX, liquid oxygen? toodles, colette #78109 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 2:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) truth_aerator Hello, Jon, Robert, Dieter, Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Jon and Robert and others , > Here is a good paragraph about "self issue" written by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Regardless of your opinion of him - what he wrote is pure Gold. ------ A more fruitful line of inquiry is to view experience, not in terms of the existence or non-existence of the self, but in terms of the categories of the four noble truths, which §51 identifies as the truly proper subject of appropriate attention. If we look at the way the Buddha phrases questions about not-self [SN 22.59, MFU, pp. 79- 80] in the context of the duties appropriate to the four noble truths [§195], we see that they function as tools for comprehending stress and abandoning the attachment and clinging that function as its cause. Thus they help bring about the ending of the mental effluents. Rather than asking, "Do I exist?" one should ask, "Is this mine? Is this me? If these things are regarded as me or mine, will there be suffering?" These questions, when properly answered (No, No, and Yes), can lead directly to the phenomenological mode and on to release from attachment and from suffering and stress. Thus they are worth asking. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html #part2-g --- Hopefully this helps, Lots of Metta, Alex #78110 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 3:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] India, Nepal memories - Oct. 2007 jonoabb Hi Chris Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hello Nina, > > Nice to hear from you. > > I'm not sure exactly ~ I asked Ajahn a few questions when ever I got > the rare chance. > > Mostly I've been wondering about Nibbana and what is the state an > arahant after death .... and similar questions. Jon was helping me > to phrase it correctly so he may remember the exact question. > I think I questioned the value of trying to sort everything out and choose according to one's ideal of how things should finish up, since any such evaluation is bound to be informed by ignorance and wrong view. You are perhaps ctually wondering what happens to you (or your successor in the same continuum) after parinibbana is attained. I think the place to start would be with the (presently arising) 5 khandhas, for it is in terms of the cessation of the 5 khandhas that parinibbana is described. In any event, whatever the eventual outcome (or our ideas about that), the immediate concern is development of insight, since we acknowledge that there is a lack of that now. Jon > It arose out of my wondering what point there was in striving for > Cessation of the khandas, if there was only annihilation. Or > according to how one debates - no annihilation as there never was a > self to begin with. Same thing to all intents and purposes though. > > Other traditions (Mahayana and Vajrayana) attempt to answer this > question with the term Primordial awareness. To me, it makes sense > to suppose that Samsara and the flux of consciousness arose from > somewhere, and there is a point to the whole sorry state of affairs - > not just blanking out at the end. > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time---- > #78111 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 11/3/2007 8:29:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > But in terms of paramattha dhammas there is no dhamma that is the > "perceived tree" and hence no time at which that perceived tree is > object of consciousness. There is only ever (mere) visible object or > the idea of tree as object of consciousness. > > > ============================ > I agree that there is no paramattha dhamma that is the "perceived tree". > A "perceived tree" is nothing but a mental construct, just as is the "idea > of tree". But I do maintain that there is a difference in the events we call > "seeing a tree" and "thinking of a tree" (or even "picturing a tree"). It is > with respect to that first event called "seeing a tree" that I speak of a > "tree percept". In order to speak of an event called "seeing a tree" we need to refer to several different moments of consciousness, including moments of seeing conscious which have (mere) visible object as object and moments of mind-door consciousness that have (mere) concept as object. In order to speak of an event called "thinking of a tree" we need speak only of the moments of mind-door consciousness having concept as object. > Our ordinary experience is perceptual in that sense more than > conceptual. The difference between the two may lie in nothing more than the > relative propinquity of the rupas underlying "the perceived tree" as compared to > the "merely thought-of tree." > The so-called "perceived tree", in the sense of something based on underlying rupas, is never the object of consciousness; only an idea of such can ever be object of consciousness. It is an assumption on our part. Jon #78112 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eCard from India - Benares jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Jon, - > > It is great to see you back from the long trip. After having reflected > a lot over the Buddha and the Teachings during the travel, do you find > yourself "ultimately" wiser in the dhammas? ;-) > No. I find there are some things I am perhaps understanding the significance of a little better, but this is probably just at an intellectual level. Tep, have you considered joining the next trip? I'm sure you would find it very stimulating. Someone with your wide knowledge of the texts would have plenty to discuss with others. >> Jon: >> I think it could also be said that the seeing consciousness of >> different beings is the same in nature and characteristic, regardless >> of their level of understanding. For that matter, the seeing >> consciousness of a persona and of, say, a cow are, in the ultimate >> sense, the same ;-)) >> > > T: For that matter, in the molecular sense the molecules and atoms in a > person are the same as those in a cow. :>) > This may be so, but knowledge regarding molecules and atoms is of limited use, I believe ;-)) Jon #78113 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Jon and Howard,- > > I think your theoretical discussion helps me glimpse a tiny speck of > light at the far-away mind horizon. I am not sure if that "light" is > wisdom or just a Mara's illusion. :-) > ;-)), ;-)) > T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental > construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana) ? For example, > let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five > khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be > useful as an object of satipatthana now? > To my understanding, the object of satipatthana is always a presently arising dhamma. Please let me know if this does not answer your question. Jon #78114 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:32 pm Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear All, Topic: Was Bodhisatta a Sotaapanna? Before the Meeting at the Foundation, I told Sarah and Jon that perfecting the paramis by Bodhisatta were really amazing. The hardships he endured, and the sacrifices he made were unbelievable. If an ordinary person did that like Bodhisatta did, he would probably become at least a Sotaapanna within a few life-spans. But for Bodhisatta, although he tried very hard for 4 aeons and 100,000 worlds, he did not become even a Sotaapanna in his previous lives. I said it is like a driver who is pressing on the accelerator and the brake at the same time. Stepping on the accelerator is like trying for the perfections, and pressing on the brake is like stopping short of becoming a Sotaapanna. [If he had become a Sotaapanna, he would attain parinibbaana within the maximum of seven lives.] At the Meeting I asked Khun Sujin about this. She immediately asked me back, whether I want to climb a mountain? I did not know what it has got to do, but I answered, “No, I do not want to climb a mountain.” She said, “There you are!” Sukin explained that if I want to be at the top of the mountain, I must put an effort and climb the mountain. So also a Bodhisatta who wants to become a Sammasambuddha must try very hard to have enough “accumulations” I was not quite satisfied with the answer. So I rephrased my question, and asked “Was Bodhisatta a Sotaapanna in one of his previous lives?” Then Khun Sujin said, “No.” The readers of this post may express their views on whether Bodhisatta was a Sotaapaana in one of his previous lives, and why or why not? Or, if this subject had been discussed before, Sarah may kindly give me message numbers. Respectfully, Han #78115 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:10 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Hi Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear All, > > Topic: Was Bodhisatta a Sotaapanna? > > Before the Meeting at the Foundation, I told Sarah and > Jon that perfecting the paramis by Bodhisatta were > really amazing. The hardships he endured, and the > sacrifices he made were unbelievable. If an ordinary > person did that like Bodhisatta did, he would probably > become at least a Sotaapanna within a few life-spans. > But for Bodhisatta, although he tried very hard for 4 > aeons and 100,000 worlds, he did not become even a > Sotaapanna in his previous lives. >>>> That IS NOT FOUND IN 4 MAIN NIKAYAS. > >> > I was not quite satisfied with the answer. So I > rephrased my question, and asked "Was Bodhisatta a > Sotaapanna in one of his previous lives?" >>>>> He wasn't a Bodhisatta until he met Buddha Kassapa. Buddha Gotama INSULTED BUDDHA KASSAPA MANY TIMES before he had to be DRAGGED BY HIS HAIR (which for him being a Brahmin was an insult) by an Anagamin householder to see Buddha Kassapa. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/081-ghatikara-e1.htm He is NOWHERE FOUND TO MAKE ANY VOW. Infact it is only with later heretical sects (such as Mahasanghikas) where separation between Arahant and Buddha is found. Buddha after all was an ARAHANT who awakened when/where there weren't any sassana available. THink about this. What happens if you become an Sakadagamin in Tusita heaven and then get reborn (for the last time ever) on Earth when there isn't any Buddha Sassana. You'll have to either a) Become a Private Buddha or b) A Teaching Buddha. It took Buddha 6 years to become a Buddha. It can take 1 day or less to become an Arahant.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Or, if this subject had been discussed before, Sarah > may kindly give me message numbers. > > Respectfully, > Han >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it was. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/76982 None of what I say here is outside of main Pali Nikayas. Lots of Metta, Alex #78116 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/5/2007 7:08:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: The so-called "perceived tree", in the sense of something based on underlying rupas, is never the object of consciousness; only an idea of such can ever be object of consciousness. ============================== You call it an idea. I agree that it is a mental concept or projection, as is a concept, but I don't see them as the identical sort of construct. With metta, Howard #78117 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 6:55 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > How does one develop appropriate attention? > > Thank you, > > Robert A. > > ============ Dear Robert The suttas explain that only very, very few will cross to the other shore, most run along the shore of samsara. We can see how hard it is to develop wise attention, as we have already been in samsara for more aeons than the number of atoms in the universe, and still it is not clear. Nevertheless, it can be done if there is enough understanding that can see tanha is not the right way. There is already so much avijja (ignorance) but if ignorance joins with tanha when trying to develop the path then there is no way out. Unfortunately the buddhists of these days are mostly obsessed with finding techniques that they hope will lead them out quickly: in other words, tanha. It makes it all that much harder. So to even get to the stage where one can listen and study the Dhamma without tanha and ditthi is a major step; it is dependent mainly on hearing correct Dhamma and pubbekata punnata (merit done in past lives). What can be done right now? If one has studied Dhamma for some time there should be growing appreciation that hearing and considering leads to more understanding and detachment: This then conditions effort to hear more, consider more and 'let go' more and these are new conditions arising in the present, but built on past ones. Nevertheless, it doesn't always work that way; why does one person go so fast, so far and another doesn't. Venerable Sunnakhata was the Buddha's attendant before Ananda. He listened to Dhamma and attained Jhana. But he eventually left the Buddha, spoke badly of the Dhamma, and followed ascetics who used to live a life of severe ascetism, copying dogs (dog-duty ascetics). Why, when he had all this going for him? The commentary says that this man had lived 500 consecutive past lives as a ascetic and had these tendencies. Even the Buddha's teaching couldn't overcome them. We too may go wrong: Sometimes, because the results from this profound path are not quickly apparent one might lose confidence and look for something faster. Study of Dhamma is only real if it is done without desire. It goes against our natural instincts but the type of effort needed is something more profound than mere trying or watching. So while you are reading now there may be a great deal of effort arising along with samadhi- concentration - that help any understanding that is arising. But these factors may not be apparent. Also it is not that being in quiet places isn't helpful. In fact it can be useful to be secluded and alone where there is time to devote oneself to contemplation. But this is a minor factor and not comparable to the main one of hearing Dhamma because without that ones 'contemplation' will be distorted by view. There are other factors helpful to wisdom also. Here is something from the Satipatthana sutta commentary: "Six things lead to the arising of this enlightenment factor(wisdom): Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects. Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth means: seeking the meaning of the aggregates, the modes (or elements), sense-bases, controlling faculties, powers, enlightenment factors, way factors, absorption factors, the meditation for quietude, and the meditation for insight by asking for explanation of knotty points regarding these things in the Five Nikayas with the commentaries from teachers of the Dhamma. Purification of the basis is the cleaning of the personal basis: the body, and of the impersonal basis: clothes and dwelling place. The flame of a lamp is unclear when its wick, oil and container are dirty; the wick splutters, flickers; but the flame of a lamp that has a clean wick, oil and container is clear and the wick does not spit; it burns smoothly. So it is with knowledge. Knowing that arises out of the mind and mental qualities which are in dirty external and internal surroundings is apt to be impure, too, but the knowledge that arises under clean conditions is apt to be pure. In this way cleanliness leads to the growth of this enlightenment factor which comprises knowledge. Personal cleanliness is impaired by the excessive length of hair of the head, nails, hair of the body, by the excess of humours, and by the dirt of perspiration; cleanliness of impersonal or external things is impaired when robes are worn out, dirty and smelly, and when the house where one lives is dirty, soiled and untidy. So personal cleanliness should be secured by shaving, hair-cutting, nail-paring, the use of pectoral emetics and of purgatives which make the body light, and by shampooing, bathing and doing other necessary things, at the proper time. In similar way external cleanliness should be brought about by darning, washing and dyeing one's robes, and by smearing the floor of one's house with clay and the like to smoothen and clean it, and by doing other necessary things to keep the house clean and tidy. "endquote robert #78118 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report .. the Foundation (1) .. Damaging Opinionated Views.... buddhistmedi... Hi Sarah, - Mental formations can feed misunderstanding and suspicion. ATI Glossary: "sankhara [sankhaara]: Formation, compound, fashioning, fabrication — the forces and factors that fashion things (physical or mental), the process of fashioning, and the fashioned things that result. Sankhara can refer to anything formed or fashioned by conditions, or, more specifically, (as one of the five khandhas) thought-formations within the mind." Thank you for asking. My reply is given below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (DC & Colette), > > --- Tep Sastri wrote: > ... > > T: You are right that good and useful dhamma discussions should never be hidden from other members. But I only suggest an off-list communication when there are opinionated views that may be damaging. > ... > S: :-))Interesting! > > Could you give us an example of these 'damaging' 'opinionated views', Tep? > > This was the last comment of DC's which you responded to: > > DC "Discussion of anatta is inappropriate in a Dhammastudygroup. Else change the name to "Philosphy of Buddhism--discussion group". " > > S: Does this mean that you agree with DC's comment or think that stressing anatta in the Buddha's teaching is one of those 'damaging' 'opinionated views'? > ........ T: No and no, Sarah. On the contrary, I thought DC's comment might be damaging to the peaceful discussion atmosphere, and so I encouraged him to use the off-list emailing. He did not like the suggestion; in his off-list email he told me to stop reading his mind. :-)) Tep === #78119 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:39 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "...It took Buddha 6 years to become a Buddha. It can take 1 day or less to become an Arahant..." Scott: I'm sorry for yelling my fool head off, knowing how much you prefer the peace and quiet of well-considered and calm discussion, but WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE? Sincerely, Scott. #78120 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear Alex, Thank you very much for your comments. My question at the Foundation was: “Was Bodhisatta a Sotaapanna in one of his previous lives?” You said that my statement “But for Bodhisatta, although he tried very hard for 4 aeons and 100,000 worlds, he did not become even a Sotaapanna in his previous lives” is not found in four main Nikayas. I said the above statement based on Sn 2.1 Ratana Sutta, where the future of a Sotaapanna is mentioned. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html Quote: [9. "Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).[6] This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.] [Note 6. The reason why it is stated that there will be no eighth existence for a person who has attained the stage of sotapatti or the first stage of sanctity is that such a being can live at the most for only a period of seven existences in the realm of sense spheres.] End Quote. Respectfully, Han --- Alex wrote: > Hi Han, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > Topic: Was Bodhisatta a Sotaapanna? > > > > Before the Meeting at the Foundation, I told Sarah > and > > Jon that perfecting the paramis by Bodhisatta were > > really amazing. The hardships he endured, and the > > sacrifices he made were unbelievable. If an > ordinary > > person did that like Bodhisatta did, he would > probably > > become at least a Sotaapanna within a few > life-spans. > > But for Bodhisatta, although he tried very hard > for 4 > > aeons and 100,000 worlds, he did not become even a > > Sotaapanna in his previous lives. > >>>> > That IS NOT FOUND IN 4 MAIN NIKAYAS. > #78122 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 8:15 pm Subject: Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World reverendagga... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" > wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, and D.C. > > > > > > Alex, do you consider the computer, you are working on, a delusion > too? > >>>>> > > Indirectly, yes. > > If I weren't deluded, I wouldn't be here. I would be paranibbana'ed. > > As Buddha has said... eye is old kamma. And so on with the rest of > things. > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > Hi Alex! reverend aggacitto here! The only problem that exists with this is that therefore life become's one big solipstic dream where no one can be really sure of anything!However,let's remember that in order for one's "self" to be an illusion(delusion)there STILL has to be the "self" available to percieve the "illision" or "deluded" state ! Sorry! May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless all of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78123 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 8:31 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... buddhistmedi... Dear Scott, - Let's continue walking the mindful-discussion path (although it is impermanent like many other things). Thank you for this carefully written message (#78082) with the intention to communicate better. :-) I understand now that you accept that the Suttanta and Abhidhamma methods "overlap and interpenetrate". That is one good step forward. Scott: I reiterate, though, that I am asking about the object of sati, not the difference between the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma methods of exegesis. Sati, in my opinion, being cetasika, has its functions and characteristics no matter the level of development accorded to it. Its objects are also other realities, each having their own characteristics. T: I am in agreement with you except one thing : concepts (pannatti) can be an object of citta & cetasika. I assume that we are discussing the dhammas (realities, characteristics, phenomena, mind objects) in general, i.e. not only the four ultimate realities, as well as interpretation of the Dhamma (Teachings). I am aware that you are much more theoretical and precise in the definitions and terminologies based on the commentaries of the Abhidhamma -- that may be a reason why you have to ask me thousand-and-one questions about the 'dhammas'. ............. Scott: I do not understand the 'dhamma in the conventional sense' aspect of the argument. This is why I asked about concept, since this seems to imply that sati for non-ariyans is a different kind of sati than is sati for ariyans. This seems to imply that objects of non- ariyan sati are different than objects of ariyan sati. T: Of course, sati for ariyans is a 'different kind' since it is supramundane. Worldlings are not able to take an ultimate reality as an object of "his" citta, and you know that. ............ Scott: By 'conventional' I read 'pa~n~natti' (as construed by the ordinary person) since I can think of no other way in which this term could apply. A 'dhamma in the onventional sense' can only be concept, as far as I can tell. Is this the case you would like to make? T: Good, Scott, good. It is wise to define 'pa~n~natti' at this point. And you are right that a 'dhamma in the onventional sense' can only be concept -- that is what the non-ariyans are capable to "see and know". ........... > Tep: "Realities (phenomena) are what they are, one's perceiving of them does not alter the truths. Right perception of the realities alters one's view from wrong to right, and from 'not seeing & not knowing' to 'seeing & knowing' them the way they truly are. That has been my view on the dhammas." Scott: What is 'right perception'? I thought for a moment you might be referring to the function of pa~n~naa, but that is right view. Whether undeveloped or weak in the case of the puthujjana, or highly developed as in the case of the arahat, sati is sati; its objects are, as noted above, other realities. I'm not aware of a conventional sati and a non-conventional sati. Are you referring, perhaps, to the lokiya/lokuttara distinction? T: I meant perception that is not a vipallasa (perversion; see AN 4.49). You are right again about my reference to lokiya/lokuttara distinction. Good, Scott, good. We are making a progress, and I thank you for being gentle and understanding. Tep === #78125 From: "Robert" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 8:41 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Robert, Thank you for your reply. I have a somewhat more optimistic view than you, but I do appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. Sincerely, Robert A. #78126 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 8:55 pm Subject: Gandhabba reverendagga... Hi every body! The Tathagatagarbha not a parallel to Gandhabba? i would think the contrary to be evident. As well, when talking of Dr.Rys Davids and the Pali Text Society i was discussing the misunderstandind of the "noself" concept being taken as a metaphysical assertion as opposed to a practical stratagy to help one past typical conventional constructs tward liberation. Thank's! May the Buddha's, Deva, and Angel's bless all of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #78127 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 9:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Jon (and Nina, Howard), - It is always a pleasure for me to read your emails. In the previous email I asked : > T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana) ? For example, let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be > useful as an object of satipatthana now? > T: And you kindly answered: Jon: To my understanding, the object of satipatthana is always a presently arising dhamma. Please let me know if this does not answer your question. T: So, you mean a past ruupa and a future ruupa (or naama) are not (and cannot be) objects of satipatthana? This interesting point is confusing to me, since your answer is different from Nina's. Let me refer to the dialogue between Nina and me in the message #78101: > >Tep: Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, a corpse) ------- > N: The fact that they have the three general characterisics shows that they are dhammas, not concepts. Concepts do not have these characteristics. .......... T: Does Nina's reply contradict with yours? Dear Nina, I have read your message twice and found that I need to read it one more time, before I can give you a thorough reply that makes sense. Thank you very much for the understanding. ;-) Tep === #78128 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Robert Robert wrote: > Hello Jon, > > If the first step is to gain a better intellectual understanding of what > awareness and understanding are and the conditions for their > arising/development, what are the steps that follow? Thanks for the question. There are no steps! By that I mean there is no mention in the texts of steps to be taken to bring about the development of insight. There is only mention of necessary factors, or of various mental states that play a role. I believe the reason for this is that the development of insight it is not a matter of taking steps. (This might sound picky, but I think the point is an important one.) When I said in my post to Han that a correct understanding at the so-called intellectual level is a necessary prerequisite for the arising of awareness, I had in mind the numerous references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings (and to the necessary prerequisite for that, association with the right person), and to the need for this to happen not just once or occasionally but repeatedly. I take this to refer to hearing the teachings explained in a manner that is meaningful for the individual given his/her present level of understanding and predisposition towards the teachings generally. For the person who has the necessary accumulated basic understanding, the consideration and reflection that follows from hearing the teachings explained in a way that is useful and relevant for that person may lead to a level of intellectual understanding, which may in turn lead to direct awareness. However, this last-mentioned this would not be on an occasion, or in respect of an object, of the person's own choosing. It would happen when the circumstances were appropriate, which might be at a time and place unrelated to the earlier hearing. The difficult thing about all this, as I read the texts, is that understanding cannot be made to grow by the exercise of an intention for that to happen. It will happen only because all the right factors are in place. Thus, not steps to be taken, but circumstances that occur, given the right conditions, in their own good time. Let me take as an example the factor of the hearing of the teachings. Hearing the teachings explained in a manner that is useful to us is not a matter of deciding to listen/read/study/meet up with someone. The hearing, reading or otherwise coming across information or an explanation that clarifies some misunderstanding on our part is a matter of vipaka, result of kamma, rather than of any 'looking' for answers. Again, not steps to be taken but a matter of factors being in place. Hoping this is helpful in explaining how the teachings may be read as describing the development of insight without there being the idea of a me who does something in order to make awareness arise. Jon #78129 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya sarahprocter... Hi Elaine, --- Elaine wrote: > Thank you for telling us about yourself. Your life story is very > colourful and interesting. :-)) ... S: Thank you too for your kind note. Usually I prefer to just discuss the Dhamam, but if we encourage and ask those who join us here to tell us about their backgrounds, it seems only fair to do the same when asked:-)). ... > If you find KS's teachings are real Buddha dhamma, follow it and be a > good Buddhist. May you be free from greed, hatred and delusion. ... S: Again, thank you for the good wishes. I think we need to read the texts carefully for ourselves and consider what is Buddha Dhamma. It is the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha which we take refuge in as you stress. Anything we hear from any friends or teachers has to be checked and reflected on to see whether it is in conformity or not. I know you agree with this. .... > As for me, I have faith in our Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. I'll stick > to reading the Suttas and practise meditation. There is no more need for > me to explain to you or you to explain to me our different > understandings of Buddhism, I'm letting it go. I feel glad that you have > shared your thoughts with me. Thank you. :-)) .... S: Thank you as well, Elaine. I'll continue to enjoy reading your explanations and reflections to others whilst we take a break from our threads:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #78130 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:47 pm Subject: "The Teachings are Dying" christine_fo... Hello all, During Dhamma talks in India, I recall that a statement was made by K. Sujin to the effect that "The Teachings are dying". My remembrance is that she seemed of the view that they were dying rather quickly. Do any others who were present recall something similar? Is there any scriptural or commentarial pointer to how long the Teachings will remain basically uncorrupted? Is there any scriptural assertion on what the indicators are, and what form the corruption will take? Sorry if this has been recently discussed and I'm just rehashing something - if so, just nudge me in the right direction. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #78131 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Jon (and Nina, Howard), - > > It is always a pleasure for me to read your emails. > And likewise for me to read yours ;-)) > In the previous email I asked : > >> T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental >> construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana) ? For example, >> let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five >> khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be >> useful as an object of satipatthana now >> > > T: And you kindly answered: > > Jon: To my understanding, the object of satipatthana is always a > presently arising dhamma. > Please let me know if this does not answer your question. > > T: So, you mean a past ruupa and a future ruupa (or naama) are not > (and cannot be) objects of satipatthana? > A past rupa could have been object of satipatthana at the (earlier) time it was a present rupa, and a future rupa could become an object of satipatthana at the (later) time it becomes a present rupa. > This interesting point is > confusing to me, since your answer is different from Nina's. > > Let me refer to the dialogue between Nina and me in the message > #78101: > > >>> Tep: Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three >>> characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as >>> the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, >>> a corpse) >>> ------- >>> > > >> N: The fact that they have the three general characterisics shows >> that they are dhammas, not concepts. Concepts do not have these >> characteristics. >> .......... >> > > T: Does Nina's reply contradict with yours? > I don't think so, but I'll let Nina answer that. Always a pleasure to discuss with you, Tep. Jon #78132 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 1:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "The Teachings are Dying" nilovg Dear Christine, Op 6-nov-2007, om 8:47 heeft Christine Forsyth het volgende geschreven: > During Dhamma talks in India, I recall that a statement was made by K. > Sujin to the effect that "The Teachings are dying". -------- N: Just now I posted from my 'Preserving the Buddha's Teachings" about this subject: < The “Dispeller of Delusion” (the commentary to the Book of Analysis, commentary to Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge) is one of the texts explaining about the disappearance of the teachings. We read (431): For there are three kinds of disappearance: disappearance of theoretical understanding (pariyatti), disappearance of penetration (paìivedha) and disappearance of practice (paìipatti). Herein, pariyatti is the three parts of the Tipiìaka; the penetration is the penetration of the Truths; the practice is the way.... Further on we read that of the Scriptures first the Book of the Paììhåna (Conditional Relations) of the Abhidhamma disappears, and then successively the other Books of the Abhidamma. After that the Books of the Suttanta will successively disappear. We read: But when the two Piìakas have disappeared, while the Vinaya Piìaka endures, the teachings (såsana) endure. Also the Vinaya will disappear. Further on the text states that there are three kinds of complete extinction: Complete extinction of defilements, complete extinction of the aggregates (khandhas) and complete extinction of the relics. Herein, complete extinction of the defilements took place on the Wisdom Seat, the complete extinction of the aggregates at Kusinåra and the complete extinction of the relics will take place in the future. It is then explained that all the relics will gather together and will go to the “Great Wisdom Seat” in Bodhgaya. We read: Heaped up on the Great Wisdom Seat, they will become one solid mass like a pile of gold and will emit six-coloured rays... We read that they will be burnt by the fire element and that then the teachings have come to an end.> < When there isn’t anybody who can clearly explain the right practice, the development of the eightfold Path, people cannot develop it and they cannot realize the four noble Truths. When nobody in this world can penetrate the four noble Truths anymore, the world will be dark. The Dhamma will gradually disappear. At the last day of our pilgrimage, when we were in Patna, Acharn Sujin said: “The teachings are almost dying, let us develop right understanding”. We do not have to feel depressed when thinking of the disappearance of the teachings. On the contrary, we should have courage and cheerfulness to begin again and again developing right understanding. > Nina. #78133 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 2:16 am Subject: Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, After the cremation, extracts from Sarah & Jonothan's further discussion with Khun Sujin. ***** S: When we talk about someone in shock (like our friends who were in the car when the accident took place) someone may not be able to think or act, what is it? KS: Is there seeing? Is there hearing? Different types of citta, that's all. J: When you say there's seeing, there is, but it seems there aren't as many moments of seeing at such times. KS: It doesn't matter as long as seeing is a reality. Because if we analyse what are these moments - just different kinds of citta. J: But more moments of moha than usual, I'm sure. KS: Yes, because they don't remember. When we study abhidhamma and we understand different types citta, we don't try to classify any moment because there must be different moments of lobha, dosa and moha. S: It seems there's unusual or almost no thinking. KS: there must be thinking, but they couldn't remember... S: And when someone suffers concussion, what are the realities then, because no seeing, no hearing... KS: There must be cittas too, thinking with moha. Usually there is some reaction that one can see. Just because there is no movement of hands and legs doesn't mean there's no thinking. Who knows about the mind door? . Just lie on the bed for half and hour and don't move. The other may think you're unconscious! ***** Later... S:.In the Visuddhimagga, it says that for those who have a lot of lobha it can be helpful to view a corpse, but for those who naturally have a lot of dosa, it doesn't help. This is why I asked you about looking at the bones because I wondered whether you reflected on the corpse or bones at this time. KS: This is Alan, different from Alan we have seen! That's all! I don't think much. S: No samatha or calmness? KS: Whenever any kusala citta arises it's calm. So we don't have to develop it intentionally. S: What about reflecting on the bones as a condition for calm? KS: In many ways (it can be), but I don't think we have to open the book or recite or specially think about it. It depends on accumulations to have kusala. This is the condition for having more kusala. S: But how does it calm the mind if it is the right time? KS: it depends on whether there is awareness. We don't have to think 'oh, is it calm now?' Because whenever there is kusala, it's calm. S: I was reflecting how everything in life, everything we find so important just depends on breath and death can come at anytime. So when I saw the bones, I considered how everything we find important are just these bones, just these little bits of rupa and where's the Alan? Nowhere to be found. It can be very calming at these times. I find it helpful. That's why I asked whether there are other helpful ways to reflect. KS: To me the most important thing in life is the development of understanding. So the understanding of nama and rupa helps a lot because it can condition any level of sati, even considering such and such, wholesome thoughts. Because people sometimes just want to have more kusala, but in reality, what for? Wanting to be calm or contemplating on bones just for having less attachment, even just at that very moment. S: But it's helpful to hear about all kinds of kusala, including calmness, because we don't know what opportunity there will be for what kind of kusala. There cannot be satipatthana at every moment. It's better than having lobha or dosa. KS: That's why we should always develop awareness and right understanding and metta too and all the four brahma viharas. J: When I see the bones it's another reminder for a sense of urgency. KS: One clings to the elements of rupa as mine but what one considers as mine is just that. So what one takes as the most important thing in one's life is nothing, just soil or dirt and it can help the considering of the rupa at this moment too because we can separate the whole body as minutely as that - as heaps of dirt. Even now, it's only different heaps of dirt ..... Metta, Sarah ======== #78134 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "The Teachings are Dying" sarahprocter... Hi Chris, I see Nina has replied in detail. You and others may also like to be nudged into "Useful Posts" and scroll down to 'Sasana - decline of'. I think you'll find lots more textual quotes there. No need to apologise for any revival of any threads - all helpful. There are always new angles:-). Do you have any reflections on the topic yourself? Any more on the Gethin thread or further quotes from him to consider? Metta, Sarah --- Christine Forsyth wrote: ... > Is there any scriptural or commentarial pointer to how long the > Teachings will remain basically uncorrupted? Is there any scriptural > assertion on what the indicators are, and what form the corruption > will take? > > Sorry if this has been recently discussed and I'm just rehashing > something - if so, just nudge me in the right direction. #78135 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] how to live? egberdina Hi Tom, On 30/10/2007, tom wrote: > > > `Do you live at all?' is my question. I thought the question was very good, as was the question you ask in the subject "How to live?" I am still away from home, but I have been thinking about what you wrote, and now there is an opportunity to write back to you. It has been proved that the thing > that lives from > birth till death is the same, changeless `I'-principle. The `I' is the > centre of life. That > alone lives. > The `how' and the `why' of life are sought in the manifestations > outside. When you > turn to the manifestation, you lose sight of your centre and cease to > live really. So the > best way, for the best living, is to cling on to the living alone, > forgetting the `how' and > the `why' of it completely. atmananda I can give you my understanding of the Buddhist take on your questions. Buddhism is defined by anatta. Take anatta out of Buddhism, and you are left with any number of beliefs that are also common to any number of creeds around the world. In the context of anatta, the question "How to live?" is about as meaningful as asking 'What colour is Tuesday?". We may easily recognise the category errors that are occuring in the last question. Days of the week are not coloured things, so any attempt to find a meaningful answer to the question is doomed to frustration and failure. In the same way, it is a category error, in the context of anatta, to believe that future actions are available for the choosing from a palette of possibilities. Moral dilemnas a la "What shall I do next?" are simply a misapprehension of the way things are, though believing the question to be valid does lead to much frustration and failure. It is not even a question of leaving out the agent in the equation, and asking instead 'What will happen next?". Nor is the much vaunted present moment available for inspection. The only valid inquiry as to what occurs, is an inquiry about the past. "What has just happened?" is about as close to a present tense as is possible. And in that context, the passing parade of past phenomena cannot be used as a basis to answer your question "do you live at all?" in the affirmative. Only the past is known. Herman #78136 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 10:02 pm Subject: Paging Nina? ksheri3 Hi Nina, If it's possible to speak with you? I'm replying to part of your post through a post Tep enlightened me to, firstly here: > > > I think your theoretical discussion helps me glimpse a tiny speck > of light at the far-away mind horizon. I am not sure if that "light" > is > > > wisdom or just a Mara's illusion. :-) > > > colette: <...> Tep isn't the only person that deals EXCLUSIVELY with "theory" in this forum but he is the one gave rise to the "light" you see or saw which placed the "light" as dynamic which you had a glimpse of. This also means that the light had motion and you witnessed the motion (this is a can of worms suddenly for myself since now I'm seeing Semde and Longde better, I also see a sky of "blue pancakes"). Transmutation may assist you in deciding if the light is wisdom or not. Tep, can I address you concerning a cold shiver I got in your reply to Jon Nina and Howard? lol <...> mostly I laugh at everything since I've been seriously unloaded upon since 1980 and there certainly is no end in sight thus I might as well laugh until the coranor signs my death certificate. They do not care so I can't care for them and with what they've done to me it's quite clear what they intend on doing for the rest of their lives and my life. Christmas is best remembered as the time for giving and I can certainly verify that giving has to be much better than recieving. <...> At least you find some pleasure from some people in this group. toodles, colette #78137 From: "dhammanando_bhikkhu" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba dhammanando_... Bhante, Rev. Aggacitto: > The gandhabba and tathagatagarbha not a parallel? > then what is Ven. Gotama discussing regarding gandhabba > in M.N. sutta#36?but the evolving "self" or "Buddha nature" You mean MN. 38. The Buddha is describing the conditions necessary for human conception. One of these is a gandhabba. But he doesn't pause to define this term, presumably because its meaning is already known to his audience. Nor does any other Sutta supply a definition. The only texts that do say what a gandhabba is are the Pali commentaries, which identify it as a being that has just passed away. Your notion that it must mean an evolving self or a tathaagatagarbha is pulled out of thin air. No Theravada text defines gandhabba in such a way. Best wishes, Dhammanando #78138 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment ashkenn2k Hi Sarah She is right to say there is calm when there is kusala as whenever kuasala, these cetasikas would arise also a. there is tatramajjhattatå b. tranquility of body c. tranquility of mind Calmness is not ekaggata. Concentration does not produce calmness. It is could be akusala or kusala. But if it is jhanas, it would be kusala. So it is kusala that cause calmness and not jhanas or concentration. Cheers Ken O #78139 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:51 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) philofillet Hi Nina (ps to Sarah) >So hard to know what has been accumulated during > all these aeons. Indeed. But the effort can be made. I like the sutta in AN X called "self-examination" in English in which the Buddha encourages us to ask ourselves whether we are often prone to hatred etc. Can we know? It takes a lot of thinking about people and situations but we have to start there, I think. > Isn't there change? Or development? Students of AS often quote the adze handle simile to suggest that meangingful change is unlikely to happen, but they forget that the sutta in question says that one *does* know when there has been change, only one isn't able to measure it by saying this much and when etc. > One can learn. Yes! > One does not 'possess' tendencies, they are not mine. Right, of course not, not really. But I think if we are honest there has to be consideration of Phil's tendencies, or Nina's tendencies etc. If we are only considering dhammas at work there is not enough wisdom available to consider them in any real way, I think. Just a lot of thinking about what dhamma one considers to be at work. For example, many people say things like "oh, just a lot of mana." How do they know? I think they are just thinking about what dhamma seems logically likely to be at work in different situations, if you know what I mean. I don't have faith in "knowing the characteristic of mana" for example. For now, I would rather think about the six hetus and how they relate to people and situations, and whether there is wholesomeness at work or not. Still just thinking of course. That's off topic. Just feeding my need to post. Thanks also for your response re the cetasikas of malleability etc. Metta, Phil p.s Sarah, my response to your post will have to wait until I get to Sukin's, which I do want to do. Probably sometime in late 2009 or early 2010, I think. Thanks again. :) #78140 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- colette wrote: > > "Therefore, Baahiya, you .should so train yourself that with > respect to > > the seen there will be merely the seen, that with respect to the > heard > > there will be merely the heard.......cognised....." > > ..... > > colette: then where exactly does the mind come into play here? You > seem to be of the opinion that the eye consciousness does not need > the mind to cognize what the eye has seen or the ear has heard? .... S: At the moment when eye consciousness arises, there is just the seeing of the seen, with eye-base as an essential condition. At such a moment, there is no other consciousness other than the seeing consciousness. After the seeing has fallen away, it is followed by other kinds of consciousness in both the eye-door and then mind-door processes. There is no lasting 'mind' at all, just different moments of sense-door and mind-door consciousness. ... >Thus > why do we need a mind if it's not used? Which brings up the ALAYA- > VIJNANA. ... S: We don't need a mind - it's a concept as we use the term. Just different kinds of citta or vinnana, including 'thinking' cittas (and cetasikas) which think about the visible objects, sounds and other sense data experienced. No store-house of any kind. One citta (consciousness) at a time and then gone for ever! This is why there really only ever is the present moment. Let me know if you have further questions on this. Metta, Sarah ======== #78141 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:55 am Subject: The teaching on aeons philofillet Hi all There have been lots of references the last few days (and always) to the Buddha's teaching that we have been going through samsara for aeons. No doubt about that teaching. My curiosity is whether that teaching is to condition patience about not expecting results, or whether it is to condition samvega to take advantage of this rare human birth in a time when the Buddha's teaching still exists. I used to believe the former, now I am leaning to the latter, but I imagine the texts make it pretty clear which is intended by the Buddha. Can anyone help me out with that? Thanks in advance, I won't be able to respond for awhile. Metta, Phil #78142 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alan Driver's Funeral - final installment sarahprocter... Hi Ken O, Good comments as usual! --- Ken O wrote: > Hi Sarah > > She is right to say there is calm when there is kusala > > as whenever kuasala, these cetasikas would arise also > a. there is tatramajjhattatå > b. tranquility of body > c. tranquility of mind > > Calmness is not ekaggata. ... S: Yes, and any attempt to have calmness or to be a calm person is bound to be with attachment and probably silabbataparamasa too. Metta, Sarah >Concentration does not produce calmness. > It is could be akusala or kusala. But if it is jhanas, it would be > kusala. So it is kusala that cause calmness and not jhanas or > concentration. #78143 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon ashkenn2k Hi Tep > T: So, you mean a past ruupa and a future ruupa (or naama) are not > (and cannot be) objects of satipatthana? A rupa that had falls, its past, hence cannot be objects of satipatthana as it hinged on the present moment. A past rupa could be a paccaya for the arising of a present citta through pre-dominance object condition if it is something desirable or through decisive support condition or root conditioning. But the rupa had ceased, the object is not the rupa, it would be the lobha in result of the rupa. A future rupa had not arise, hence cannot be an object. it must be in the presence in order to penetrate its characteristics especially its arisen, presence and decay and death Kind regards Ken O #78144 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) ashkenn2k Hi Han Tun > The readers of this post may express their views on > whether Bodhisatta was a Sotaapaana in one of his > previous lives, and why or why not? because if he is a Sotaaapaana, his enlightment would be confirmed in seven live times and that would not be possible him to accomplish his perfections. A person who vow to be a Buddha in front of a living Buddha, would have been enlighted at the second, third or four verse of the dhamma when he heard from a living Buddha. Due to the Dhammachanda, the enlightement was prevented, until his perfection is being perfected. Thirdly, it is the vow of saving others, that also prevented him to be enlighted earlier than expected unless perfection is being perfected. Cheers Ken O #78145 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 4:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report .. the Foundation (1) .. Damaging Opinionated Views.... sarahprocter... Hi Tep & DC, Thanks for your kind clarification and concern for the peaceful atmosphere here. Much appreciated as are all your recent exchanges! --- Tep Sastri wrote: > T: No and no, Sarah. On the contrary, I thought DC's comment might be > damaging to the peaceful discussion atmosphere, ... S: I think we're all enjoying DC's contributions and exchanges. Certainly nothing damaging at all. Much better for everyone to air their contrary views so that we have a chance to consider and respond! DC, I'll get back to other posts addressed to me later. I know that it's often harder to formulate responses 'in public', but please persevere in this way because then others can also follow the threads and join in if they wish. This is, after all, what we all do here! Metta, Sarah ====== #78146 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 4:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) ashkenn2k Hi Dieter > > D: I missed a statement like that because it offers- as I see it - > the chance to clarify misunderstandings: > the development of insight leads to No-I/Self ( anatta ), the > final fetter (mana/conceit )abolished at Arahant level. Up to > that state anatta is a (hypo) thesis .., isn't it? > Hence we , though agreeing to the point of (I/self) delusion , > need training, > meditation work ' analysing in detail the khandas in order to > recognise : that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. > Only then the thesis can become a law (dhamma). > > What I suppose is that you and others members seem to believe in > non action of the self > (occuring only at the state of cessation of kamma ) and missing by > that the request of the 3 fold Noble Path Training ( sila ,samadhi > ,panna -corresponding to the path elements 3,4,5 ..6,7,8 and 1, 2 > .) > Please see for example Anguttara Nikaya III 82 ff..as well as > other numerous others ) KO: In the arisen of cetasikas, usually (not always) there would be arisen of Chanda and Adhimokkho, these are the cetasikas that condition "wish to do" and decision, there is no I involved in the process. Non action in our stand is not to purposedly to do it as cetasikas like Chanda and Adimokkho already condition it, supported by our accumulations. When we want to study more dhamma, it is chanda that conditioned it. When we decide what to do with our spare time, adhimokkho already done its job. This is further support by our citta as citta thinks. Where is there an I, in such conditioning. Cheers Ken O #78147 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > p.s Sarah, my response to your post will have to wait until I get > to Sukin's, which I do want to do. Probably sometime in late 2009 or > early 2010, I think. Thanks again. :) ... S: Anytime it fits into your schedule will be fine, Phil. Don't rush there! With talk of hundreds of thousands of aeons, I think a year or two's delay won't impede any progress too much:)). Here's a quote which tells me about the intricacy of conditions and why it's futile to speculate about the details of kamma and vipaka, about 'just' and 'unjust', 'good' and 'bad' sense experiences we all face: "And kamma which was accumulated in the past as much as a hundred thousand kotis of aeons ago becomes a condition in the present. And kamma which is accumulated now becomes a condition at the end of a hundred thousand kotis of aeons in the future." (Sammohavinodani, 112). Metta, Sarah p.s Seriously, no reply anytime from anyone to me is fine too! =========== #78148 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Tep) - In a message dated 11/6/2007 3:09:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Jon (and Nina, Howard), - > > It is always a pleasure for me to read your emails. > And likewise for me to read yours ;-)) > In the previous email I asked : > >> T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental >> construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana) ? For example, >> let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five >> khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be >> useful as an object of satipatthana now >> > > T: And you kindly answered: > > Jon: To my understanding, the object of satipatthana is always a > presently arising dhamma. > Please let me know if this does not answer your question. > > T: So, you mean a past ruupa and a future ruupa (or naama) are not > (and cannot be) objects of satipatthana? > A past rupa could have been object of satipatthana at the (earlier) time it was a present rupa, and a future rupa could become an object of satipatthana at the (later) time it becomes a present rupa. > This interesting point is > confusing to me, since your answer is different from Nina's. > > Let me refer to the dialogue between Nina and me in the message > #78101: > > >>> Tep: Point 2. Past and future khandhas have the three >>> characteristics as the present ones, and as such they can be used as >>> the objects of 'satipatthana bhavana' as seen in DN 22 (for example, >>> a corpse) >>> ------- >>> > > >> N: The fact that they have the three general characterisics shows >> that they are dhammas, not concepts. Concepts do not have these >> characteristics. >> .......... >> > > T: Does Nina's reply contradict with yours? > I don't think so, but I'll let Nina answer that. Always a pleasure to discuss with you, Tep. Jon =================================== The problem that I have with sati and pa~n~na being able to know ONLY paramattha dhammas is the following, Jon - and please consider this very carefully and in precise detail: a) Any object of sati or pa~n~na, these being cetasikas, is the object in a the current mind state. It is the object of consciousness, and of feeling, recognition, and all the other extant cetasikas in effect at the time. b) In no mind state is the object the current citta of that state or any of the current cetasikas, which leaves only the following possibilities for current object: 1) a presently existing rupa, 2) a past rupa, 3) a past citta, and 4) a past cetasika. c) But, being a paramattha dhamma, it must be a present actuality and not something already ceased, for what is ceased no longer exists, and any "knowing" of it is actually a remembering of it, which is KNOWING OF CONCEPT, and thus, the only sort of paramattha dhamma that can currently exist and be object of consciousness is a rupa. d) The last conclusion implies that no nama is knowable by sati or pa~n~na!! (An untenable position.) If there is an error in the foregoing, I would greatly appreciate having it made clear to me. But it really has to be hammered out in detail, without any fuzziness to it. It is in a critical area of "doctrine" such as this that pristine detail and clarity of thought is needed. It is not the time for Abhidhammic method to become imprecise. It is exactly the opposite. I have no vested interest or preferred "outcome" in whether the "problem" I see is real or not. That is, whatever the facts are, they are - and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is leaving this matter or any other fundamental matter vague and unresolved. With metta, Howard #78149 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/6/2007 6:54:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: We don't need a mind - it's a concept as we use the term. Just different kinds of citta or vinnana, including 'thinking' cittas (and cetasikas) which think about the visible objects, sounds and other sense data experienced. No store-house of any kind. One citta (consciousness) at a time and then gone for ever! This is why there really only ever is the present moment. ============================= Yes, no storehouse of any kind. That is why, in particular, that "accumulations" is mere conventional expression. With metta, Howard #78150 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear Ken, Very good reasoning, Ken! Thank you very much, Respectfully, Han --- Ken O wrote: > because if he is a Sotaaapaana, his enlightment > would be confirmed in > seven live times and that would not be possible him > to accomplish his > perfections. > > A person who vow to be a Buddha in front of a living > Buddha, would > have been enlighted at the second, third or four > verse of the dhamma > when he heard from a living Buddha. Due to the > Dhammachanda, the > enlightement was prevented, until his perfection is > being perfected. > > Thirdly, it is the vow of saving others, that also > prevented him to > be enlighted earlier than expected unless perfection > is being > perfected. > > > Cheers > Ken O > #78151 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:04 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (70) nichiconn dear friends, Part 7 13. Viisatinipaato 5. Subhaakammaaradhiitutheriigaathaava.n.nanaa verse: 339. "Daharaaha.m suddhavasanaa, ya.m pure dhammamassu.ni.m; tassaa me appamattaaya, saccaabhisamayo ahu. 338. I was young with clean clothes when I heard the Doctrine previously. Being vigilant, I obtained comprehension of the [four] truths. txt: Tattha daharaaha.m suddhavasanaa, ya.m pure dhammamassu.ninti yasmaa aha.m pubbe daharaa taru.nii eva suddhavasanaa suddhavatthanivatthaa ala"nkatappa.tiyattaa satthu santike dhamma.m assosi.m. Tassaa me appamattaaya, saccaabhisamayo ahuuti yasmaa ca tassaa me mayha.m yathaasuta.m dhamma.m paccavekkhitvaa appamattaaya upa.t.thitassatiyaa siila.m adhi.t.thahitvaa bhaavana.m anuyu~njantiyaava catunna.m ariyasaccaana.m abhisamayo "ida.m dukkhan"ti-aadinaa (pa.ti. ma. 1.32) pa.tivedho ahosi. Pruitt: 338. There, I was young (daharaaha.m), with clean clothes (suddha-vasanaa), when previously (pure) I heard (assu.ni.m) the Doctrine means: because I was young (aha.m daharaa) before (pubbe), I was young (taru.nii), with clean clothes, dressed in clean garments (suddha-vattha-nivatthaa) and fully adorned, when I heard (assosi.m) the Doctrine in the presence of the Teacher. Being vigilant, (tassaa me) obtained comprehension of the [four] truths (saccaabhisamayo) means: and because I examined the Doctrine as I (mayha.m) had heard it, being vigilant through having established mindfulness and standing firm in virtuous conduct, through being diligent in mental development, there was comprehension (abhisamayo) of the four noble truths (ariya-saccana.m): there was penetration of [the teaching] beginning, "This is misery."* *See the First Sermon of the Buddha, Vin I 10 (BD IV 16). verse: 340. "Tatoha.m sabbakaamesu, bhusa.m aratimajjhaga.m; sakkaayasmi.m bhaya.m disvaa, nekkhammameva piihaye. 339. Then I attained great non-delight in all sensual pleasures. Seeing fear in individuality, I longed only for renunciation [of the world]. txt: Tatoha.m sabbakaamesu, bhusa.m aratimajjhaganti tato tena kaara.nena satthu santike dhammassa sutattaa saccaana~nca abhisamitattaa manussesu dibbesu caati sabbesupi kaamesu bhusa.m ativiya arati.m ukka.n.thi.m adhigacchi.m. Sakkaayasmi.m upaadaanakkhandhapa~ncake, bhaya.m sappa.tibhayabhaava.m ~naa.nacakkhunaa disvaa, nekkhammameva pabbajja.m nibbaanameva, piihaye pihayaami patthayaami. 339. Then I attained (ajjhaga.m) great non-delight (arati.m) in all sensual pleasures (sabba-kaamesu) means: then, because of that, because of having heard the Doctrine form the Teacher and because of understanding the [four noble] truths, I attained (adhigacchi.m) great, extreme non-delight, dissatisfaction, in all sensual pleasures (sabbesu pi kaamesu). Seeing through the eye of knowledge fear (bhaya.m), the state of being afraid (sa-ppa.ti-bhaya-bhaava.m), in individuality (sakkaa-yasmi.m), in the fivefold aggregates of clinging, I long (piihaye), I longed (pihayaami), I wished (patthayaami) only for renunciation, for going forth, and indeed for quenching. ..to be continued, connie #78152 From: "Robert" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) avalo1968 Hello Jon, Thank you for answering my question. Jon: When I said in my post to Han that a correct understanding at the so-called intellectual level is a necessary prerequisite for the arising of awareness, I had in mind the numerous references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings (and to the necessary prerequisite for that, association with the right person), and to the need for this to happen not just once or occasionally but repeatedly. I take this to refer to hearing the teachings explained in a manner that is meaningful for the individual given his/her present level of understanding and predisposition towards the teachings generally. For the person who has the necessary accumulated basic understanding, the consideration and reflection that follows from hearing the teachings explained in a way that is useful and relevant for that person may lead to a level of intellectual understanding, which may in turn lead to direct awareness. However, this last-mentioned this would not be on an occasion, or in respect of an object, of the person's own choosing. It would happen when the circumstances were appropriate, which might be at a time and place unrelated to the earlier hearing. The difficult thing about all this, as I read the texts, is that understanding cannot be made to grow by the exercise of an intention for that to happen. It will happen only because all the right factors are in place. Thus, not steps to be taken, but circumstances that occur, given the right conditions, in their own good time. Robert A: It would seem that the intention to hear the Dhamma is somehow OK, but the intention to do any other practice would not be. Don't you also read in the text something like this: "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit? "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore." Doesn't there seem to be some intention going on here? To take one line from the Mangala Sutta: "To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct, to help one's relatives, and to be blameless in action — this is the greatest blessing." I see some intention going on here as well. You say the understanding cannot grow by an intention for that to happen, yet you need the intention take the first steps - association with the wise and hearing the Dhamma, but then intention to pursue any other practice is somehow not OK? As usual, I just don't get the distinction. Robert A. #78153 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Robert Robert wrote: > Hello Jon and Nina, > > Thank you for your efforts to explain things in a way I can understand. > > Jon, in your explanation, you hit at the heart of what I am having > difficulty understanding. You say the DSGees acknkowledge the 'I' > and 'doing' in their lives, ... > Yes. These DSGers do not consider themselves any to be any different from anyone else in that regard. > but in the development of insight there is no 'I' > and 'doing'. Where they differ from some other followers of the teachings is that, on their reading of the texts, the development of awareness and insight refers to actual moments of kusala consciousness accompanied by panna of the appropriate level, and to those moments only, and not to anything that is to be done with the idea of having awareness or insight or causing it to arise. In other words, they do not read the Buddha as advising or instructing his followers to undertake any particular kind of 'practice' in order to have awareness or insight (no steps to be taken, as mentioned in an another thread). Rather, they read the Buddha as describing the factors that are prerequisites to the arising of awareness and insight, and they understand that key to this is a better understanding of the explanations given in the teachings as a whole, and of the arising of consciousness in particular, and most especially kusala consciousness of different kinds. > In this there seems to be some kind of separation between > your life and the development of insight; that one has nothing to do with > the other. For me, life is the essence of practice and ultimately is the > source of insight. > They do not see any such separation, because any moment of consciousness may arise at any time. Kusala consciousness one moment may be succeeded by akusala consciousness the next, and that akusala by consciousness with right view (panna), and so on. It all depends on the accumulated inclinations both wholesome and unwholesome and the coming into being of the factors or conditions that lead to the manifestation of a particular (otherwise latent) wholesome or unwholesome tendency. It is neither random nor directed, but occurs by virtue of the interplay of conditions. > Thanks again for your efforts to answer my questions, > It's a pleasure talking with you. Jon #78154 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) jonoabb Hi Dieter Dieter Möller wrote: > Hi Jon and Robert and others , > > I hope you don't mind a comment between: > > Jon wrote: > > I don't think the members you refer to actually *refute* the (idea of) "I" and "doing" in their own lives. What they are saying is that when it comes to the development of insight, what is described by the Buddha, as they understand it, is a development in which there is no "I" or > "doing". They are not actually claiming that for themselves. > I don't know if I've managed to explain that clearly.' > > > D: I missed a statement like that because it offers- as I see it - the chance to clarify misunderstandings: > the development of insight leads to No-I/Self ( anatta ), the final fetter (mana/conceit )abolished at Arahant level. Up to that state anatta is a (hypo) thesis .., isn't it? > To my understanding, there can be some experience of the characteristic of anatta well before arahantship. True, only at that stage are the 3 characteristics fully penetrated. But I believe they become partly known as mundane insight is developed. > Hence we , though agreeing to the point of (I/self) delusion , need training, > meditation work ' analysing in detail the khandas in order to recognise : that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Only then the thesis can become a law (dhamma). > As I see it, the 3 characteristics, which are characteristics of all conditioned dhammas, gradually become known as (mundane) insight into conditioned dhammas is developed. Thus, there is no need for any kind of special practice directed towards the understanding of these characteristics. > What I suppose is that you and others members seem to believe in non action of the self > (occuring only at the state of cessation of kamma ) and missing by that the request of the 3 fold Noble Path Training ( sila ,samadhi ,panna -corresponding to the path elements 3,4,5 ..6,7,8 and 1, 2 .) > Please see for example Anguttara Nikaya III 82 ff..as well as other numerous others ) > I don't see myself as a person who believes in non-action. That is a label that others have given to me ;-)) Clearly, there must be the development of insight in order to progress towards enlightenment. Our difference lies in what the teachings say as to how that insight is to be developed. To my reading, it develops if and when the appropriate conditions are in place. > furthermore I like to refer to the Alagaddunapanna Sutta- M.N. 22: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html > > > When I remember correctly , Khun Sujin mentioned that Sutta and Abhidhamma should not be considered as two separate entities but complementary to eachother. > Yes, I think she would say there is only 'Dhamma', and that the 3 pitakas are all talking about the same Dhamma. > For the benefit of a complete picture , I believe our 'Abhidhammika' friends' could give a bit more attention to the sutta nikaya , trying to support their point from those sources and > enable so more members to reach a consens understanding about the teaching. > > What do you think? > I think that most of the texts quoted here are from the Sutta Nikaya. Even Nina's Abhidhamma writings are full of sutta quotes (see her ADL for a good example of this)! Thanks very much for your comments. Jon #78155 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 17, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, There are many factors which condition akusala now and also in the future and by learning about these conditions we acquire more understanding of the dangers in the accumulation of akusala. When we have understood that akusala leads to dukkha we will not forget the purpose of the study of Dhamma: the development of right understanding which leads to the eradication of the clinging to the wrong view of self and of all defilements. As we have seen, wholesome qualities such as dåna, síla, mettå, patience or detachment are “perfections” which have to be developed for aeons along with right understanding in order for us finally to attain enlightenment [1]. All these wholesome qualities are perfections which eventually lead to enlightenment only if the goal is the eradication of defilements. If we merely think of the goal it is not enough. We should not be forgetful at this moment and develop each kind of kusala for which there is an opportunity. If there can be sati and paññå at this moment we will realize that akusala is not beneficial and then there are conditions for different kinds of kusala. They can arise alternately with satipatthåna. When akusala arises it can be realized as a conditioned nåma, not self, and then there is kusala citta. There is no self who can make kusala citta arise at will or who can choose which level of kusala will arise. Right understanding of the benefit of kusala can condition its arising. We may see the benefit of generosity, dåna. When we give away useful things to others we should not expect any gain for ourselves, our aim should be to have less attachment to things. Only when our aim is having less defilements dåna is a perfection leading to enlightenment. ---------- Footnote: 1. The Buddha, when he was still a Bodhisatta, had to develop these perfections for an endlessly long time in order to attain Buddhahood. ******* Nina. #78156 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn Sujin reminded us also time and again to have patience (khantí). She remarked that people may be able to be patient when they have lack of sleep or when they have to sit for a long time, but that it is most difficult to be patient with regard to the development of right understanding. Usually people wish for the arising of mindfulness and right understanding and they are impatient when they do not notice any progress. Acharn Sujin often recited the text of the “Dhammapada”(vs. 184) about patience which is the highest form of ascetism: Forbearing patience is the highest asceticism, nibbåna is supreme say the Buddhas; he verily, is not a recluse who harms another; nor is he an ascetic who oppresses others. Patience is the highest ascetism (tapo). We read in the Commentary to the Cariyåpitaka, about the perfection of patience the Bodhisatta developed [1]. It is defined as follows: Patience has the characteristic of acceptance; its function is to endure the desirable and undesirable; its manifestation is tolerance or non-opposition; seeing things as they really are is its proximate cause. We can have patience with regard to the desirable and the undesirable when there is no attachment to a pleasant object nor aversion towards an unpleasant object. When there is more understanding we can see that whatever arises is conditioned, no matter it is pleasant or unpleasant, and then there are conditions for patience. As we read, “seeing things as they really are is the proximate cause of patience”. The Dhamma can be our refuge when we have patience while listening to the Dhamma, while studying and considering it. Then there will be conditions for mindfulness of realities and the development of right understanding. Time and again Acharn Sujin said that understanding very gradually develops. During this journey we listened to the Dhamma and heard things that we had heard before, but do we have the patience to really consider what we hear? We are still able to listen to the Dhamma, but the Dhamma will not last forever. Therefore, we should not waste time but develop more understanding now. We are reminded to be aware of the realities that appear by the following text in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Ones, Ch X): Monks, I know not of any other single thing that conduces to the confusion, to the disappearance of true Dhamma as does negligence. Negligence indeed conduces to the confusion and disappearance of true Dhamma. Monks, I know not of any single thing so conducive to the establishment, to the non-disappearnace of true Dhamma as earnestness [2]. Earnestness indeed conduces to the establishment, to the non- disappearance of true Dhamma. ------- 1. Translated by Ven. Bodhi. See the All-Embracing Net of Views, B.P.S. Kandy. 2.Earnestness is a translation of the Påli appamåda, non-negligence. It means non-forgetfulness, mindfulness. ***** Nina. #78157 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 11/5/2007 7:08:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > The so-called "perceived tree", in the sense of something based on > underlying rupas, is never the object of consciousness; only an idea of > such can ever be object of consciousness. > > ============================== > You call it an idea. I agree that it is a mental concept or projection, > as is a concept, but I don't see them as the identical sort of construct. > I realise this is what you have been saying all along. What is the basis for the distinction you are making? Also, do you see any practical implications, for example, in terms of the development of insight? Jon #78158 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:56 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: Tep: "Let's continue walking the mindful-discussion path (although it is impermanent like many other things). Thank you for this carefully written message (#78082) with the intention to communicate better..." Scott: I never intended any such thing. I'm satisfied with the way I communicate. I think it is clear, sticks to the topic, and avoids meaningless personal asides. T: "I am in agreement with you except one thing : concepts (pannatti) can be an object of citta & cetasika. I assume that we are discussing the dhammas (realities, characteristics, phenomena, mind objects) in general, i.e. not only the four ultimate realities, as well as interpretation of the Dhamma (Teachings). I am aware that you are much more theoretical and precise in the definitions and terminologies based on the commentaries of the Abhidhamma -- that may be a reason why you have to ask me thousand-and-one questions about the 'dhammas'." Scott: Concepts can be objects of certain cittas, I think in the mind-door. Sati, as far as I understand, does not have pa~n~natti as object. Precision is everything. T: "Of course, sati for ariyans is a 'different kind' since it is supramundane. Worldlings are not able to take an ultimate reality as an object of "his" citta..." Scott: It is sati we are discussing. Not 'wordlings' or 'ariyans'. This is where I see you to be mistaken. The difference between 'worldlings' and 'ariyans', in relation to sati, is really only a difference in the degree to which sati is developed. 'Wordlings' and 'ariyans' are concepts. T: "Good, Scott, good. It is wise to define 'pa~n~natti' at this point. And you are right that a 'dhamma in the conventional sense' can only be concept -- that is what the non-ariyans are capable to "see and know"." Scott: I am not at all saying that a 'dhamma in the conventional sense can only be concept'. You are. And I disagree with you. This does start to clarify where you have got it completely wrong, though. You seem to think that dhammas are concepts until one 'becomes an ariyan' and then they are something else. I think this is incorrect. Refer again to my last point for the way I understand it. T: "I meant perception that is not a vipallasa (perversion; see AN 4.49). You are right again about my reference to lokiya/lokuttara distinction..." Scott: What is it then, in your understanding, that makes a 'perception' a vipallasa? Sincerely, Scott. #78159 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 6:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon nilovg Hi Tep, you have a lot of patience. Let us learn more about the present khandha such as seeing, sound or hardness. They all have their own characteristic that can be investigated without thinking. This is the way to have more understanding of what is reality, and what is concept. If we reason a lot, no way. In the Commentaries we read time and again that khandhas, dhaatus, aayatanas sould be understood. This in one sentence. It may be easier for you to understand that dhaatu, element, is a reality, it is the same as dhamma. It is devoid of self or person. Well, the same is true of khandha or aayatana. The Buddha explained the truth in many different ways, that is why different terms are used. Nina. Op 6-nov-2007, om 6:02 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Does Nina's reply contradict with yours? > > Dear Nina, I have read your message twice and found that I need to > read it one more time, before I can give you a thorough reply that > makes sense. Thank you very much for the understanding. ;-) #78160 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Dieter) - In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:46:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: I don't see myself as a person who believes in non-action. That is a label that others have given to me ;-)) Clearly, there must be the development of insight in order to progress towards enlightenment. Our difference lies in what the teachings say as to how that insight is to be developed. To my reading, it develops if and when the appropriate conditions are in place. =============================== Do those conditions include any conditions underlying intentional, conventional wholesome actions? With metta, Howard #78161 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:49:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > You call it an idea. I agree that it is a mental concept or projection, > as is a concept, but I don't see them as the identical sort of construct. > I realise this is what you have been saying all along. What is the basis for the distinction you are making? Also, do you see any practical implications, for example, in terms of the development of insight? ============================= The basis is my own experience. For me,k the distinction is a clear one. As for practical implications with regard to the development of insight, all I can say is that correct understanding of what is what is an important requisite for that. With metta, Howard #78162 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:04 am Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "...It took Buddha 6 years to become a Buddha. It can take 1 day > or less to become an Arahant..." > > Scott: I'm sorry for yelling my fool head off, knowing how much you > prefer the peace and quiet of well-considered and calm discussion, but > WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > In his last life before he fully awakened, he spent 6 years of various practices. Eventually he found how to properly tune himself and gained full enlightment in 12+ hours. Also maybe I was too quick here... He probably worked hard in Buddha Kassapa Sassana and maybe in Tusita heaven afterwards. Regarding Arahatship: a) 7 Days can be enough to go from Pujjana to Arahatship: 570. "Wise One, this is the eighth day, after we took your refuge. Within seven nights we are tamed in your dispensation. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/092-sela-e1.htm --- "A bhikkhu endowed with these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One in the morning, for whatever cause sons of clansmen rightfully go forth homeless that highest end of the holy life, he here and now, knowing, realizing, will attain in the evening, or advised in the evening would realise the next morning. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/085-bodhirajakumara-e1.htm Lots of Metta, Alex #78163 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Han Tun, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thank you very much for your comments. > My question at the Foundation was: "Was Bodhisatta a > Sotaapanna in one of his previous lives?" > > You said that my statement "But for Bodhisatta, > although he tried very hard for 4 aeons and 100,000 > worlds, he did not become even a Sotaapanna in his > previous lives" is not found in four main Nikayas. > > I said the above statement based on Sn 2.1 Ratana > Sutta, where the future of a Sotaapanna is mentioned. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html Buddha May or may not have become a Sotapanna under Buddha Kassapa. If he did then it wouldn't change the fact that according to 4 main Nikayas he did NOT take a vow and all the other "Bodhisattva stuff". After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita Heaven from which he came to Earth. It might have been <7 lives. The who story about 4 aeons 300,000MK is a later addition. It is NOT found in 4 Nikayas. In many suttas he is said to recollect 91 aeons, only. In which suttas (from the 4 main Nikayas) does it say a) That he took a vow b) Mentions more Buddhas than found in the Suttas such as DN#14 (there were mentioned only 6 Buddhas prior to Buddha Gotama). c) Where does it talk in the suttas from 4 Nikayas about nessesity of Bodhisatva to perfect 10 paramis? d) Buddha keeps refering to himself and other Buddhas as ARAHANT (I would add: superior ones at that). Lots of Metta, Alex #78164 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > because if he is a Sotaaapaana, his enlightment would be confirmed in > seven live times and that would not be possible him to accomplish his > perfections. > > A person who vow to be a Buddha in front of a living Buddha, would > have been enlighted at the second, third or four verse of the dhamma > when he heard from a living Buddha. Due to the Dhammachanda, the > enlightement was prevented, until his perfection is being perfected. > > Thirdly, it is the vow of saving others, that also prevented him to > be enlighted earlier than expected unless perfection is being > perfected. > > > Cheers > Ken O > Where does it says so in the Suttas found in 4 Main Nikayas? Buddha HAS NEVER STATED THIS. Lots of Metta, Alex #78165 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba moellerdieter Dear DC, you wrote: ' DC: I think you are reading too much into my post. (1) I was talking about the interpretation of Dhamma. Not about the spread of what you call "Buddhism". Your statement above is therefore based on a faulty inference. ' D: my interference was caused by your faulty remark 'And he along with Monier Williams, Max Muller and the like ruined the interpretation of Dhamma.' , which I tried to explain to you politely. With Metta Dieter #78166 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological and Bodily Continuity - Gethin and Questions? ashkenn2k Hi DC DC: Your thoughts are interesting. But what Gethin is talking about is not one's thoughts on the matter. The fact that theoery of momentariness fails to explain the observed phenomena. KC: Observed phenomena is a congregation of these momentariness. If citta does not go fast, it would be impossible for in conventional term able to see and hear a movie at the same time. The sound citta that arise when a sound impinge must be faster than or as the same speed of sound in order to experience that object, smiliarly for light. What we cannot observed, does not mean it is not there. Just like we cannot see hell does not mean hell does not exist. It is said in the sutta hell exist just like it is explained in the sutta that the mind move very fast and there is no way to describe how fast it is. Cheers Ken O #78167 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) ashkenn2k Hi Alex I not here to discuss the validity of the commentaries. It requires confidence. In the manner you are saying, the sutta is based on memory pass done, are you so sure the sutta is correct and the it is pass so many years. are you so sure the sutta scriptures are valid. Anyone in the line of the passing can easily add a few sentence that Buddha say this and that? All boils done to your faith. If you do not believe the commentaries, let it be there is no need to say it is not in the Nikayas. Because what I would ask you the same question, are you sure the Nikayas are authentic? We can be skeptical but we must be respectful to the text that was passed down by the Nobles ones. If you do not believe it, have the courtesy not to put it down. You can always discuss the points of contention in the commentaries anytime, but lets not be disrespectful of it. Kind regards Ken O #78168 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report .. the Foundation (1) .. Damaging Opinionated Views.... dcwijeratna Dear Sarah, You and I have two completely different points of view. That is why I did not reply. Why try to clash (ideas) publicly. In any case, I present a view not to convert anybody to point of view. So if another person has a contrary view, he keeps his, I keep mine. End, ditto, fullstop, Unless it is a clarification. Now here are the points I differ you. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear DC, (I'm moving your comments around here and leaving those aside where we agree, hope that's all OK) --- DC Wijeratna wrote: ----------(1)-------------- > DC: Sarah, I think we need to make a decision here. Whether we want to > study Dhamma (teaching of the Buddha) or later developments (really > corruptions of Dhamma)? Otherwise we will not have a common subject for > the discussions. > > Please think about this and respond. .... S: Let me use note-form to try and summarise where we stand on this.Pls make any corrections you see fit: 1. You consider only parts of the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas as 'teaching of the Buddha'. I consider that which is in conformity with the Dhamma-Vinaya to be 'Buddha Vacana': "But where on such comparison and review they are found to conform to the Suttas or the discipline, the conclusion must be: “Assuredly this is the word of the Buddha, it has been rightly understood by this monk.” (p.255,M.Walshe transl. of Mahaparinibbana Sutta) ------------------------(1)--------------------- DC: The sutta refers here to the Four Noble Truths, and the Vinaya to Raaga Vinaya, Moha Vinaya, Dosa Vinaya. The Pali words are "sutte otaaretabba.m; vinaye sandessaatabba.m". We really don't know how to carry out this with all the suttas, and Discipline? -----------------------(2)--------------------------- 2. You consider the Abhidhamma Pitaka, parts of the Kuddaka Pitaka and the ancient commentaries as 'corruptions of the Dhamma' and not worthy of study. You also suggest that 'Pitaka', according to the Historians is not mentioned in connection with the First Council and that only the 5 Nikayas were rehearsed then according to the Pali commentaries. When I read these commentaries translated into English(such as the Atthasalini and the Bahiranidana) , I question whether the Historians have done their research thoroughly. I've written a lot on this topic before. For example: S: Also see: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/dhammastud ygroup/message/ 29638 http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/dhammastud ygroup/message/ 33875 See also the account of the First Council as written in the ancient history of Sri Lanka, the Mahavamsa. ***** S: So, in answer to your question above, I'm interested in studying 'Buddha-vacana' . I personally don't find any conflict in the different parts of the Tipitaka or ancient commentaries. The arahants at the the early councils went to great lengths to uphold these authentic (Theravada) teachings. The Mahanama arahants of Anuradhapura who had preserved the ancient commentaries in Sri Lanka, fully embraced Buddhaghosa' s compilations in Pali. ---------------------2----------------------------------- DC: I refer to this "I question whether the Historians have done their research thoroughly. I've written a lot on this topic before. For example:" This is no argument. The position I have taken is not affected by what you have written or not written. Now about the historians. The word "Historians" here refer to "historians of religion" and in particular to history of Buddhism. I have some difficulty in accepting what you say as the view is a consensus. Now that means, you have some special insight into the history of Buddhism, or that you are more knowledgeable than all of the people who have studied history of Buddhism. As far as the your references are concerned, they are from the later texts. I think I should clarify. Texts which are roughly, 1000 years after the Buddha, gives a story about something that happened 1000 years earlier. When that "story" is questioned, you quote the texts. -------------------------------------------------------- DC, I have no objection at all if you wish to limit your studies to particular parts of the Tipitaka, however. Many others here also prefer to stick to the suttas. Now, a couple of other points: ... > > S: Well, we do read about it and begin to understand the Dhamma. The > more > the Dhamma is understood, the closer we come to understanding the > arahant's vision, however far off that maybe! > > DC: Here my understanding is different. What the Buddha says is that you > need to travel the path (Fourth Noble Truth) to understand the Four > Noble Truths. When you read Dhamma if you can understand it, travelling > the path is superflous. .... S: Is it possible to just read Dhamma and understand it without any development of the path factors? What exactly do you mean by 'travelling the path'? -------------------- DC: There are two questions. This is my understanding of them. Question 1. Is it possible to just read Dhamma and understand it without any development of the path factors? It all depends on what you mean by Dhamma. What we mean by Dhamma as something to be developed is the Noble Eightfold Path. That is 'Sila, Samaadhi, Pa~n~naa'. You start with sila. That for a householder is the five precepts. That even children, or even people belonging to other religions (with some modifications) understand. Even the Visuddhimagga is based on: "siile pati.t.thaaya naro sapa~n~n0...". But if you mean by dhamma, the eight supramundane states, then you need to complete the development of all path factors according to the texts (pali). I am really surprised at this question. I have no clue to path-factors. I have heard some words. But I don't understand. The Buddhism of yours and mine are totally different. Who is right, who is wrong I don't know. And what you mean by understanding I don't know. But one thing I am certain. You cannot understand anything (dhamma), in the Buddhist sense of understanding without travelling the path. Reading is a total waste of time as far as understanding is concerned. All you need to be able to read is "sabba paapassa akarana.m..." ---------------------------------------- > S: No, it's in the commentary, but the commentary spells out what is > intended in the sutta. > > DC: Yes, what I wanted to highlight is the fact that it is in the > commentary and as far as my recollection goes the author is not given. > And it is difficult to take the interpretations in the commentaries as > authoratative. .... S: I forget now which sutta and commentary this was in reference to, maybe in SN?. The commentary was compiled by Buddhaghosa. See comments above. ... > > > S: Cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are paramattha dhammas, > paramattha > sacca. The Dhamma is about khandhas, dhatus, namas and rupas - all > paramattha sacca. > > DC: My difficulty is here, What is meant by the word paramattha. Parama > is not difficult. We can say it is ultimate. Really even this comes from > 'paara' meaning the other shore. But what do you mean by attha. > Dictionaries give meanins such as benefit, welfare, meaning and so on. > But I can't find connection to truth here. ... From the Guide note in CMA (transl. of Abhidhammattha Sangaha, ed.by B.Bodhi),ch 1,#2: "'From the standpoint of ultimate reality (paramatthato) :..... Ultimate realities, in contrast [S: to conventional, sammuti] are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction, but are themselves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of experience. Hence the word 'paramattha' is applied to them, which is derived from 'parama' = ultimate, highest, final, and 'attha' = reality, thing." The translation of the commentary to the text itself just says: " 'Ultimate [S: paramattha]' means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within that sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate." ................................. DC: So your authority is CMA. When I say that is not the Buddha word. You say it is. You can hold on to your view. But today people who have studied Abhidhamma texts from all three Abhidhamma traditions would say that it is not the Buddha word. ---------------------------------------- > DC: Visible object is real. Nibbana is also a reality. Does this mean > that both are ultimate realities. S: Yes. ------------------------------------------- DC: I really have no comments. I am at a total loss to understand what you mean by ultimate realities. Lots of mettaa, _Lot._,_.___ D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78169 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) ... Banana & Mango ashkenn2k Hi Tep and Han I am about to log off and sleep, but this is a very interesting question, cannot help staying awake to answer it >Han: If there were no persons, why did the Buddha took the trouble > to teach about puggalas in Puggala pa~n~natti, the > fourth book of Abhidhamma Pitaka? The entire book is > full of classifications of *persons*. Tep: If your question was about banana, their answers were about mango. KO: Ok I answer in banana terms. We should ask why did Buddha keep saying I in certain suttas when he keep saying anatta? It is used as a mean to explain the text. Persons are used in the Puggala is to differentiate the level of development of the panna or those panna not developed at all. It would be difficult for Buddha to teach the dhamma without going to conventional terms to explain the paramtha dhamma as humans are more able to understand the text in conventional terms. Only through such conventional terms would one able to develop the path. Not all are Ven Sariputta :-) Cheers Ken O #78170 From: Ken O Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) ashkenn2k Hi Han let me explain why she said that sati without understanding is just a concept, and there must be ‘conditions’ for sati to arise. Without panna as a condition, whatever we learn, is just contextual, an idea because we cannot see the true characteristics of dhamma. Sati arise in all kusala cittas, but sati without panna would not bring about the eradication of defilements. Hence the word there must be conditons for sati to arise, it was refer to panna must arise in order to have samma sati that is my take on her words Cheers Ken O #78171 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 10:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Alex and Dieter, - I want a clarification, please. ;-)) > > > Dieter: > > Here is a good paragraph about "self issue" written by Ven. > Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Regardless of your opinion of him - what he wrote > is pure Gold. > > ------ > A more fruitful line of inquiry is to view experience, not in terms > of the existence or non-existence of the self, but in terms of the > categories of the four noble truths, which §51 identifies as the > truly proper subject of appropriate attention. . ... ... ... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html > #part2-g > --- > > Alex: Hopefully this helps, > T: Usually when I tell someone, usually a kid, "I hope that helps you", the intention is to give the kid some advice to help solve his problem. But I am not sure what problem do you think we have here and how this article may help us. Thanks. Tep ==== #78172 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 10:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? nilovg Hi Howard, Very kind of you to be concerned about me when I was in India. Sarah told me. The expression or term accumulation is pa~n~natti. But what is accumulated is real. Take kamma. The cetanaa fell away, is past. But, this does not mean that past kamma is a concept, a mental construct. It is accumulated in each citta, from moment to moment. Its force is so powerful, even when committed aeons ago, it can produce result now. Then there are the latent tendencies: sensuous desire, illwill, wrong view, ignorance. These are accumulated in the citta, they are like microbes. At any time they can condition the arising of akusala citta. So powerful. Do not call them concepts. Think of natural decisive support condition: kusala (past) can condition akusala later on, akusala (past) can condition kusala later on. This condition deals with realities, not with mind-constructs. Nina. Op 6-nov-2007, om 14:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Yes, no storehouse of any kind. That is why, in particular, that > "accumulations" is mere conventional expression. #78173 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) moellerdieter Hi Tep and Alex, just to avoid misunderstandings: acc. to Alex ' edition: "moellerdieter@...> wrote: > > Hi Jon and Robert and others , > Here is a good paragraph about "self issue" written by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Regardless of your opinion of him - what he wrote is pure Gold. etc " D: the edition may be misleading , because Alex started with his comment 'Here is a good ...) instead of quoting what I wrote.. ' I missed a statement like that because it offers- as I see it - the chance to clarify misunderstandings: the development of insight leads to No-I/Self ( anatta ), the final fetter (mana/conceit )abolished at Arahant level. Up to that state anatta is a (hypo) thesis .., isn't it? etc.. I will comment later... not excluding of course to agree to 'the good paragraph' Alex suggested.. with Metta Dieter #78174 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: eCard from India - Benares buddhistmedi... Hi Jon, - There was a larger number of emails last weekend than normal. I had to dig under a few layers of messages to find this one of yours. > Jon: > Tep, have you considered joining the next trip? I'm sure you would find it very stimulating. Someone with your wide knowledge of the texts > would have plenty to discuss with others. > T: Thank you very much, Jon, for asking me to join you in the next tour. Please email me information about it (e.g. time schedule for travel and total cost per head) to help me make the decision. Concerning knowledge of the texts, I am sure there are at least three persons in DSG who always can find fault in everything I say about the suttas. :-)) ....................................... > >> Jon: > >> I think it could also be said that the seeing consciousness of > >> different beings is the same in nature and characteristic, regardless of their level of understanding. For that matter, the seeing > >> consciousness of a persona and of, say, a cow are, in the ultimate > >> sense, the same ;-)) > >> > > T: For that matter, in the molecular sense the molecules and atoms in a person are the same as those in a cow. :>) > > > Jon: > This may be so, but knowledge regarding molecules and atoms is of > limited use, I believe ;-)) > T: Yes, the knowledge regarding molecules and atoms is of limited use to laypersons. Tep ==== #78175 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Ken O (Jon, Nina), - Thank you for the kind comment on concept as object of satipatthana. > > T: So, you mean a past ruupa and a future ruupa (or naama) are not > > (and cannot be) objects of satipatthana? > > Ken O: A rupa that had falls, its past, hence cannot be objects of > satipatthana as it hinged on the present moment. A past rupa could > be a paccaya for the arising of a present citta through pre-dominance > object condition if it is something desirable or through decisive > support condition or root conditioning. But the rupa had ceased, the > object is not the rupa, it would be the lobha in result of the rupa. > > A future rupa had not arise, hence cannot be an object. it must be > in the presence in order to penetrate its characteristics especially > its arisen, presence and decay and death > > T: Since past and future ruupas cannot be object of satipatthana, does it follow that they are not paramattha dhamas ? If your answer is yes, then you contradict to Nina's words in message $ 78101 ! Tep ==== #78176 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina vipassana_in... respected nina, sarah and dr han, please accept my regards, greetings and metta. I am not running away.... where do I run away from the ti-lakkhana? facing the 3 signs 'as it is' is vipassana! I patiently wait for anything that anyone of you may have to teach or share with me. I am very grateful to respected dr han for his private replies to my many emails. I am still in the process of studying them and my other notes. then I may get back to him. I may have no problems to discuss on the forum but, I found that at times there is a problem replying and/or clarifying my viewpoint to all members. I do not like the idea of not being able to reply to someone (on the forum) due to time constraints or any other reason. private discussions with few people makes things easy for me. I beg to be please forgiven for this. I have a lot to learn from learned elders like dr han and teachers like sarah and nina. I am preparing my notes / checking my thoughts for several books on dhamma and may like to keep things private at this stage. dr han may anytime forward any of my email discussions and attachments to sarah and nina - if he finds anything worthy there. but, please do not put it online, at least at this stage. kindly do continue to teach me dhamma. with deep gratitude to dr han, sarah and nina, manish agarwala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Manish (& Han), > > --- vipassana_infonet wrote: > > > dear dhamma brothers and sisters, > > > > i would like to express my heartfelt thanks and metta to respected dr > > han tun and respected upasikas sarah and nina. they have been very > > kind to teach me dhamma. nina and sarah wrote long answers to my > > questions. > ... > S: We haven't finished! I gave Nina copies of your further comments and I > know she is intending to write more to you on these when she returns, so > please don't run away! She particularly enjoyed your introduction. I know > there is a message to me as well which I'll come to and discuss further. > Please be patient with us. > ... > > I am deeply grateful to respected elder dr han tun for teaching the > > golden dhamma of the bhagava and for so much time and attention. <....> #78177 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 1:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) shennieca Hi Ken O, I like your replies, you have good discernment. :-)) You said panna must arise in order to have samma sati, may I know how does panna arise? Hoping to learn the dhamma. Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine --------------------------- Ken O wrote: Hi Han let me explain why she said that sati without understanding is just a concept, and there must be ‘conditions’ for sati to arise. Without panna as a condition, whatever we learn, is just contextual, an idea because we cannot see the true characteristics of dhamma. Sati arise in all kusala cittas, but sati without panna would not bring about the eradication of defilements. Hence the word there must be conditons for sati to arise, it was refer to panna must arise in order to have samma sati that is my take on her words Cheers Ken O #78178 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 11:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina vipassana_in... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > What is the difference between a dr and an upasika? > Herman dear herman, dr = doctor (medical or doctorate as the case may be) upasaka = male lay (householder) devotee of the buddha / male lay practitioner of dhamma / male lay meditator. lay means one who has not renounced and is not a monk, as yet. upasika = female lay(householder) devotee of the buddha / female lay practitioner of dhamma / female lay meditator. this is what I understand. I hope I am right. metta, manish #78179 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 1:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? shennieca Hi Nina, all, There is one important thing which I don't understand, I hope you can help me with it. Nina: Think of natural decisive support condition: kusala (past) can condition akusala later on, akusala (past) can condition kusala later on. This condition deals with realities, not with mind-constructs. Elaine: If there is past kusala which can condition akusala and past akusala that can condition kusala, with these kusala and akusala conditioning each other like that, on and on, aeons after aeons, how is Nibbana attainable? Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine ---------------------------- Nina van Gorkom wrote: Hi Howard, Very kind of you to be concerned about me when I was in India. Sarah told me. The expression or term accumulation is pa~n~natti. But what is accumulated is real. Take kamma. The cetanaa fell away, is past. But, this does not mean that past kamma is a concept, a mental construct. It is accumulated in each citta, from moment to moment. Its force is so powerful, even when committed aeons ago, it can produce result now. Then there are the latent tendencies: sensuous desire, illwill, wrong view, ignorance. These are accumulated in the citta, they are like microbes. At any time they can condition the arising of akusala citta. So powerful. Do not call them concepts. Think of natural decisive support condition: kusala (past) can condition akusala later on, akusala (past) can condition kusala later on. This condition deals with realities, not with mind-constructs. Nina. Op 6-nov-2007, om 14:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Yes, no storehouse of any kind. That is why, in particular, that > "accumulations" is mere conventional expression. #78180 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1), "Paging Yogacara"? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/6/2007 2:00:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Very kind of you to be concerned about me when I was in India. Sarah told me. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: :-) Not being kind so much as being a bit selfish, I suppose. I care a lot about you and Lodewijk. ----------------------------------------------------------- The expression or term accumulation is pa~n~natti. But what is accumulated is real. Take kamma. The cetanaa fell away, is past. But, this does not mean that past kamma is a concept, a mental construct. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As just stated so far, I agree. The kamma was an actual mental event. ------------------------------------------------------------ It is accumulated in each citta, from moment to moment. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think anything is literally passed along and accumulated. I think that the cetana at the moment of its occurrence, right then, serves as condition for future events, with nothing passed along and accumulated. Every subsequent occurrence of similar kamma is an additional force further conditioning future events. ------------------------------------------------------ Its force is so powerful, even when committed aeons ago, it can produce result now. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard That sentence is far closer to my perspective. Kamma is a powerful condition. ------------------------------------------------------ Then there are the latent tendencies: sensuous desire, illwill, wrong view, ignorance. These are accumulated in the citta, they are like microbes. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The fundamenal akusala roots, I agree, are always present until uprooted. -------------------------------------------------- At any time they can condition the arising of akusala citta. So powerful. Do not call them concepts. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nor do I. ------------------------------------------------------ Think of natural decisive support condition: kusala (past) can condition akusala later on, akusala (past) can condition kusala later on. This condition deals with realities, not with mind-constructs. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with that, Nina. ----------------------------------------------------- Nina. ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #78181 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear Alex, > Alex: Buddha May or may not have become a Sotapanna under Buddha Kassapa. If he did then it wouldn't change the fact that according to 4 main Nikayas he did NOT take a vow and all the other "Bodhisattva stuff". After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita Heaven from which he came to Earth. It might have been <7 lives. Han: So you cannot say for sure that Gotama Buddha was a Sotaapanna under Kassapa Buddha, because you used the words “may or may not.” And how do you calculate that 7 lives in Tusita Heaven covered the period from Kassapa Buddha to Gotama Buddha? Respectfully, Han --- Alex wrote: > Buddha May or may not have become a Sotapanna under > Buddha Kassapa. > If he did then it wouldn't change the fact that > according to 4 main > Nikayas he did NOT take a vow and all the other > "Bodhisattva stuff". > > After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita Heaven from > which he came to > Earth. It might have been <7 lives. > > #78182 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) hantun1 Dear Ken, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. I did not question her statement, nor did I express my agreement or disagreement to her statement. I just reported what had been said at the Meeting. Respectfully, Han --- Ken O wrote: > Hi Han > > let me explain why she said that sati without > understanding is just a > concept, and there must be ‘conditions’ for sati to > arise. > > Without panna as a condition, whatever we learn, is > just contextual, > an idea because we cannot see the true > characteristics of dhamma. > Sati arise in all kusala cittas, but sati without > panna would not > bring about the eradication of defilements. Hence > the word there > must be conditons for sati to arise, it was refer to > panna must arise > in order to have samma sati > > that is my take on her words > > Cheers > Ken O > > #78183 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Alex > > I not here to discuss the validity of the commentaries. >>>>>> Commentaries are just that, commentaries. Some say it is disrespect to put down commentaries. However I think it is more disrespectful to the compileres of the Canon and to Buddha Himself to ignore his teachings for someone else's. << are you so sure the sutta scriptures are valid. > Anyone in the line of the passing can easily add a few sentence that > Buddha say this and that? >>>>>> The Nikayas have a certain feel to them unlike any other. The content had to come from the Enlightened One, Perfectly enlightened Arahant, The Buddha. Lots of Metta, Alex #78184 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) truth_aerator Dear Han, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > > Alex: Buddha May or may not have become a Sotapanna > under Buddha Kassapa. If he did then it wouldn't > change the fact that according to 4 main Nikayas he > did NOT take a vow and all the other "Bodhisattva > stuff". > After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita Heaven from > which he came to Earth. It might have been <7 lives. > > Han: So you cannot say for sure that Gotama Buddha was > a Sotaapanna under Kassapa Buddha, because you used > the words "may or may not." > > And how do you calculate that 7 lives in Tusita Heaven > covered the period from Kassapa Buddha to Gotama > Buddha? > > Respectfully, > Han > Why did he have to live all 7 lives? He could have been reborn in Tusita heaven and then reborn for the final time on Earth. Sotapanna DOES NOT have to live all 7 lives. Lots of Metta, Alex #78185 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 4:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter, - > > D: the edition may be misleading , because Alex started with his comment 'Here is a good ...) instead of quoting what I wrote.. ' I missed a statement like that because it offers- as I see it - the chance to clarify misunderstandings: > the development of insight leads to No-I/Self ( anatta ), the final fetter (mana/conceit )abolished at Arahant level. Up to that state anatta is a (hypo) thesis .., isn't it? etc.. > > I will comment later... not excluding of course to agree to 'the good paragraph' Alex suggested.. > T: Thanks, Dieter. I look forward to your comment. Tep === #78186 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear Alex, > > > Alex: Buddha May or may not have become a Sotapanna under Buddha Kassapa. If he did then it wouldn't change the fact that according to 4 main Nikayas he did NOT take a vow and all the other "Bodhisattva stuff". After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita Heaven from which he came to Earth. It might have been <7 lives. > > Han: So you cannot say for sure that Gotama Buddha was a Sotaapanna under Kassapa Buddha, because you used the words "may or may not." And how do you calculate that 7 lives in Tusita Heaven covered the period from Kassapa Buddha to Gotama Buddha? > Alex: Why did he have to live all 7 lives? He could have been reborn in Tusita heaven and then reborn for the final time on Earth. Sotapanna DOES NOT have to live all 7 lives. -------------------- Han: Okay, in that case, do you say that he lived in Tusita Heaven just for one life time? You said earlier that, “After Buddha Kassapa he went to Tusita Heaven from which he came to Earth.” Does that mean that he lived in Tusita Heaven for one life time, which covered the entire period spanning six Buddhas, from Kassapa Buddha to Gotama Buddha? Respectfully, Han #78187 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (2) ... Banana & Mango buddhistmedi... Hi KenO (and Han), - Thank you for opening the conversation with Han and I. My reply follows your message below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Tep and Han > > I am about to log off and sleep, but this is a very interesting > question, cannot help staying awake to answer it > > >Han: If there were no persons, why did the Buddha took the trouble > > to teach about puggalas in Puggala pa~n~natti, the > > fourth book of Abhidhamma Pitaka? The entire book is > > full of classifications of *persons*. > > Tep: If your question was about banana, their answers were about > mango. > > KO: Ok I answer in banana terms. We should ask why did Buddha keep > saying I in certain suttas when he keep saying anatta? It is used as > a mean to explain the text. Persons are used in the Puggala is to > differentiate the level of development of the panna or those panna > not developed at all. It would be difficult for Buddha to teach the > dhamma without going to conventional terms to explain the paramtha > dhamma as humans are more able to understand the text in conventional > terms. Only through such conventional terms would one able to > develop the path. Not all are Ven Sariputta :-) > T: Han and Tep are familiar with the difference between the 'conventional modes of expression' (vohaara-vacana) in the suttas and the 'paramattha-desanaa' in the Abhidhamma-Pitaka. The issue that underlies Han's question above is not about why 'puggala' is used in the 'vohaara-vacana' instead of 100% paramattha dhammas. The question is actually about why the entire Fourth Book of Abhidhamma Pitaka is full of several classifications of *persons*: for example, the eight 'ariya-puggalas'. The DSG Abhidhammikas love to emphasize 'no persons', 'no beings', 'no one practices the dhammas'; they see 'nothing' beyond the ultimate realities. But if there are no persons (puggalas), or the role of Dhamma practitioners is nil, then why was it necessary for the wise author of the Fourth Book to take a trouble to write such a book in the first place? I hope my elaboration is 100% clear to you now. ;-)) Tep === #78188 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 6:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - Thank you for being kind and attentive to my attempt to clarify the meanings of concepts and ultimate realities. My reply follows your message below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > you have a lot of patience. > Let us learn more about the present khandha such as seeing, sound or hardness. They all have their own characteristic that can be > investigated without thinking. This is the way to have more > understanding of what is reality, and what is concept. If we reason a lot, no way. > In the Commentaries we read time and again that khandhas, dhaatus, > aayatanas should be understood. This in one sentence. It may be easier for you to understand that dhaatu, element, is a reality, it is the same as dhamma. It is devoid of self or person. Well, the same is true of khandha or aayatana. The Buddha explained the truth in many different ways, that is why different terms are used. > Nina. > Op 6-nov-2007, om 6:02 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > Does Nina's reply contradict with yours? > > > > Dear Nina, I have read your message twice and found that I need to > > read it one more time, before I can give you a thorough reply that > > makes sense. Thank you very much for the understanding. ;-) > ............. T: I agree very much with the points you made about the contemplation of khandhas (and other dhammas). 1. The present khandha such as seeing, sound or hardness all have their own characteristic that can be investigated without thinking. 2. Thinking & reasoning about khandhas should be avoided because it is not useful to lead to the right understanding. 3. The 'dhammas', i.e. khandhas, dhaatus, aayatanas should be understood that they are realities These dhammas are devoid of self or person. I agree with you because these 3 points are the same as what I have learned from the suttas and Abhidhamma-pitaka. Tep === #78189 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 6:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon (and Tep) - <. . .> > c) But, being a paramattha dhamma, it must be a present actuality and > not something already ceased, for what is ceased no longer exists, and any > "knowing" of it is actually a remembering of it, which is KNOWING OF CONCEPT, and > thus, the only sort of paramattha dhamma that can currently exist and be > object of consciousness is a rupa. > d) The last conclusion implies that no nama is knowable by sati or > pa~n~na!! (An untenable position.) > Hi Howard, Which came first? Was there a conventional reality which then had to be explained by a theory of ultimate reality? Or was there an ultimate reality which then had to be explained by a theory of conventional reality? I believe the latter. And so I have no trouble believing that citta can experience a dhamma that has just fallen away. That is the way it is in ultimate reality! The fact that there might not be an exact equivalent in conventional reality does not worry me **one iota.** ---------------- <. . .> H: > I have no vested interest or preferred "outcome" in whether the "problem" I see is real or not. ---------------- Those among us who believe in an eternal soul have a vested interest, don't they? For them it is imperative that the Abhidhamma be discredited. Or at least, it is imperative that the Abhidhamma not be considered "the actual words of the Buddha." Ken H #78190 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 6:45 pm Subject: Re: The teaching on aeons rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi all > > There have been lots of references the last few days (and always) to > the Buddha's teaching that we have been going through samsara for > aeons. No doubt about that teaching. > > My curiosity is whether that teaching is to condition patience about > not expecting results, or whether it is to condition samvega to take > advantage of this rare human birth in a time when the Buddha's teaching > still exists. > > I used to believe the former, now I am leaning to the latter, but I > imagine the texts make it pretty clear which is intended by the Buddha. > Dear Phil Aren't patience and samvega both aspects of viriya? robert #78191 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 2:09 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) vipassana_in... respected dr han and nina, dr han's views were stimulating and so I jump in here...this is what little I understand. please correct me, if I am wrong and forgive me. pannatti is all about concepts and apparent truths. but, even if they are apparent - they are still truths! ven. ledi sayadaw said: "pannatti thapetva visesena passati'ti vipassana" vipassana is all about seeing the ultimate truths (paramattha) with panna. and the utlimate truths are about nama-rupa (and also nibbana). please note that paramattha as well as pannatti are truths. now the puggala is an entity who sees/hears/feels etc another puggla - an entity . but, this is all apparent truth. what I call a "puggla" is just an everchanging (anicca), experientilly dukkha and thus actually anatta external sense input that is impinges at my sense door. I (a puggala) am nama-rupa and so are other puggalas . I don't see any puggala by my eye - it is just rupa - a wave and vibration that impinges at my eye door....now, this experiential understanding of nama-rupa at level of ti-lakkhana is not pannatti but, paramattha and so this is vipassana. so in apparent terms I am emailing puggalas dr han and nina but, actually it is just a nama-rupa play, as dr han says...I am just within me...reacting to my sensations like a puthujjana or may be watching the vedanas that arise 'as it is' with panna....whether this is pannatti or paramattha - it depends on panna - all is within me .... remembered the rohitassa sutta here....I have been interacting with dr han and I hope my views get across... the buddhisatta was not a sotapanna. 1) he had the option of (may be) becoming an arahat when he met dipankara buddha as sumedha. but, he chose to perfect his paramitas so that he could become a buddha. so, FOR WORLDLINGS LIKE US - this bodhisatta suffered for looong 4 asankheyya and 1,00,000 kappas and perfected paramitas (10 x 3 )and became a buddha. 2) had the bodhisatta been a sotapanna, he would have become an arahat in max. seven births and he could not have continued so long in samsara to perfect his paramis to be a buddha. [in burmese tradtions,it is believed that some GREAT sayadaws and sayagyis do not become an ariya - not even a sotapanna - although their students may become sotapanna - because they may have done some kind of sacca-kiriya / have taken some sankappo to perfect their paramis and keep on serving till their desired goal is met. the goal may be to to be liberated when the next buddha arises or to be His agga-savaka etc. these great teachers just go on serving birth after birth till then...] 3) in the dhammachakka pavattana sutta, the NEW buddha declared that "pubbe anansuttesu dhammesu...." now had he been a sotapanna he would not have discovered the dhamma unheard before - he would have already known it before hand. again, the buddha's are like lamps in darkness. but, had siddhartha already been a sotapanna - he would not have discovered anything new afresh when he became a buddha - he would have just finished the unfinished work. siddhartha was not a sotapanna when he was sumedha or when he went to alara kalama / uddaka ramaputta or even before he sat down under the bodhi tree. when he sat down under the bodhi tree he was one who had perfected all the 8 samatha jhanas (lokiya jhanas). when he became the buddha - he mastered the lokuttara fields completely (parijanati). 4) a samma-sambuddha is one who re-discovers the dhamma within himself (thus,a sam-buddha) and teaches the world. he starts as a puthujjana on the bodhi seat and when he gets up - he is an anant-jina - a BUDDHA who beats the drum of deathlessness for one and all - those who have ears hear Him.we must be grateful to the buddha for He suffered so long as an anariyo for us - to teach us. all must think: deep saddha must arise in me - because HE suffered so much just for me! 5) when one becomes a sotapanna one crosses the stage of gotrabhu - at this stage their is a change of clan and now one become an ariya - one joins the clan of the noble ones. so, all ariyas (beginning with the sotapanna) are the true children of all the buddhaS. when one becomes a sotapanna - a saddhanusari become a saddhavimutto and the saddha in triple gems become perfect. such a saddhavimutto is a REAL son/daughter of the buddha. (see agganna sutta ref.) the bodhisatta was an anariyo when he sat at the bodhi tree but, when he got up he was an ariya. he could only reach upto 8th jhana as an anariyo because he was working with samadhi - just pannatti - just concepts but, when he developed paramattha-nana (by anapanasati) of nama-rupa - when he practiced experiential vipassana of the nama-rupa by knowing anicca, dukkha, anatta - he could transcend the nama-rupa field for the first time and became a samma sambuddha. we may also say that the bodhisatta was an anariyo but a dhammanusari anariyo as he had been practicing dhamma in countless births before. that he had a BIG saddha is also proved in mora paritta etc. but, from dhammanusari - the bodhisatta became a saddhanusari (sotapatti magga) saddhavimutto (sotapanna phala) and pannavimutto (arahat)....he had now become a ubhato bhaga vimutta .... he had become a samma-sambuddha. hope this inspires all to develop saddha on the buddha and practice vipassana. concepts / pannatti / theory / pariyatti - all are fine but, does not go far. we need to quietly look within and root out our defilements (dhunmanassa pure katam rajam) by practicing vipassana. vipassana acarya sayagyi u ba khin of burma used to write and talk very little and he used to mention what vappa said: only those who have eyes can see those who have eyes plus those who do not have eyes. thus, sayagyi felt that too much talking or reading or thinking may have little use. he also said that one may be able to experience the buddha-dhamma without reading ANY book !!! [see john coleman's book: quiet mind] sayagyi said that we need to know anicca continually and that would answer ALL questions. for me this itself is the silent answer to ALL questions on DSG !!! this knowing of anicca has to be experiential at level of vedana and not just a concept (pannatti) or theory (pariyatti) or dhamma discussion / dhamma study / dhamma email (dhammi va katha). this experiential knowing of tilakkhana (starting from anicca) is vipassana. this is pure 100% science. buddha was a research scientist of nama-rupa (ariya sacca gavesi) and he was not a philosopher or mere theory teacher. buddha was not the teacher of a devotional sectarian religion. anicca, dukkha, anatta is pure physics and thus, not a subject of argument or sectarian belief. nothing "buddhist" about it. buddha taught physics of nama-rupa and it was my pleasure discussing (very briefly) with respected dr han about sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito being pure physics and nothing else. this sabbo pajjalito is experiential dukkha as it is tejo or radiation. sabbo pakampito = anicca = knowing all nama-rupa as a wave, as a vibration. seing in this light, the aditta pariyaya sutta, cula-tanha sankhaya sutta, mula sutta, rohitassa sutta etc. all make full sense. some of the teachings of sayagyi u ba khin and goenkaji make the tilakkhanas very clear. I plan to put all this together in my future book; "the experiential practice of abhidhamma". merely discussing about abhidhamma is not bhavana panna - this is just a thought - dhamma vittaka /dhamma vicara and here the vitakka and vicara are about dhamma itself!!!forgive me to say this but, if experiential panna is not there and only pariyatti - then due to these dhamma vitakka/vicara about dhamma - etthesa tanha uppajjati !!! the apparent truths are many - the pannatti are many - the questions are many and thus CONFUSION. but, knowing nama-rupa "as it is" (yathabhuta) develops experiential nibbida and ends all vipallasa. this is vipassana. some abhidhammists feel that vipassana cannot be practiced or anicca cannot be known etc. this is not correct. I have discussed this also with respected dr han and he may be able to explain my viewpoint better than me! had vipassana / knowing anicca (samudaya-vyaya) had been so difficult or only for some rare maha-purisas then buddha would not have taught for all. had the only way to practice dhamma been the intellectual way or in other words, one had to first understand the abhidhamma - then people like matika-mata or cula-panthanka had absolutely no chance to learn dhamma and become an arahat. ven. mahasi sayadaw also endorses this view. I see myself no match to learned abhidhammists like dr han, sarah and nina etc. but, I take solace in knowing that vipassana is reading the book that one is oneself. abhidhamma is to be read silently, book-lessly, at the level of vedana - within. thus, a puthujjana like me has a lot to learn from all pariyatti teachers - a lot to learn from all abhidhamma teachers and thus eradicate my miccha ditthis or remove wrong pannatti but, ultimately, whether I understand all this pariyatti very well or understand nothing - MAY NOT MATTER! all that matters is my real bhavana. an abhidhammist may jump here and go into the meanings of the words "sammuti" and "pannatti". but, to a student of vipassana these things do not matter. the suttas originally spoken by the buddha - do not make these hair splitting divisions but, the abhidhamma works have many theoretical discussions and divisions. perhaps for these (and other reasons) some scholars say that abhidhamma books are not the original words of the buddha. sammutti may simply be taken as conventional truths and pannatti as concepts. vipassana is bhavana panna of paramattha truths of nama-rupa. this is bhavana of all 4 satipatthana. the sammuti / pannatti are also sacca but being APPARENT TRUTHS they are many and diverse (pakarena) but, for paramattha bhavana - it is ekayano maggo! no confusion. even sutmayi and citamayi panna are within field of pannatti as well as sammuti - as the actual experiential knowing of nama-rupa is not there. it is the experiential panna (with tilakkhana) that is real bhavana of the paramattha and this work starts with anicca lakkhana. as per meghiya sutta and later works like manuals of ven ledi sayadaw we know that the other lakkhanas follow when anicca lakkhana (anicca sanna) develops. this anicca sanna dissolves vipallasa and all pannatti / samutti conditioning (that forms vipallasa). the nibbida nana lead to eradication of kamma as new kammas are not made and so, old kammas arise and pass away (navanca kammam na karoti puranca kamma phussa phussa vyanti karoti. nigathna sutta. AN). thus, vipassana or shall we say - buddha dhamma or shall we say - bhavana of 4 satipatthana (the name or pannatti is not important!) - is "esa maggo visuddhiya". the view held by some that vipassana cannot eradicate kamma is not correct [I read this in dsg] - or else buddha's teachings have no use! I have briefly summarized my discussions with dr han, above. even a little dhamma is enough. more details may be see in articles on vedana and sampajanna at www.vri.dhamma.org those scholars who would like to go into theoretical meanings of the words pannatti and sammuti may check the standard abhidhamma texts. I have focused, in this writing, on the experiential aspect of paramattha. I seek forgiveness - if I have not been theoretically accurate. kindly do let me know about my mistakes. those who have more questions may look up www.vri.dhamma.org http://dharmafarer.googlepages.com/ I would like to repeat what sayagyi u ba khin said - he said that we need to know anicca continually and that would answer ALL questions. for me this itself is the silent answer to ALL questions on DSG !!! this experiential anicca bhavana itself answers all questions for everyone - ends vipallasa - develops panna - dissolves vicikiccha and shows the path to nibbana. anicca holds the key. perhaps I need to say nothing more. with deep regards and gratitude to all, manish #78192 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... buddhistmedi... Dear Scott, - When your message is "clear, sticks to the topic, and avoids meaningless personal asides", it is to me a 'carefully written message with the intention to communicate better'. You wrote, "Sati, as far as I understand, does not have pa~n~natti as object". The most common explanation I have seen here at DSG is: a paññatti does not have the ti-lakkhana characteristics. But that is not true. According to PTS, paññatti means "making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea, notion, concept". Since an 'idea' is a thought, or a mind object, i.e. 'dhamma', which is one of the six external ayatana, it follows that mind objects are paññatti. And we know that mind objects are not permanent. The issue in the reply below is about 'sati' in the ariyans is not the the same as 'sati' in the worldlings. ............ >T: "Of course, sati for ariyans is a 'different kind' since it is supramundane. Worldlings are not able to take an ultimate reality as an object of "his" citta..." Scott: It is sati we are discussing. Not 'wordlings' or 'ariyans'. This is where I see you to be mistaken. The difference between 'worldlings' and 'ariyans', in relation to sati, is really only a difference in the degree to which sati is developed. 'Wordlings' and 'ariyans' are concepts. T: The issue is not about the "difference between 'worldlings' and 'ariyans', in relation to sati" !! Whether the words 'worldlings' and 'ariyans' are concepts or not, it does not matter in the present discussion. ............. Scott: I am not at all saying that a 'dhamma in the conventional sense can only be concept'. You are. And I disagree with you. This does start to clarify where you have got it completely wrong, though. You seem to think that dhammas are concepts until one 'becomes an ariyan' and then they are something else. I think this is incorrect. Refer again to my last point for the way I understand it. T: You are incorrectly accusing me of "getting it completely wrong". Whoa, Scott! You are very good at throwing accusations, aren't you? No, I do not think that "dhammas are concepts until one 'becomes an ariyan' and then they are something else". I do think that non- ariyans fail to see the true dhammas in the ultimate sense and have to use concepts in order to explain things. The paramattha dhammas are what they are; what we worldlings think of them, considering them, listening to tapes of someone talking about them, or reading books and commentaries, do not 'make' them different from the truth. ............ Scott: What is it then, in your understanding, that makes a 'perception' a vipallasa? T: Tanha & avijja. Tep === #78193 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 7:21 pm Subject: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (4) hantun1 Dear All, Topic: Dying Moments In my message #60354 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/60354 I had written the following points: (1) There are four kinds of kamma relating to dying moments: Kamma-catukkas, four kinds of action: (i) garuka-kamma, weighty kamma, (ii) aasanna-kamma, death-proximate kamma, (iii) aacinna-kamma, habitual kamma, (iv) katattaa-kamma, unspecified kamma. (2) There are three kinds of signs relating to dying moments: Maranaasanna Nimittas, kamma-related objects: (i) kamma, (ii) kamma-nimitta, (iii) gati-nimitta. (3) Maranaasanna Vithi: When maranaasanna-nimitta appears at one of the six doors, the avajjana-citta (adverting consciousness) will pick up the sense object and a stream of consciousness, known as maranaasanna vithi, flows on. In accordance with the kamma that is going to produce next rebirth, an akusal or kudsala citta normally functions 5 times as javanas in these vithis. These javanas are known as maranaasanna-javanas. ------------------------------ I was trying to establish the inter-relationship between the above three subjects. (a) Maranaasanna nimittas and Maranaasanna vithis. The relationship between maranaasanna nimittas (kamma-related objects) and maranaasanna vithis are clearly described in maranaasanna vithis. When one of the three maranaasanna nimittas strikes the corresponding sense-door the maranaasanna vithi starts to flow and after the dissolution of cuti citta the person dies. (b) Kamma-catukkas and Maranaasanna nimittas. But the relationship between the kamma-catukkas (four kinds of action) and the maranaasanna nimittas (kamma-related objects) is not clearly described in the books. But there must definitely be a connection between these two groups, because these two groups are responsible for the kind of rebirth in next life. In maranaasanna vithis, it is said that an akusala or kusala citta normally functions 5 times as javanas in these vithis, and that these javanas are known as ‘maranaasanna-javanas.’ But the books do not specifically mention that these akusala and kusala cittas which are known as ‘maranaasanna-javanas’ are indeed the kamma-catukkas (garuka-kamma, or aasanna-kamma, or aacinna-kamma, or katattaa-kamma). Therefore, it is not clear where and when these kamma-catukkas arise. Nevertheless, I consider that one of the kamma-catukkas functions as maranaasanna-javanas in maranaasanna vithis. Thus I consider: “When one of the three maranaasanna nimittas strikes the corresponding sense-door the maranaasanna vithi starts to flow and one of the kamma-catukkas functions as maranaasanna-javanas, and these are followed by cuti-citta. After the dissolution of cuti citta the person dies.” ------------------------------ I wanted to know whether my above consideration was correct. Khun Sujin said that it was correct. Respectfully, Han #78194 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tathagatagarbha/Gandhabba dcwijeratna Dear Dieter, I am so sorry about misreading your post. Many thanks for correcting me. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #78195 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 7:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon buddhistmedi... Hi Howard (and Jon and others), - I truly appreciate your thoughtful reply to my questions about a concept in meditation. My 2-cent-worth comments are given at the end of your 10,000-dollar reply. :-) > >> T: What do you say, Howard and Jon, about usefulness of a "mental construct" in meditation (either samatha or vipassana)? For example, let's consider, say, a citta that had ruupa (or any of the five khandhas) as its object and already passed away. Can such a citta be useful as an object of satipatthana now? > > > Howard: The problem that I have with sati and pa~n~na being able to know ONLY paramattha dhammas is the following, Jon - and please consider this very carefully and in precise detail: a) Any object of sati or pa~n~na, these being cetasikas, is the object in a the current mind state. It is the object of consciousness, and of feeling, recognition, and all the other extant cetasikas in effect at the time. b) In no mind state is the object the current citta of that state or any of the current cetasikas, which leaves only the following possibilities for current object: 1) a presently existing rupa, 2) a past rupa, 3) a past citta, and 4) a past cetasika. c) But, being a paramattha dhamma, it must be a present actuality and not something already ceased, for what is ceased no longer exists, and any "knowing" of it is actually a remembering of it, which is KNOWING OF CONCEPT, and thus, the only sort of paramattha dhamma that can currently exist and be object of consciousness is a rupa. d) The last conclusion implies that no nama is knowable by sati or pa~n~na!! (An untenable position.) If there is an error in the foregoing, I would greatly appreciate having it made clear to me. But it really has to be hammered out in detail, without any fuzziness to it. It is in a critical area of "doctrine" such as this that pristine detail and clarity of thought is needed. It is not the time for Abhidhammic method to become imprecise. It is exactly the opposite. I have no vested interest or preferred "outcome" in whether the "problem" I see is real or not. That is, whatever the facts are, they are - and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is leaving this matter or any other fundamental matter vague and unresolved. With metta, Howard ................ T: The following understanding is a 'mental construct' from the book knowledge. Since citta and cetasika are inseparable, it follows that a mind- object is the object of both citta and cetasika(together, they define a mind-state) in a given moment. Further, only one mind-state is in charge at any given instant (after that it falls away). Therefore, either a rupa or a naama (or any one of the five khandhas) can be an object of a given mind-state in the present. Past or future or present ruupa & naama(five aggregates, one at a time) can be mind objects during vipassana bhavana. This belief/understanding is confirmed by the following sutta. "How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, is materiality permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent pleasure or pain?" — "Pain, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent, painful and subject to change fit to be seen thus 'This is mine, this is what I am, this is my self'?" — "No, Lord." (And similarly with the other four categories.) "Consequently, bhikkhus, any kind of materiality (feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, is all (to be seen thus) 'This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self.' That is how it should be seen with right understanding as it actually is." [ SN 22.58, translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli] Tep === #78196 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (3) hantun1 Dear Dr. Manish (and Nina), Thank you very much for your comprehensive post. You may remember that when you asked me those questions, I said that I will not be *answering* your questions, but only *sharing* with you whatever I know. I said that because I know that you know more than me. You have been studying these subjects for years and doing research works. For me, I started studying Buddha Teachings only when I was 70, and I have no kalyanamitta (apart from the Dhamma friends of the Discussion Groups) and no personal teacher who could guide me. Therefore, whatever I have shared with you may be full of mistakes. I will request Nina to give comments on your present post. With metta and respect, Han #78197 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/6/2007 9:07:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, Which came first? Was there a conventional reality which then had to be explained by a theory of ultimate reality? Or was there an ultimate reality which then had to be explained by a theory of conventional reality? I believe the latter. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Me, too. :-) ------------------------------------------------------ And so I have no trouble believing that citta can experience a dhamma that has just fallen away. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider that a nonsequitur. In any case, what has just fallen away does not exist, and it thus cannot be an object of consciousness. However, a memory of it, a quite faithful mental photocopy, could be. -------------------------------------------------------- That is the way it is in ultimate reality! The fact that there might not be an exact equivalent in conventional reality does not worry me **one iota.** -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not talking about "conventional reality," but about reality. What has fallen away has, in reality, ceased and no longer exists. It is fiction. It is not present, not current, not existent. Don't you always say that there is only the present citta? ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- <. . .> H: > I have no vested interest or preferred "outcome" in whether the "problem" I see is real or not. ---------------- Those among us who believe in an eternal soul have a vested interest, don't they? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What in the world does that have to do with what is being discussed? In any case, as for souls, I have no truck with any such, eternal or not. You DO know that, don't you? ------------------------------------------------------- For them it is imperative that the Abhidhamma be discredited. Or at least, it is imperative that the Abhidhamma not be considered "the actual words of the Buddha." ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand why you make such a point. Who are you talking about? ------------------------------------------------------ Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard #78198 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Relations Among Rupas/Jon upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 11/6/2007 10:59:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: T: The following understanding is a 'mental construct' from the book knowledge. Since citta and cetasika are inseparable, it follows that a mind- object is the object of both citta and cetasika(together, they define a mind-state) in a given moment. Further, only one mind-state is in charge at any given instant (after that it falls away). Therefore, either a rupa or a naama (or any one of the five khandhas) can be an object of a given mind-state in the present. Past or future or present ruupa & naama(five aggregates, one at a time) can be mind objects during vipassana bhavana. This belief/understanding is confirmed by the following sutta. "How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, is materiality permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent pleasure or pain?" — "Pain, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent, painful and subject to change fit to be seen thus 'This is mine, this is what I am, this is my self'?" — "No, Lord." (And similarly with the other four categories.) "Consequently, bhikkhus, any kind of materiality (feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, is all (to be seen thus) 'This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self.' That is how it should be seen with right understanding as it actually is." [ SN 22.58, translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli] Tep ==================================== I'm sorry, Tep, but the material you quote neither says nor implies that a past paramattha dhamma, can, itself, and not just a memory of it, be object of current consciousness. In fact, it doesn't deal with that issue at all. What it says is that no dhamma, past, present, or future, or of any sort, is anything other than anatta. With metta, Howard #78199 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Nov 6, 2007 8:16 pm Subject: seeking emotional comfort? nichiconn Good on the recent poll's resoundingly unanimous "NO", Sarah. The e-ballot from omak wouldn't've change that. peace, connie vsm 530: Ida~nca pa.thamasacca.m kucchita.m aneka-upaddavaadhi.t.thaanato. Tuccha.m baalajanaparikappitadhuvasubhasukhattabhaavavirahitato. PPn xvi, 16 : And the first truth is vile because it is the haunt of many dangers, and it is empty because it is devoid of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self, conceived by rash people. PoP (p.586): And this, the first truth, is despicable because it is the abode of various dangers, empty because it is devoid of the ideas of eternity, pleasantness, happiness, individuality, which exist only in the thoughts of the foolish. ****