#79000 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Not only the apple and bananas changes. > > Our mind is one moment kusala and the next moment akusala and then it becomes kusala again - and the worst thing is, ALL of these are uncontrollable and this uncontrollability is called anatta. Is it really true? > > Life's like that? C'est la vie. > > Warmest regards, > Elaine Be careful not to fall into a wrong view (fatalism or determinism) THERE ARE CAUSES FOR THIS OR THAT TO ARISE. With Wisdom it is possibly to gradually make the wheel turn towards this or that result. --- "When this was said, Makkhali Gosala said to me, 'Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Lots of Metta, Alex #79001 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) truth_aerator Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > I recall the Buddha specifically saying that the dharma will pass > away like the ship used to cross a river. Once you get to the other > side it's pretty hard to justify carrying that ship further since it > has served it's purpose, no? This said, THEN, I suggest that whatever > Alex or Ken H. or Howard or even Nina and Connie and... whatever they > say it will all turn into nothing, in the long run, of course. > > You either get it or you don't. > Of course. All of this is temporary and are simply a raft to the other shore which will have to be discarded. Lots of Metta, Alex #79002 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine - In a message dated 11/20/2007 12:57:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi Howard, all, When the Abhidhammikas say there is 'no-control', do you feel like there is a God-like essence in it? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I don't. Also, though I haven't seen "no control" emphasized in the Abhidhammata Sangaha or in the Dhammasangani to the extent that the Khun Sujin folks emphasize it, it is far from something made up. In the suttas a significant element of what is meant by 'anatta' is the impersonal aspect of dhammas and the fact that they are as they are according to causes and conditions and not by mere wish or whim (as in "Let this be such!"). Also, phenomena are uncontrollable in the sense that there is no literal controller - no controlling agent. ---------------------------------------------------- Like if you cannot control your own thoughts from arising, then it is something else / someone else that is controlling it, isn't it? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: What thoughts arise do so on the basis of many different conditions. Many of the conditioning factors are prior acts of will on our part, but many have nothing to do with our volition. Let me ask you: Are "you", even conventionally, controlling what you are currently seeing, hearing, feeling, and so on? When a thought arises, though volition may well have played a role, do you typically place the thought in your head? When you smell something that triggers a memory Where this can be taken too far, however, is in believing that volition is imagined or impotent. It is not imagined, and it is not weak. Itt is exactly kamma, the foremost factor determining what befalls us. ------------------------------------------------ How about conditions? How do they come about? They say it is Natural Law, do you sometimes feel that Natural Law is God? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Nope! LOL! Natural law is nothing other than lawful conditionality, and at the center of conditionality for sentient beings is volition and its consequences. ---------------------------------------------- The more I read what the Abhidhammika says, the more I believe in God. I used to believe in myself- that if I do good, then I get good results, vice-versa. But ever since I got to know about no freewill, that I cannot control whether I do good or bad, I have started believing in God. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: What you intend and the intentional actions you engage in *are* central to what happens to you. The fact that this "you" is metaphorical doesn't change that fact. But your willing isn't all-determinative either. Nor is mine. None of us is all-powerful, but also none of us is powerless. Willed actions do have consequences. -------------------------------------------------- I think, it is Ok to believe in God because we are very small human beings and the universe is so big. There must be some bigger force out there that is controlling us. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: There is nothing "wrong" (in the sense of immoral or evil) with such a belief. Certainly not. It IS "okay". However, I believe that what theists believe to be the "will of God" is actually the combined, lawful effects of the kamma of a multitude of interacting mind streams. ----------------------------------------------- These are my personal thoughts, I know it is not what the real Abhidhammika thinks. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I prefer to speak of Dhamma rather than Abhidhamma. The Buddha taught Dhamma. The content of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is helpful to many in grasping the Buddhadhamma. I have benefited from it, though I have benefited far more from the suttas, and most of all from Dhamma practice. ---------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Elaine ========================= With metta, Howard #79003 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" shennieca Hi Alex, I have often heard people say, there is no I and no we that can do anything, conditions arises on its own. Conditions that we do not know - what, when, where and why arises, are the conditions that causes all these pile of sufferings, to come to us. Do not follow what Makkhali Gosala says,"Though one might think, "Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it" --- that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain." --> This is a Fallacy ! ----- Let us follow our Buddha's teachings, the truth is in the 4NT, the N8FP and the DO. May we escape from this long and suffering samsara. Thank you. With mettaa, Elaine #79004 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma reading materials - to Rob M robmoult Hi Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > Please tell us your experience in teaching Abhidhamma class in Brickfields. What are the most frequent questions your students ask? Like the FAQs. :-)) ===== It is very difficult to identify a set of FAQs. As you might expect, the most recurring duscussion theme is around the concept of anatta. Another theme that comes up frequently is the training of the mind. As you can see, the class covers both theory and practice. Though it is called an Abhidhamma class, I would not say that we spend a lot of time on the Abhidhamm persay, I use the Abhidhamma as a framework and tend to quote Suttas a lot more than I quote Abhidhamma texts. Brickfields has a large Sunday school (about 1,200 kids) so many of my students are parents. In general, they are more interested in the practical rather than the theoretical. Metta, Rob M :-) #79005 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:28 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy kenhowardau Hi DC, Thanks for joining the thread. ------------- DC: > Thanissaro's statement I checked at ATI [I wanted to read the full article]. It is given below: "Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply." Here is my analysis of the passage. 1. "the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet." The sutta evidence is that Buddha always veered away from metaphysical questions. He consistently refused to answer such questions. So if somebody asserts metaphysical tenets to the Buddha, there is no need to discuss it. ----------------- Here's a metaphysical question: Is there an enduring self (soul, essence) that will continue from the present existence to a future existence? Are you saying the Buddha would have refused to answer that question? ----------------------------- 2. "anatta or not-self DOCTRINE...strategy for gaining release," The word doctrine--a belief or a set of beliefs [Oxford dictionary], would imply that the Buddha was not "Enlightened" or the Buddha had no realization. I personally think this was a mistake because I am sure Bhikkhu Thanissaro, would not think that the Buddha was not "Enlightened." ------------------------------- I didn't realise the word "doctrine" had negative connotations for some people. I use it to mean a "teaching." So I refer to the Buddha's "teaching of anatta." Is there any problem with that usage? ------------------- 3. "As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply." ------------------- When you say "the Canon" I think you are referring to just a few parts of the Pali Tipitaka that you personally regard as genuine. That makes conversation difficult. The Canon that I know states quite specifically that all dhammas (conditioned dhammas and nibbana alike) bear an inherent characteristic known as anatta (no-self). ------------------------------- DC: > I am little bit concerned here with "it lies beyond..." I would infer from these words, that Bhikkhu Thanissaro, thinks that there is some "it" out there. Further, "it may be experienced ..." -------------------------------- As I was saying, nibbana can be described as being devoid of self. It can be directly experienced as anatta. Bhikkhu Thanissaro does not mention that. When he talks about something that "lies beyond" I get the distinct impression he is talking about a "true self." To be fair, he doesn't call it a self, he calls it "unbound (or unconditioned) consciousness." He says this kind of consciousness can go wherever it pleases. (I can find the exact quote if you want me to.) --------------------- DC: > For us, traditional Buddhists, this something difficult to accept. We hear daily "nibbanti dhiiraa yathaa yam padiipo" extinguished like the flame of a lamp, from Ratana sutta. For us anatta means no-atta--the sense of I, me and mine. --------------------- Have you read BT's dissertation on "The Flame Gone Out?" (Again, I can find the reference if you want me to; it is somewhere in Access to Insight.) He says that the Buddha and the people the Buddha spoke to 2500 years ago had a different understanding of fires and flames than we have today. TB says that the Buddha believed, 'even when a flame went out an essence of flame always remained.' This essence was capable of springing up again somewhere else as a flame. ------------------------------- DC: > According to the Dhamma it is possible to train oneself to give up this sense, by completely training one self in tisikkhaa-siila, samaadhi, pa~n~naa. And when you do so, you are totally at peace with the world. ------------------------------- Yes, I agree with that. However, there are many religions and philosophies that claim to deliver the same kind of peace aren't there? The main thing that all Dhamma students must understand from the very beginning is that there is never any "self" that is at peace (or not at peace) with the world. There are only dhammas. Some dhammas are peaceful, some are the opposite of peaceful. But in all cases and at all times there are only dhammas. ----------------------- 4. I do not wish to comment on Bhikkhu Thanissaro status. That would be totally against the Buddha's teachings, since I don't know about it, and people who are discussing wouldn't know his mind either. ----------------------- We can still discuss views and opinions can't we? ----------------------- 5. Finally, one can understand the Buddha's teaching only by travelling the path. No other way. That is why it is called the only way, sole way etc. Those who are trying to talk about the teachings of the Buddha are like the famous blind-men and the elephant [the story is in Udaana, I think] ----------------------- Now you are being unreasonable. You have said the same thing before (or was it Alex?) and it is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong with talking about the teachings. Ken H #79006 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... upasaka_howard Hi again, Elaine - In a message dated 11/20/2007 4:13:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: What thoughts arise do so on the basis of many different conditions. Many of the conditioning factors are prior acts of will on our part, but many have nothing to do with our volition. Let me ask you: Are "you", even conventionally, controlling what you are currently seeing, hearing, feeling, and so on? When a thought arises, though volition may well have played a role, do you typically place the thought in your head? When you smell something that triggers a memory Where this can be taken too far, however, is in believing that volition is imagined or impotent. It is not imagined, and it is not weak. It is exactly kamma, the foremost factor determining what befalls us. ============================== In the foregoing I started a sentence that I didn't finish, namely "When you smell something that triggers a memory ..." What was intended is "When you smell something that triggers a distant memory, it isn't because you are trying to remember. Past experiences, including acts of intention, along with the current smelling serve as conditions for the recollection to occur." With metta, Howard #79007 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... shennieca Hi Howard, I like your reply. I understand that seeing, hearing, perceptions, feelings have influence from past kamma. There are some things which we cannot control, for e.g. - we want to stop our heart right now, or we want to turn back the hands of time, - that we cannot control. But abhidhammikas say we cannot control - Volition - "the lawful conditionality, which is the center of conditionality for sentient beings (I'm quoting from your last reply)". So, you cannot will yourself to do anything. I understand we cannot control physical pain from arising but we can understand (with wisdom) the nature of these physical pains. If we understand its nature, we are free from the sufferings. But the wisdom of understanding of pain and whatever, comes when the conditions are right, it is not up to us. So, that is still confusing for me. So what is it that is controlling 'when' this wisdom arises? Do we actually know when the conditions are right? Can we recognize these conditions? Or we don't even have the ability to know the conditions are already here? How does the conditions announce itself to us? It just appears in our lives? What do you think of volition? Warmest regards, Elaine P/S: I feel like a dead-tree that has stopped growing. Sigh. #79008 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:15 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... buddhistmedi... Hi Howard (Elaine), - Your explanation to Elaine about controlling thoughts is the motivation for me to butt in without being asked. ;-) > >E: Like if you cannot control your own thoughts from arising, then it is something else/someone else that is controlling it, isn't it? --------------------------------------------------- >Howard: >What thoughts arise do so on the basis of many different conditions. Many of the conditioning factors are prior acts of will on our part, but many have nothing to do with our volition. Let me ask you: Are "you", even conventionally, controlling what you are currently seeing, hearing, feeling, and so on? When a thought arises, though volition may well have played a role, do you typically place the thought in your head? When you smell something that triggers a memory Where this can be taken too far, however, is in believing that volition is imagined or impotent. It is not imagined, and it is not weak. It is exactly kamma, the foremost factor determining what befalls us. ------------------------------------------------ T: By accepting that "volition may well have played a role" in controlling a thought, and also by saying that "willed actions do have consequences", you are more flexible than others who totally reject control of a person's actions (e.g. thinking is mental action and thoughts are the result of thinking). Some thoughts are involuntary like the one associated with smelling as you explained. Others like kusala vitakka are controllable. See Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Relaxation of Thoughts (MN 20). BTW I think you can control your seeing by being selective in what you want to see and what you don't want to see. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Elaine - > > In a message dated 11/20/2007 12:57:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > shennieca@... writes: > > Hi Howard, all, > > When the Abhidhammikas say there is 'no-control', do you feel like there is > a God-like essence in it? > --------------------------------------------------- #79009 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" shennieca Hi Alex, all, Yes, the Buddha called a person, puggala. But according to the abhidhammikas, they don't recognize the differences between these puggalas. Do abhidhammikas recognize the existence of puggalas or not? ---- "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden.A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person. Taking up the burden in the world is stressful. Casting off the burden is bliss. Having cast off the heavy burden and not taking on another, pulling up craving, along with its root, one is free from hunger, totally unbound. http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn22/sn22. 022.than. html --- Buddha has called it a Person (Pudgala?). What you do matters! --- Yep, it matters what we do but some people believe we cannot decide what we do because the decisions is decided by conditions and not by a we. With mettaa, Elaine #79010 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine - In a message dated 11/20/2007 4:38:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi Howard, I like your reply. I understand that seeing, hearing, perceptions, feelings have influence from past kamma. There are some things which we cannot control, for e.g. - we want to stop our heart right now, or we want to turn back the hands of time, - that we cannot control. But abhidhammikas say we cannot control - Volition - "the lawful conditionality, which is the center of conditionality for sentient beings (I'm quoting from your last reply)". So, you cannot will yourself to do anything. I understand we cannot control physical pain from arising but we can understand (with wisdom) the nature of these physical pains. If we understand its nature, we are free from the sufferings. But the wisdom of understanding of pain and whatever, comes when the conditions are right, it is not up to us. So, that is still confusing for me. So what is it that is controlling 'when' this wisdom arises? Do we actually know when the conditions are right? Can we recognize these conditions? Or we don't even have the ability to know the conditions are already here? How does the conditions announce itself to us? It just appears in our lives? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Elaine, as I see it we shouldn't grasp onto the idea of micro-managing events, constantly looking for "progress". If the conditions are right for wisdom to arise, do we need to see it coming? Why not just study the Dhamma and practice it, and let the results follow? Study suttas, and the Abhidhamma as well if so inclined, guard the senses to do no harm to self and others and calm the mind through sila, condition calm and clarity and a powerful mind through regular meditation, and cultivate wisdom by attending mindfully as best one can to whatever arises through every sense door while meditating and when not meditating? Such bhavana will create the conditions, and the results will come about in their own time. ---------------------------------------------------------- What do you think of volition? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My favorite cetasika! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------- Warmest regards, Elaine P/S: I feel like a dead-tree that has stopped growing. Sigh. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Pay it no mind - it's just for the moment! :-) ======================= With metta, Howard #79011 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:26 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) buddhistmedi... Hi RobertK (Alex, Elaine, KenH, Dieter and others), - You are clever at expanding the discussion of KenH's accusation of the venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu to involve the prominent Bhikkhu Bodhi's rejection of TB's "not-self strategy". In a way you effectively used one bhikkhu's words to put down another bhikkhu's wholesome intention without much effort. Smart, but devious. > RobK (to Elaine): > In his comments on the vacchagotta sutta (connected diascourses) > Bhikkhu Bodhi says "We should carefully heed the two reasons the > Buddha does not declare, "There is no self": not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating a "STRATEGY of perception" devoid of ontological implications (as OTHERS hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that "all phenomena are nonself" (sabbe dhammâ anattâ), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since "all phenomena" includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self."" (thanks to ven Dhammanando for pointing out this passage) > > Why do you think Bhikkhu bodhi especially highlighted the mistake in > seeing anatta as a strategy? ................. T: If even our greatest Teacher, the Buddha, wanted to avoid aligning his teaching to that of the annihilationists, then why you and other DSG Abhidhammikas often declare "There is no self"? By the way, how could Bhikkhu Bodhi read the Buddha's mind to be able to say the Buddha was concerned about this, the Buddha wished that, etc.? Is Bhikkhu Bodhi an arahant? Further, I do not think any of us know how to read Bhikkhu Bodhi's mind either, to see why he rejects using the clever and wholesome strategy as suggested by TB for practicing anattanupassana. Do you know how to read his mind? > >RobK: I cited another pali scholar, Bhikkhu Bodhi who specifically rejects the idea that the Buddha taught anatta as a strategy rather than a truth. If I had rejected what he says would you also be so upset, and what is your criteria for deciding to accept the strategy theory of anatta as against the literal truth version? >Alex: There was a case where SARIPUTTA gave a wrong subject of meditation for a student. The Student tried hard but failed. Buddha gave the opposite strategy and the student reached Arahatship. T: Alex is very right and wholesomely smart to realize that strategy is important in the application (i.e. practice) according to the Dhamma. My understanding of the Buddha's Teachings tells me that a strategy for applying a truth -- anatta -- is what venerable TB has suggested. TB never denies that anatta (not self) is not a truth. How could he -- a very knowledgeable Buddhist monk who knows anicca, dukkha, anatta -- deny the Buddha's Teaching of the ti-lakkhana? Therefore, there is no conflict between his not-self strategy and the not-self dhamma. The wrong confusion is in the mind of the beholder with the wrong view. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine > wrote: > > > > Hi RobK, > > > > Ajahn Thanissaro is one of the most learned Pali scholars of our > time, he is also a virtuous monk. I personally believe that Ajahn is an Ariya. He has not and did not say anywhere in all his essays that there is a permanent self. #79012 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:33 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet Hi Howard I think you've provided a very succinct description of a wise approach to the Dhamma, and I will bookmark it for future reference. Thanks! Metta, Phil > Why not just study the Dhamma and > practice it, and let the results follow? Study suttas, and the Abhidhamma as > well if so inclined, guard the senses to do no harm to self and others and > calm the mind through sila, condition calm and clarity and a powerful mind > through regular meditation, and cultivate wisdom by attending mindfully as best > one can to whatever arises through every sense door while meditating and when > not meditating? Such bhavana will create the conditions, and the results > will come about in their own time. > #79013 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dcwijeratna Dear Ken H, Many thanks for your reply. I like it. Give me a little time to respond. Thanks for your offer to look up the references. It is not necessary. Your word is enough. We are trying to have a friendly discussion. One of the reasons, I joined in the present discussion was that I felt it was becoming two lively. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79014 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:35 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet Hi again Howard >while > meditating and when > > not meditating? Except perhaps we should take care that we don't draw such a clear line between "meditating and not meditating." Metta, Phil #79015 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... kenhowardau Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > <. . .> > In the foregoing I started a sentence that I didn't finish, namely "When > you smell something that > triggers a memory ------ You shouldn't have told me! I thought it was an intentional, and effective, writing technique: poignantly trailing off mid-sentence. :-) Ken H PS: It's a good thing we edit the typos out of our DSG posts before anyone can see them. Where would be the fun in that? :-) #79016 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter and DSG dhamma friends, - The word 'dhamma' here means the principles (for eradication of dukkha through cessation of tanha & avijja) that our Buddha taught. Therefore, dhamma is inseparable from abhidhamma. And thus it follows that Abhidhammaikas who are concerned with the 'ultimates' are my friends too. ;-)) MN 37: "Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant nor painful, he abides contemplating impermanence in those feelings, contemplating fading away, contemplating cessation, contemplating relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: `Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.' Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans." >D: > As it it said in S.N. 22 , 79 : 'Happy are the Perfect Ones, no craving is found in them, rooted out is the I conceit, the net of delusion burst through'. > > It seems to me that the Abhidhammic stand to speak from the ultimate point of view , influences you to suspect strategies applied for detachment being introductions of the self through the backdoor .(?) > T: When the bhikkhu does not cling, there is no concern about the self-demon who might sneak in through the "back door". Tep === #79017 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:11 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet Hi again again > > >while > > meditating and when > > > not meditating? > > Except perhaps we should take care that we don't draw such a clear > line between "meditating and not meditating." I was thinking so more about this and realized that it's easy for me to say when I begin meditating, but not when the meditation ends...it begins with an intentional picking up of the meditation subject, but it can't be put down in the same way it is picked up, something like that... Metta, Phil #79018 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhist teaching dcwijeratna Dear Chris, Many thanks for your response to "Two levels of Truth". I would like to pursue the matter further, if you agree; to have a friendly discussion. In order to carry on a meaningful discussion, we need to start with defined terms. So how do you define truth? Then we can discuss whether there are ultimate and partial truths. I have already said that there is only one Truth. Mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79019 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... truth_aerator Hello Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > But abhidhammikas say we cannot control - Volition - "the lawful conditionality, which is the center of conditionality for sentient beings (I'm quoting from your last reply)". So, you cannot will yourself to do anything. >>>> That is ADHAMMA. If volition is beyond your control, then we kill and rape without having atleast some part of volition (not to do it). That is NOT Buddha's teaching and whom ever says that should be dealt with (as a Buddhist I can't use harsher speech). Do the best you can RIGHT NOW. Present moment is what you have. While there are SOME things beyond your control (past causes) what you DO NOW - matters! Lots of Metta, Alex #79020 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Dieter and DSG dhamma friends, - > > The word 'dhamma' here means the principles (for eradication of > dukkha through cessation of tanha & avijja) that our Buddha taught. > Therefore, dhamma is inseparable from abhidhamma. And thus it follows > that Abhidhammaikas who are concerned with the 'ultimates' are my > friends too. ;-)) > Abhidhamma is a later and quite different work with different aims. Suttas (and Vinaya for Monks) is to be followed. Everything else... Well, lets save the trees. Lots of Metta, Alex #79021 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:36 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhist teaching truth_aerator Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > A little more: > > In the Digha Nikaya 9 the Buddha says: "These, Citta, are merely > names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in > the world. And of these a Tathagata makes use indeed, but he does > not misapprehend them" >>> Read it carefully. It says that Buddha uses ordinary words, the only difference is he DOES NOT CLING TO THEM. HE does NOT read in any sort of substantialist or metaphysical ideas into them. He is free from clinging and papanca-sankha-sanna. > > Note 224: An important reference to the two truths referred to in DA > as 'conventional speech' (sammuti-kathaa) and 'ultimately true > speech' (paramattha-kathaa). See Introduction, p. 31f. It is > important to be aware of the level of truth at which any statements > are made. In MS (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta), the following verse is > quoted (source unknown): SOURCE UNKNOWN!!! > Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. > Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, > he > Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use > it, and not lie. > > metta > Chris Is the above work of Buddhaghosa? Lots of Metta, Alex #79022 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]To Sarah: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) buddhistmedi... Hi Sarah (Phil), - Recently there were only a few posts written by Sarah, and I have been wondering if she is busy doing something more important. :-) You and Phil probably have noticed my ignorance (caused by a lack of entusiasm) in historical records or research. Therefore I am thankful for the quotes you took from the 60-page introduction by A.K. Warder. (I) "Since the descriptions of dhammas maybe older than the final Dhammasangani text, a substantial part of the Patisambhidamagga may have been elaborated in the same period, parallel to it and using some of its contents in the earlier form. This would mean the latter part of the 3rd century B.C." (II) "This appears to establish that the last main stage of composition of the Patisambhidamagga...took place in the early or mid- 2nd century B.C." T: If "the substantial part of the Patisambhidamagga was elaborated in the 3rd century B.C." , then how could "the last main stage of composition of the Patisambhidamagga" take place in the early or mid- 2nd century B.C.? Thank you very much, Sarah. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (& Rob M), > > You were asking about the Patisambhidamagga, usually attributed to > Sariputta. > #79023 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... shennieca Dear Alex, Thank goodness for your e-m. You know, someone told me once that, nobody can control anything in their life, there is no control whether they kill or not, if the conditions for killing arises, they will go kill and pillage. There is no self-control whatsoever. It was really scary for me after I read it. I didn't sleep for one whole night. I kept thinking and thinking did our Buddha teach no-control? It is still bothering me because many learned Buddhists are still saying there is no-control over our Volition... it is scary... From Cunda Sutta SN 47.13. (Ven. Sariputta passes away). Our Buddha said this to Ananda. "Therefore, Ananda, each of you should remain with your self as an island, your self as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge. Remain with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge. And how does a monk remain with his self as an island, his self as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge? How does he remain with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is how a monk remains with his self as an island, his self as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge. For those who — now or after I am gone — remain with their self as an island, their self as their refuge, without anything else as a refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as their refuge, without anything else as a refuge, they will be the highest of the monks who desire training." (end). May we get a glimpse of Nibbana in this very life. Sadhu! With mettaa towards all beings, Elaine #79024 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Hi Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I have often heard people say, there is no I and no we that can do anything, conditions arises on its own. Conditions that we do not know - what, when, where and why arises, are the conditions that causes all these pile of sufferings, to come to us. > > Do not follow what Makkhali Gosala says >>> But some of his incredibly heineous views are similiar to what some teach. > > Let us follow our Buddha's teachings, the truth is in the 4NT, the N8FP and the DO. May we escape from this long and suffering samsara. Thank you. > > With mettaa, > Elaine > Exactly. Suttas are the best read. Not because of pure philosophy but because they teach "What is to be done?" . Lots of Metta, Alex #79025 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Hi Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi Alex, all, > > Yes, the Buddha called a person, puggala. But according to the abhidhammikas, they don't recognize the differences between these puggalas. Do abhidhammikas recognize the existence of puggalas or not? >>> Follow what the Buddha has said. Not what scholastics THINK. > ---- > Yep, it matters what we do but some people believe we cannot decide what we do because the decisions is decided by conditions and not by a we. >>> That is a FATALISM/Determinism pure and simple. Those who teach Fatalism (especially if they cling to it) will be accruing BAD KAMMA... Lots of Metta, Alex #79027 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... buddhistmedi... Hi Scott (Nina and others), - Thank your for your patience that has been a supporting condition for our Abhidhamma discussion and my learning. Also, my gratitude goes to Nina who has been providing helpful comments. > > Scott: We are dealing with a classification of these mental factors, I > guess. I'm out of time but I'll come back to this. Interesting > stuff, eh? > T: Yes, it is. Tep === #79028 From: "Evelyn" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reincarnation and Buddhism eviebgreen --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Evelyn - > > In a message dated 11/17/2007 5:32:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > eviebgreen@... writes: > > > I have been thinking about something this week and have questions > regarding reincarnation and Buddhism. > > And actually you do not even have to be Buddhist to believe in > reincarnation, because there are many different types of people who > believe that people are reincarnated again and again therefore have > many different lifetimes. The entire idea and thought of past lives is > based purely from reincarnation. > > Here are my personal thoughts... > > When you do not reach enlightenment, and then complete nirvana... do > you reincarnate to a different city? > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I hear there's been a population increase in Hoboken, NJ! ;-)) > [Sorry - I couldn't resist.] > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Do you reincarnate to a different > state? Do you reincarnate to a different country? > > And what about this... > > Do you reincarnate to the same world? Do you reincarnate to the same > galaxy or the same universe? > > The universe is infinite.. we do not even know how big everything is > because things are still being measured. > > Is it possible that when you reincarnate that you move onto a > different world and different galaxy? > > I believe that it is possible because anything is possible. > > > > So, what do you believe??? > > I am curious to see what other think about reincarnation. > > Take care, > -Evelyn > =================================== > The Buddhist understanding is that there are no souls that move from > body to body (re-incarnating), but that from moment to moment there flows a > coherent psychophysical stream consisting of experiential states, each new state > arising due to prior conditions, most especially kamma. Evelyn: The thing that I understand about re-incarnation is that it is in fact that similar to kamma. Perhaps it is my Christian upbringing but I believe that if you do not find enlightenment in this lifetime that you will re-incarnate to another life, another body, another form and have another chance to live again and find what you are looking for. That complete enlightenment, complete understanding, complete knowledge. At the so-called > moment of death there immediately follows the first state of that "continuum" in > "its next life". The realm and context of that next life is largely > determined by kamma (past intention and intentional action). > There are many different realms and sub-realms of experience that exist, > and many different modes of existence within each of them, and, again, it is > overwhelmingly kamma which determines the context of rebirth. But literally, > nothing is reborn or carried over - there is just a next step, though a more > radical one. I think of one's existence during a lifetime as analogous to > watching a sequence of TV programs on some channel, and death and rebirth being > a channel change. > > With metta, > Howard > > Evelyn: You have a very open view to how 'one's existence' is during their lifetime. I really appreciate your open view because I am finding that few people are really understanding or open to Buddhism and the idea of your life and what good or negative karma you carry with you. Have a great day, -Evelyn #79029 From: "Evelyn" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reincarnation and Buddhism eviebgreen --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Hi, Evelyn, > > As we understand there is no re-incarnation in the Teaching of the Buddha. The word used in the Suttas is 'punabbhava' --meaning re-becoming. > Evelyn: Perhaps it is my upbringing as a Christian that keeps my mind believing in the possibility of re-incarnation. But with Christianity there is only one soul and only one lifetime, and I have always believed that people have multiple lives and multiple journeys that they experience. > Our idea is similar to that of Howard. > > Really, human beings cannot understand what happens after death or before birth. Evelyn: Supposedly some Christians claim that their after death experience is this exactly, which I disagree with on quite a few points. The experience is that there are these huge gates and all of their loved ones, family and friends, there is Jesus Christ, God and they enter the gates of heaven where there is no pain and no suffering; only complete happiness and joy. I believe that these people who have near death experiences vision a blur of what their mind is creating in all of the trauma of what is happening, these people vision what they have heard from other people or see what they believe heaven would be like. When these people leave this place and go back to their reality many are very unhappy because they feel that where they were was better than their current life. So these people suffer for the rest of their life because they are wanting something that may not even exist. OK, before I get to far ahead of myself here and get people or yourself lost in my replying to you. I am trying to make a point by talking about the experience that people have in their lives. And even if this is not the only one life that these people have they are brought or become to believe that this is what life is like after they pass away. If we in fact live multiple lifetimes then we do re-incarnate into another body, into another form. It is possible because anything is possible. Perhaps I am ahead of myself because I am still learning about Buddhism and the Buddhist ways, therefore I am more of a idealist when it comes to Buddhism I suppose. I want to live the way of a Buddhist because I agree with the ideals of Buddhism, but am finding that I do not agree with everything that Buddhism is about. I really am hoping that more people will reply and say how they were introduced to Buddhism and their thoughts or questions that they may have about everything. > > If you go even deeper, all you really know is the 'bare experience'. What is meant by 'bare experience' is the following: Example--when you see something (a red rose) there is seeing consciousness (cakkhu vi~n~naa.na). When you think about it, that is a different thought. (the rose is red, I like red etc.). Now the object of your thoughts is red or something. That is why you say: Knowledge is only the present moment. From another angle, the psycho-physical-unit (naama ruupa) has changed (whatever is). > > These are extremely complex. I am not sure whether my understanding is correct. According to the Dhamma, one has to develop Dhamma-vision (Dhamma-cakkhu) to understand this. > > What I have written can help you to resolve your problem; on the other hand, it may add to the confusion. > > With mettaa, > > D. G. D. C. Wijeratna > Evelyn: Perhaps your reply and my new reply will add confusion to the original questions asked, but it sounds like you fully understand and know what you believe in. And as for myself, I am still finding and figuring out who I am. Have a good day, -Evelyn #79030 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: >> We can discuss the Vacchagotta Sutta if anyone wants to. However, I > would like to concentrate on the suggestion inherent in BT's teaching > that he believes in a self. >>> Where did TB said "There IS a self". Unless he has said it, your views are SPECULATIVE SLANDERINGS OF A VENERABLE MONK. > I believe the Buddha continually addressed the question, 'Is there a self?' Even so, it might be true that there is only one passage in > the Canon where he was asked it point blank. I don't know. But I do > know that no ordinary Dhamma teacher would refer to that fact without > giving an explanation. Wherever there is any suggestion at all of > atta-belief in the Pali Canon, a true Dhamma teacher will immediately > dispel it. Does TB make any attempt to dispel the suggestion? No. >>> Maybe before one is Ariya it could be irresponsible to dispel it? Some may take it as "No control, no doer, no reciever" which is a HERESY and carries a heafty Kammic result. >> He says that the Buddha 'refused to take a position either way.' That's not good enough. >>>> Are you doubting what BUDDHA HAS SAID? > Ken H > > PS: (Skipping ahead a bit) TB writes, "In the first, Vacchagotta > asks the Buddha to take a position on the question of whether or not > there is a self, and the Buddha remains silent. In the second, > Mogharaja asks for a way to view the world so that one can go beyond > death, and the Buddha speaks, teaching him to view the world without > reference to the notion of self. This suggests that, instead of being > an assertion that there is no self, the teaching on not-self is more > a technique of perception aimed at leading beyond death to Nibbana — > a way of perceiving things with no self-identification, no sense > that 'I am,' no attachment to 'I' or 'mine' involved." (end quote) > > How much evidence do you people need? :-) > You see to have a unnessesary problem between "a strategy" and "truth" where there may not be one. Buddhist path is a practical and pragmatic. Somethings need to be CAREFULLY delivered. Obviously saying outright "There is NO self" wasn't used by the Buddha, the best teacher who ever lived. There is probably good reason for that. WHen one achieves paranibbana does the view "I have a self, or I dont have a self" occur? No. It is also quite interesting that Nibbana shares some key characteristics of the "Higher" self that wonderers were searching for. Nibbana is Permanent, Unchanging, and Ultimate Happiness. ALso there isn't any control there, "one" probably wouldn't even need it anyways since it is TOTAL PEACE. Lots of Metta, Alex #79031 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:45 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Here's a metaphysical question: Is there an enduring self (soul, > essence) that will continue from the present existence to a future > existence? >>>> No. But does that mean that we must speculate on the Opposite? There IS an emperical Person (or more precisely 5 aggregates) that gets reborn, however this is not an unchanging atta and eventually this stream will be extinguished in parinibbana. > > > I didn't realise the word "doctrine" had negative connotations for > some people. I use it to mean a "teaching." So I refer to the > Buddha's "teaching of anatta." Is there any problem with that usage? >>>> Buddha does not speculate and his teaching isn't supposed to be a dogma. Ultimately it will be let of like a raft. > When he talks about something that "lies beyond" I get the distinct > impression he is talking about a "true self." To be fair, he doesn't > call it a self, he calls it "unbound (or unconditioned) > consciousness." He says this kind of consciousness can go wherever it pleases. (I can find the exact quote if you want me to.) >>> It depends how you interpret word "Nirodha". It has an alternative meaning: "One way traces the etymology to "ni" (without) + "rodha" (prison, confine, obstacle, wall, impediment), thus rendering the meaning as "without impediment," "free of confinement." This is explained as "free of impediments, that is, the confinement of samsara." http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/coarisea.htm#problem Thus it MAY be that dependent origination never "ceases", one simply is not confined to it. So when Avijja doesn't confine "one", sankharas do not. When sankharas do not confine "one", consciousness does not. Etc etc. You know it is Very Hard and questionable regarding this single Pali word from ancient India... Will we ever know the truth? One way to find out. MEDITATE! -- Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html --- > > Have you read BT's dissertation on "The Flame Gone Out?" (Again, I > can find the reference if you want me to; it is somewhere in Access Ven TB talk IS FAIR. We shouldn't jump to conclussions about how Indians 2500 ago viewed the flame going out. We shouldn't bring modern ideas into old similies. >> > We can still discuss views and opinions can't we? >>> As long as we do NOT speculate on what he may not have said or believed in. Lots of Metta, Alex #79032 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... shennieca Dear Alex, all, In my last e-m. The person that I talked about, didn't specifically say that the conditions for killing arises. I made up the killing and pillage scenario to make it more dramatic, you know. I don't want to break the fourth precept, sorry for the blunder, please forgive me. Thank you. With metta, Elaine ---------------- #79033 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Good Morning Robert, > >whatever they > say it will all turn into nothing, in the long run, of course. > > You either get it or you don't. > > You can try to get it. You can try to place into position the > building blocks to achieve the understanding but in the long run it > will turn out to be nothing more than spinning the wheel of life and > hoping that Vanna can turn one of the letters around (buying a vowel > is a different story, lol). You either get it or you don't get it. > __________ Dear Colette, Yes that is pretty much true but sometimes, if conditions are such, hearing the right thing at the right time can help someone to understand. Robert #79034 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... truth_aerator Dear Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Dear Alex, all, > > In my last e-m. The person that I talked about, didn't specifically say that the conditions for killing arises. I made up the killing and pillage scenario to make it more dramatic, you know. I don't want to break the fourth precept, sorry for the blunder, please forgive me. >>>> Whatever one's metaphysical beliefs are. We must be clear on "Do the best you can". Don't simply say "Oh its Kamma/Destiny/Elements/Fate about which I can't do anything". It seems to be irresponcible to keep talking about "no self" (without properly grounding that person in practice and ethics first). As someone has said: "No self, No other!" Lots of Metta, Alex #79035 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy buddhistmedi... Hi friend Alex, - Thank you for this conversation with me on the (doubtful?) value of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. > > Tep: > > The word 'dhamma' here means the principles (for eradication of > > dukkha through cessation of tanha & avijja) that our Buddha taught. > > Therefore, dhamma is inseparable from abhidhamma. And thus it follows that Abhidhammaikas who are concerned with the 'ultimates' are my friends too. ;-)) > > > Alex: > Abhidhamma is a later and quite different work with different aims. > > Suttas (and Vinaya for Monks) is to be followed. Everything else... > Well, lets save the trees. > T: As you know I am not an Abhidhammaika. It is not because I see anything wrong with the Abhidhamma, but mainly because of the very similar belief and strong saddha that you have for the suttas. In fact I truly believe that only a few well-selected suttas are enough as guidelines for any serious practitioner to attain at least Stream-entry in this life. So why should I then care too much about the Abhidhamma, right? However, the main difference between our views is that I see the Abhidhamma-Pitaka as interconnected with the Suttana-Pitaka. Often I have found the Dhammasangani very helpful in explaining the naama (citta and cetasikas) & ruupa in more detail than the suttas can. And because of such value I have seen, I am enthusiastic to learn more. Perhaps you've already read the following introduction to the Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi. But if you have not, you may find it very helpful in giving you good & fair reasons to be more optimistic about the Abhidhamma like me. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html Tep === #79036 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - It is good to know that you are around for questions. > > T: It is very helpful, Nina. Thank you very much for the overview. > ------- > N: Yes, but now I see another point. > Scott's text : <"Vitakkavicaaraa vaciisa"nkhaaro. Sa~n~naa ca vedanaa ca > cittasa"nkhaaroti." > > This is rendered by ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi as: "...applied thought > [vitakkaa] and sustained thought [vicaaraa] are the verbal >formation; perception [sa~n~naa] and feeling [vedanaa] are the >mental formation..."> > This is another context, so it all depends on the context. > Nina. > T: Yes, all depends on the "context". But for a beginner s/he does not have a skill to see the context for a given situation ! I remember I had asked you questions about sankhara, vaci-sankhara, citta-sankhara, and sankhara khandha before. It was difficult then, but not as much now. Thank you so much. Tep === #79037 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:19 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy kenhowardau Hi Elaine, ----- E: > If anyone does not understand Ajahn Thanissaro, then I think they don't understand Buddhism. ----- I haven't read all of his teachings, but I think I have a basic understanding of the ones I have read. And I disagree with them. ----------------------- E: > First level of understanding Not-self means understanding Non- Attachment to the sense of Self. People talk about anatta like this and that, yet they are so attached to their sense of self ! Everytime someone say this is me, this is mine - it is already Not notself. Not- self starts with No Self-Identification. What is your interpretation of not-self, KenH? Does No-control means not-self, but everything else is me and mine? ------------------------- It is hard for me to answer your question because I am not used to thinking of the Dhamma in those terms. I could ask you the meaning of "First level of understanding Not-self means understanding Non- Attachment to the sense of Self" but that might sidetrack our discussion. To my understanding, anatta (no-self, soullessness) is a characteristic of all paramattha dhammas (absolute realities). Does that answer your question? As for "this is me" and "this is mine" I understand those terms (when they are found in the suttas) to refer to conceit (mana) and attachment (lobha) respectively. They usually form part of a trilogy the last part being "this is my self" which refers to wrong understanding (micha-ditthi). Ven Thanissaro makes frequent use to those terms but in a very different way. I am not sure, but I think he asks us to consider, "When something is seen as stressful, is it proper to regard it as me, mine, of my self?" And I think (again, I am not sure, but I think) his point is that we should take the stress out of our minds. He says, when stress is removed from the meditator's mind he/she can see whatever is "me, mine and my self" in a proper light. Have I got that right, do you know? ----------------- E: > People have to LET GO of their sense of self before they can really understand not-self, and this is exactly what Ajahn is teaching. Ajahn says that the teaching on not-self is aimed at leading beyond death to Nibbana, it is a way of perceiving things with No Self-Identification, no sense that 'I am,' no attachment to 'I' or 'mine' involved. ------------------ That is more or less the way I understand him. He says, as soon as we take a "position" (as soon as we say this is me, this is mine, or this is my self) we have allowed stress back into our minds. The teaching that is found in the Pali Canon is very different. It says that all dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta. They posess those three absolute characteristics. Anicca, dukkha and anatta are not strategies for clear seeing, they are absolute characteristics of paramattha dhammas. ---------------- E: > About Vacchagotta. You expect Ajahn to say " Yes, there is absolutely No-self" when the Buddha Himself did not reply to Vacchagotta that way? When asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer, at point-blank, is there a self or not - the Buddha kept quiet. After Vacchagotta left, Ven. Ananda asked the Buddha about Buddha's stance for not replying. In the answer Buddha gave to Ananda, Buddha did not tell Ananda, "Yes, there is absolutely No-self". Wouldn't that BE a really good time to tell Ananda and the world that there is Absolutely No-self whatsoever? What is the reason the Buddha did not tell Ananda that there is Not- self ? Was the Buddha afraid to confuse both Vacchagotta and Ananda? Ananda was already a Sotapanna then, if I'm not mistaken. KenH, do you expect the answers from the Buddha to Vacchagotta to be "Yes, there is No self !". Can you give your reasons why, the Buddha did not reply to Vacchagotta that way? Can you please share your opinion? ----------------- According to my understanding the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta in that way, but he *did* answer Ananda in that way: SN 44.10: "If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not- self?" "No, lord." "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" (end quote) So, you see, the Buddha had no hesitation in talking to Ananda about all phenomena being anatta. I believe he was prepared to speak to most people that way. But he was not prepared to speak to Vacchagotta that way. (Not just yet, anyway - he did later). To Vacchagotta those words would have implied the loss of a self that he strongly believed to exist. Ken H #79038 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:51 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > . > Others like kusala vitakka are controllable. See Vitakkasanthana > Sutta: The Relaxation of Thoughts (MN 20). > +++++++++ dear Tep, What are the khandhas that vitakka is classfied under and do you believe any khandha is controllable? Robert #79039 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... dcwijeratna Dear Howard, >>"Here is my argument. It may be very simplistic. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Howard: There is a flaw in it, IMO, which I will point out. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------"<< Many thanks, I thought there could be something wrong with my argument. That is why I said "it could be simplistic". My knowledge in Logic is what I learned about Boolean algebra, truth tables etc. well over 40 years ago. I need to brush it up. I will then study what is the flaw and reply within a day or two. Many thnaks, Sincerely, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79040 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (15) sarahprocter... Hi Tep, (& Colette) lots of delayed responses - here's one to your #77122 --- Tep Sastri wrote: > I have two no-nonsense questions to ask you in regard to the Buddhist > Mahayaana tradition ("those who follows it are called Maadhyamikas"). > > Wikipedia : > > According to the Maadhyamikas, all phenomena are empty of "self > nature" or "essence" (Sanskrit: Svabhaava), meaning that they have no > intrinsic, independent reality apart from the causes and conditions > from which they arise. > .... > S: In other words, only concepts, no realities, so only an > understanding of concepts is ever developed. > ............. > > Question 1. Do Maadhyamikas consider "concepts" in their Mahayaana > tradition? I think you cannot make the above deduction if the > term "concepts" is not their concern. ... S: OK, that was what I understood. I don't think they study realities. Anything which is not an intrinsic reality is a concept. See the following message I wrote which highlights what they miss in the Pali Canon from the little I know: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27999 ... > Question 2. How are the DSG Abhidhammikas' views different from those > of the Maadhyamikas? ... S: Again, pls see the link. The Abhidhamma is the study and understanding of intrinsic realities. These are distinct from the causes and conditions from which they arise. The Buddha's teaching is about the truth and knowledge of such realities. This is what is only ever taught by a Buddha. Metta, Sarah ======= #79041 From: Elaine Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy shennieca Dear KenH, I don't have anything more to write. You win. Of course, I still think Bhikkhu Thanissaro is right. If you feel so strongly about your opinion, isn't it better to tell Ajahn Thanissaro directly, instead of telling other people what you think behind his back? Have you written any e-m to Wat Metta or contacted anyone who knows Ajahn Thanissaro and tell them what you think? That you are challenging his understanding of Anatta? I wish you all the best. With metta, Elaine #79042 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is Panna? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, I'm not sure that anyone responded to your good questions and quotes on panna in #77116. So, briefly: --- Alex wrote: > Please forgive me if this came up before. What exactly is Panna? > > Is Wisdom (Panna): > a) intellectual (book) knowledge of the Dhamma? > b) Way of viewing (through 4NT, 3 characteristics, causality) and > doing things that one knows should be done? > c) Intuitive and penetrative understanding caused by Samadhi? > > According to the suttas, it appears to me, that it is mostly b & c. .... S: Panna is right understanding, samma ditthi. There are many kinds and levels. See the first few paragraphs in the Visuddhimagga, Ch X1V for more. Also, see 'Cetasikas' by Nina, ch 34. Briefly, there are those kinds of panna which can arise without hearing the Dhamma and those which can only arise after hearing the Dhamma. Then there can be intellectual panna, for example now, when we consider the teachings. There can be mundane and supramundane direct understanding of realities. Lots more detail can be given. Your a) above may or may not be with any panna. It comes back to the present moment. of course, panna can only arise with wholesome states of consciousness. Your b) in regard to doing things that should be done can again be with or without panna. One thinks one should go to the temple and give dana. There may or may not be any panna involved. As for c) above, I don't believe that panna is ever 'caused by samadhi'. Without panna, there cannot be any development of samatha or samadhi. .... > > --- > 5 Faculties: Conviction, persistence, mindfulness, samadhi, > discernment (panna). > > Notice a possible step by step development saddha -> viriya -> sati - > > samadhi -> panna. ... S: These indriyas all support each other and develop together. Without panna, saddha won't develop. This is why the saddha of a sotapanna is much higher than the saddha of a worldling. Similarly for the development of the other faculties. ... <..> > 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 > ------------ ... S: Samma-sankappo doesn't 'go into Wisdom'. However, samma-ditthi needs samma-sankappo to assist it perform its function of understanding. Samma-sankappo (i.e vitakka cetasika) 'touches' the object which samma-ditthi understands. They always arise together. Metta, Sarah ======== #79043 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch 6, no 6. sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, Another slow response - this one to #77115, on right speech and opinions. --- Dieter Möller wrote: > D: Yes, a gentle , kind approach with Metta. Wrong (harsh) speech is > akusala , in general to no one's benefit. ... S: I agree. Of course, sometimes we cannot tell by the words we read. People have different ways of speech. Better to be concerned about our own speech cittas! ... > *****'If the word of a teacher agrees with the sutta, it should be > accepted, but otherwise not. One's own opinion is weakest of all, but if > it agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not.' > > Too often , we neglect that our own opinion is the weakest of all and > miss the chance to learn another perspective . In case of a seemingly > sutta contradiction there is still a possibility instead of critisizing > to put the issue into a question , giving the other party a chance to > correct without losing face, isn't it?(knowing my own experience of > failures ;-) .... S: :-) some people may be more skilled and diplomatic than others in this regard as you've pointed out well. In any case, perhaps we can agree that life is short and understanding the Dhamma is most important? In brief, if we sometimes lose face (or get egg on our face), then we have to just appreciate that it's a chance to understand mana (conceit) then and there and 'move on', don't you think? .... > D: in case there are not obvious signs of greed,hate and delusion or > misconduct in respect to the vinaya, one should be very careful with > one's judgement who is an ariyan and who is not .. we householders are > in a weak position anyway ... S: I agree that it doesn't help to speculate. However, by listening and questioning and checking whether what is said is in conformity with the texts, we may reach some conclusions. For example, if someone has the idea of some soul or self continuing after parinibbana, we may know that there isn't any understanding of anatta, don't you think? it is the understanding here that counts, not whether we're ordained or householders, surely? .... > D: Sarah, your understanding of practise (and I mean now the " DSG > Abhidhammika Gang " ;-) ) is quite different from 'mainstream > Buddhism' . That even Ven. Nyanaponika , who - so I assume - was > wellversed in the Abhidhamma , told you so, should give you some > re-consideration . ... S: I don't recall Ven Nyanaponika ever telling me/us so. Not at all. I don't think he (or Ven Bodhi) would have considered 'mainstream Buddhism' as being any criterion of what is correct. ... > D: Sarah, your comments are called for ... ;-) ... S: Thanks, Dieter. You kindly mentioned before that there's no hurry.....;-) I've been glad to read all your contributions to others in the meantime. Metta, Sarah p.s On the topic of other well-known German teachers/traditions, please just chip in anytime with any interesting comments. =========== #79044 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Introduction to Buddhism- 1 sarahprocter... Dear Tep, In repsonse to #77159 to Scott, you wrote: --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Take the Patisambhidamagga of the Arahant Sariputta as an example. In > the book there are 201 dhammas to be "directly known" and you might > think they are all ultimate realities. Look closer, you'll see ten > kasinas and the 32 body parts. What do you think of them, aren't they > concepts? But if you asked Sarah, she would quickly say that they > are 'cittas' and , therefore, they are ultimate realities. ... S: Are you sure? Have I ever suggested that the kasinas or body parts are cittas? If so, I'd be interested to see where:-)) ... >But that > is a tricky answer. The fact of the matter is that, for example, > earth kasina is a round object made from clay that is used for > samatha bhavanaa. Blue kasina is not a "blue citta", there is no such > a thing in the abhidhamma Pitaka. > > 72-81. The earth kasina is to be directly known. The water kasina is > to be directly known. The air kasina, ..., athe blue kasina..., ... > The consciousness kasina is to be directly known. [10 kasinas] > > 82-113. Head hairs are to be directly known, body-hairs ..., > teeth ..., ... ..., urine ..., brain are to be directly known. [32 > body parts] Patism I, 5, page 11 (hard-cover, 1982) .... S: As I was just saying to Alex, there are different kinds of panna. Some kinds of right understanding (as in the development of samatha up to jhana-level) were around before the Buddha became enlightened. Metta, Sarah ========= #79045 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Views, Ontology, Philosophy of Buddha as it appears to me. sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Back to #77145. [I think these were replies that came in just as we were setting off on our trip, hence the extra delays!] --- Alex wrote: So in Theravada Abhidhamma Sabhava is a QUALITY rather than a self > existing atomic particle? ... S: Yes. A quality or characteristic of ultimate dhammas. This quality differentiates them from concepts. ... >THis issue has confused me since I've read > a lot of critique of svabhava that is misdefined as some sort of self > existing "atom" which of course from Buddhist (Correct) perspective > is impossible. ... S: Exactly. It has to fit in with the rest of the teachings. ... > SO I need to search for > > Scroll down to: > > 1. Sabhava > > 2. Haddaya vatthu (or it may be under 'Heart') > > 3. Vinnana - anidassanam > > 4. Udana -nibbana ... S: How did you get on? ... > All these different namas and rupas have characteristics, but all > are anatta, conditioned dhammas. ... S: Yes! ... > Please forgive me for not being clear about eye and smell. I should > have said eye consiousness and smell consiousness are both dependent > on the mind (6th sense, thoughts, consious volitions) . If there were > NO mind, there would be no way to sort (sense data) them out. > A "being" with 5 senses but no mind is not really sentient and for it > the different qualities are not distinguishable. ... S: I think that what you're getting at is that eye consciousness (for example) only sees visible object. Without many subsequent series of consciousness in mind-door processes, there'd be no 'sorting' or conceptualising about the data. Of course, there is volition (cetana) with each kind of consciousness and it is the characteristics of the dhammas (such as visible object) themselves which has to be penetrated. We all know about concepts already! .... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > S: As for the discussion you're having on the bodhisatta already being > a > sakadagami, that's a new one to me! If this were so, he'd be a > savaka of Buddha Kassapa or whichever one it was when he gained such > insights. He wouldn't be a an all-enlightened Buddha who had attained > to sammaa-sambodhi. Also, we read a lot about his various previous > lives. I think this would have been mentioned, don't you? > >>>>>> > >A: First of all this was NOT my idea. There was entire early Buddhist > sect that believed this. Since Buddha has enlightened after > recollecting his former lives (including perhaps the teachings of > Buddha Kassapa) and lives of other beings it is not impossible that > his path really started from Buddha Kassapa. ... S: His path started under previous Buddhas, but no insight to this degree. ... > However Buddha has developed a lot of panna AND experience by > himself, this is one of the reasons that He: > a) Left the house (obviously he had less lust, and that couldn't hold > him) > b) refused to settle with Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta > c) Refused to starve to death. > d) Became 'self' enlightened, an Arahant. ... S: Yes. I hope you read the comments by Manish that I re-quoted the other day. ... > Other than Abhidhamma Sangaha (by Bhikkhu Bodhi), which are good Eng > books on Abhidhamma? ... S: I forget if I answered this. I recommend that you read any of Nina's books, beginning with 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life'. Of the actual Abhidhamma texts and commentaries, my favourite is the Sammohavinodani, translated as 'The Dispeller of Delusion', translated by PTS in 2 vols. It's quite expensive, but a very good translation full of helpful dhamma. It's the commentary to the 2nd volume of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the Vibhanga. Also the Visuddhimagga (Nanamoli transl, BPS) is very useful indeed. The Atthasalini, translated as 'The Expositor' (PTS) is also good, but doesn't include the Pali terms. Good to read your keen interest. Metta, Sarah ====== #79046 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:35 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy moellerdieter Hi Alex, Ken H and others, you quoted Ven. Thanissaro' s translation of SN 22.22 : And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden.A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person. Taking up the burden in the world is stressful. Casting off the burden is bliss. Having cast off the heavy burden and not taking on another, pulling up craving, along with its root, one is free from hunger, totally unbound. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html His comment is quite interesting in respect to our discussion .. in particular 'Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved.' Note 1. This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The fourth factor, however - the carrier of the burden - has no parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp - who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school - said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far as the concept's descriptive powers could go. As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved. Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off. As SN 22.36 points out, when one stops trying to define oneself in any way, one is free from all limitations - and that settles all questions. with Metta Dieter #79047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Homework Paper to be Graded nilovg Dear Tep, Op 19-nov-2007, om 23:31 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > 1. Nimitta is a mental image, formation, or fabrication of whatever > 'name > & form' that has been earlier perceived, noticed, or marked in the > mind. > Thus we may have a nimitta of each of the five khandhas (e.g. > sankhara-nimitta). ------- N: We have to make a distinction here. We read in the Suttas about being taken in by the outward appearance (nimitta) of a person, or the details. Here it pertains to the concept of a whole, a person or thing. Not a paramattha dhamma. As you say, this is on account of what has been perceived before. Another meaning of nimitta is *nimitta of a reality*, of nimitta of one of the khandhas. Realities arise and fall away so fast and what remains is the nimitta. Like seeing now, it is gone already when it is noticed. Then there is another seeing in another process, but cittas arise and fall away so fast that one cannot point to this one or that one. But still, right understanding of the characteristic of seeing when it appears can be developed. The notion of nimitta reminds us: when a reality appears it has arisen and it is gone already. It reminds us of realities being beyond control. Nibbaana does not arise and fall away, it is animitta. Thus, it is necessary to make the distinction between different meanings of nimitta. ---------- > > T: 2. Sammuti : choice, selection, common consent, convention, > conventional (generally accepted), opinion, doctrine, definition, > declaration, statement, expression, name or word. ------- N: I find the meanings in the dictionary not so helpful. I would rather look at the context. Sammutti sacca: what is real in conventional sense. Person, table, etc. ------- > > T: 3. Pa~n~natti: making known, manifestation, description, > designation, > name, idea, notion, concept. ------- N: A term or word or an idea that is conveyed by a term. A term can stand for a reality or for what is not real in the ultimate sense. This is in short, but there are many details given in the Co. -------- > > T: It is because people need to communicate in order to make some > ideas known to others, they have to use description/designation and > conceptual thinking as the media to get their ideas across. The > conceptual thought, definition, notations, name or word are sammuti, > but the system (or tool) that make sammuti known to others is > pa~n~natti. ------ N: I agree, but I would say that pa~n~natti stands for name or word and also for that which is made known. It certainly is an important tool. ------- > > T: In my opinion, I think the combined term sammuti-pa~n~natti is the > opposite to the ultimate truths, which do not depend on any convention > or "tools" of communication invented by man.. ------- N: I am not sure about the word opposite. They are different. As to ultimate truths, they have to be explained by terms, pa~n~nattis. Pa~n~natti can also explain what is real: the terms citta, cetasika, rupa. These words are pa~n~nattis. As to the term sammutti, this is used in the texts in combination: sammutti sacca, not sammutti pa~n~natti. ------- > > T: 4. The difference between an ultimate reality and concepts, or > sammuti- > pa~n~natti, is as follows. > > When a dhamma, or a characteristic of a dhamma, arises in its pure > form, i.e. not fabricated/concocted/imagined by the mind, that dhamma > (or mind object) is paramattha. ------ N: It may be clearer to use examples. Seeing arises and seeing is not imagined, it has an unalterable characteristic. Namely, it experiences what is visible. It does not matter how it is named, seeing is always seeing. ------- > T: It is the opposite to sammuti-pa~n~natti. ------- N: Again, let us take visible object. This is different from sammutti sacca, such as a table or person. It seems that we see persons but in reality this is not so. I would not speak of opposites. ------- > T: A paramattha dhamma is convention-free, expression-free, words- or > description-independent. That is, a paramattha dhamma can only be > directly, experientially known by an ariyan. ------ N: Independent of words, yes, it does not matter how we call it, visible object is just that what is experienced through eyesense. Paramattha dhammas can be directly known by those who have reached the first stage of insight and further. Thus, not only by ariyans. But also now, when we begin, there can be sometimes attention to a characteristic that appears without naming it. As you say: independently of words. Then words are not needed. -------- > > T: I believe a thought is not concept when it is in pure dhamma, > i.e. such > a "thought" does not lead to arising, occurrence, sign, accumulation, > and rebirth-linking [Patism. I, 304]. -------- N: It depends what you mean by thought here. Lokuttara citta does not lead to arising, occurrence, etc. It has as object nibbaana, which is animitta. Nina. #79048 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:31 am Subject: for robmoult reverendagga... sorry! the Bante you speak of is not me! i'm not hosting any seminar that i'm aware of! (not unless it's some sort of " phantom and a dream"!) thank's bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #79049 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Bud... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/20/2007 6:36:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again Howard >while > meditating and when > > not meditating? Except perhaps we should take care that we don't draw such a clear line between "meditating and not meditating." Metta, Phil ================================== I do follow you. However, there are states of access and and depth of calm and clarity that occur when sitting in meditation on the breath or bodily sensations etc that don't typically occur at "ordinary times," and I wanted to emphasize all contexts as appropriate for mindful attention. With metta, Howard #79050 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/20/2007 6:44:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > <. . .> > In the foregoing I started a sentence that I didn't finish, namely "When > you smell something that > triggers a memory ------ You shouldn't have told me! I thought it was an intentional, and effective, writing technique: poignantly trailing off mid-sentence. :-) ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! After I noticed my mistake, I also saw how it might be "nice" to leave it as it was, but I decided that honesty should trump poetry and conceit! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ Ken H PS: It's a good thing we edit the typos out of our DSG posts before anyone can see them. Where would be the fun in that? :-) ============================ With warm 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) #79051 From: "robmoult" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:11 am Subject: Re: for robmoult robmoult Reverend Sir, Ooops, I got you confused with Ven. Aggacitta, Abbot of Sasanarakkha. http://www.sasanarakkha.org/ If you have not met him already, I think that you would enjoy talking with each other! Respectfully, Rob M :-) #79052 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... buddhistmedi... Hi RobertK and KenH (Dieter, Elaine, alex, etc.) - What kind of "self" did the Buddha talk about in the Cunda Sutta (see below) ? Is this an indication that we should be very careful before saying there is 'no self' ? >Elaine (quoting Cunda Sutta): > "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. > > This is how a monk remains with his self as an island, his self as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge. " > ............... Thank you, Elaine. Tep ==== #79053 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter, - You have made a contribution to the on-going discussion of the Not- self Strategy. Venerable TB's note about the two major camps with opposite views about 'no self' shows that people will always have opposing opinions & interpretation of 'anatta' and 'atta'. The venerable's "strategy" takes the middle ground between the two extremes; i.e. "the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off". >TB: > As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved. > > Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off. As SN 22.36 points out, when one stops trying to define oneself in any way, one is free from all limitations - and that settles all questions. ............... Thanks, Dieter. Tep ==== #79054 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:10 am Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Bud... philofillet Hi Howard > I do follow you. However, there are states of access and and depth of > calm and clarity that occur when sitting in meditation on the breath or bodily > sensations etc that don't typically occur at "ordinary times," and I wanted > to emphasize all contexts as appropriate for mindful attention. > Gotcha. I guess I said what I did because I am interested in the way a morning (for example) meditation session has a clear beginning, but the ending is not so clear. The mindfulness established echoes or ripples through the day, or something like that. Of course that is over "conventionalizing" it - it's much more complex than that. Enough for now on that topic - one of these days or weeks I'll be starting a thread in which I will be asking the "formal" meditators in the group for support/advice/feedback. Metta, Phil #79055 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Bud... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/20/2007 7:16:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again again > > >while > > meditating and when > > > not meditating? > > Except perhaps we should take care that we don't draw such a clear > line between "meditating and not meditating." I was thinking so more about this and realized that it's easy for me to say when I begin meditating, but not when the meditation ends...it begins with an intentional picking up of the meditation subject, but it can't be put down in the same way it is picked up, something like that... ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I understand. Also, some traditions, certain approaches to Hindu mantra meditation in particular, actually suggest maintaining the meditation subject all the time. I, however, drop any special "centering" attention on the breath the moment I end a session. I've already, during the session, expanded the field of attention to include (as possible) all that arises, keeping the breath merely "in the background", and then, when the meditation is over, I easily drop it entirely as far as particular attention to it is concerned. ------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================== With metta, Howard #79056 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Elaine) - In a message dated 11/20/2007 7:44:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: > Yep, it matters what we do but some people believe we cannot decide what we do because the decisions is decided by conditions and not by a we. >>> That is a FATALISM/Determinism pure and simple. Those who teach Fatalism (especially if they cling to it) will be accruing BAD KAMMA... ================================== There are in fact no literal "we" who decide things, though there are figurative "we" who do. As for the conditions, the conditions involved in deciding are such as thinking, wise and not so wise, willing, desiring, attending, etc. What literal "I" who decides would be desired or required? It is not fatalism to see that it is the activities that I mentioned that accomplish deciding, it seems to me. With metta, Howard #79057 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch 6, no 6. moellerdieter Hi Sarah , you wrote: Another slow response - this one to #77115, on right speech and opinions. D: never mind ... any relation to present discussions ..?;-) S: I agree that it doesn't help to speculate. However, by listening and questioning and checking whether what is said is in conformity with the texts, we may reach some conclusions. For example, if someone has the idea of some soul or self continuing after parinibbana, we may know that there isn't any understanding of anatta, don't you think? it is the understanding here that counts, not whether we're ordained or householders, surely? D: there are without many householders whose understanding is not only equal but deeper than those of some monks. For the purpose of questioning and checking the Buddha recommended in particular issues of greed, hate and delusion .. i.e. the latter in respect to anatta . What I meant with a 'weak position ' is our lack of detached livelihood .. .... S: (> D: Sarah, your understanding of practise (and I mean now the " DSG > Abhidhammika Gang " ;-) ) is quite different from 'mainstream > Buddhism' . That even Ven. Nyanaponika , who - so I assume - was > wellversed in the Abhidhamma , told you so, should give you some > re-consideration . ( ... S: I don't recall Ven Nyanaponika ever telling me/us so. Not at all. I don't think he (or Ven Bodhi) would have considered 'mainstream Buddhism' as being any criterion of what is correct. D: I refered to the lines before... you wrote: S:Btw, Sukin, I visited Ven Nyanaponika not long after this episode with K.Sujin and Nina in Sri Lanka at his hermitage. His understanding of 'practice' was very different from ours, but we all paid sincere respects, spent a while having polite talk without any controversial topics being raised. I think we have to know what is appropriate' By 'mainstream Buddhism' I had the usual practise of meditation in mind , which - to reasons still not clear to me - is somehow objected by the 'Gang' .... S: Thanks, Dieter. You kindly mentioned before that there's no hurry.....;-) I've been glad to read all your contributions to others in the meantime D: thanks, Sarah.. in view of the flood of messages , I consider that a priviledge ;-) with Metta Dieter S: p.s On the topic of other well-known German teachers/traditions, please just chip in anytime with any interesting comments I will do ..and in case of a special interest please tell me #79058 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > However, the main difference between our views is that I see the > Abhidhamma-Pitaka as interconnected with the Suttana-Pitaka. Often I > have found the Dhammasangani very helpful in explaining the naama > (citta and cetasikas) & ruupa in more detail than the suttas can. And because of such value I have seen, I am enthusiastic to learn more. >>>>> What do you think, what is better a) To perceive all these Dhammas in ACTUALITY (ie deep meditation) or b) Reading the Menu? Furthermore: Many suttas ARE NOT meant to be scholarly works for modern critical intellect. They are guidelines for practice which could give you the "Analytical Knowledge" as well as ultimate bliss & peace. > Perhaps you've already read the following introduction to the > Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi. But if you have not, you may find it very helpful in giving you good & fair reasons to be more optimistic about the Abhidhamma like me. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html >>>> Thank you for the link. I actually have the book. I have said something about the intro somewhere on this forum... Lots of Metta, Alex #79059 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Re: The not-self strategy avalo1968 Hello Ken and Elaine, Ken: To my understanding, anatta (no-self, soullessness) is a characteristic of all paramattha dhammas (absolute realities). Does that answer your question? As for "this is me" and "this is mine" I understand those terms (when they are found in the suttas) to refer to conceit (mana) and attachment (lobha) respectively. They usually form part of a trilogy the last part being "this is my self" which refers to wrong understanding (micha-ditthi). Ven Thanissaro makes frequent use to those terms but in a very different way. I am not sure, but I think he asks us to consider, "When something is seen as stressful, is it proper to regard it as me, mine, of my self?" And I think (again, I am not sure, but I think) his point is that we should take the stress out of our minds. He says, when stress is removed from the meditator's mind he/she can see whatever is "me, mine and my self" in a proper light. Have I got that right, do you know? Robert A: When I have read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings, he seems to emphasize that you should just be aware and not cling to views, including views of self or not-self. What is important is your experience of the world moment to moment, and as awareness and presence become stronger, the experience is more and more one that is without self. Why does it need to be more complicated than that? With metta, Robert A #79060 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:39 am Subject: Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > To my understanding, anatta (no-self, soullessness) is a > characteristic of all paramattha dhammas (absolute realities). >>> Correction: Buddha didn't really speak of "paramattha dhammas". That is scholastic expansion. Paramattha dhammas consciously or subconsciously can create subtle attachments. >>>>>>>> He says, when stress is removed from the meditator's mind he/she can see whatever is "me, mine and my self" in a proper light. > Have I got that right, do you know? >>>> Absolutely NOT. Awakened person does NOT think or feel in terms of "I". > > According to my understanding the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta > in that way, but he *did* answer Ananda in that way: > > SN 44.10: "If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there > is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in > keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not- > self?" > "No, lord." > "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no > self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered > Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used > to have now not exist?'" (end quote) > > So, you see, the Buddha had no hesitation in talking to Ananda about > all phenomena being anatta. Here again, the Buddha said it in a strategic rather in static way. Go detach yourself from anything! Buddha wanted people not just to accept statements, BUT TO PRACTICE THEM. "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" is very practical statement, especially for meditation. Lots of Metta, Alex #79061 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What exactly is Panna? truth_aerator Hi Sarah, Thank you very much for your reply. Lots of Metta, Alex #79062 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:57 am Subject: Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ================================== > There are in fact no literal "we" who decide things, though there are figurative "we" who do. As for the conditions, the conditions involved in deciding are such as thinking, wise and not so wise, willing, desiring, attending, etc. What literal "I" who decides would be desired or required? It is not fatalism to see that it is the activities that I mentioned that accomplish > deciding, it seems to me. > > > With metta, > Howard > > > Of course. All words including "I, me, mine" are concepts and lack ultimate validity. However it is good to have a "healthy" ego that strives to be good, avoid evil and train in detachment to avoid PAIN (which is real enough). Ultimately all ego delusion will drop. Anyhow, every (or most) moments there is a choice between Feeling & Craving. Is there ATTA reaction or Anatta? Especially during meditation it is crucial. While technically a process cannot stop or change direction immeadetely, it can be gradually starved off unwholesomeness and fed with wholesomeness. Lots of Metta, Alex #79063 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:09 am Subject: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Hello all. What is your meditation practice is like? Lots of Metta, Alex #79064 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Ken) - In a message dated 11/21/2007 10:39:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > To my understanding, anatta (no-self, soullessness) is a > characteristic of all paramattha dhammas (absolute realities). >>> Correction: Buddha didn't really speak of "paramattha dhammas". That is scholastic expansion. Paramattha dhammas consciously or subconsciously can create subtle attachments. ================================ In the suttas the Buddha did not use the term 'paramattha dhamma'. You are quite right in that. However, he did speak of the khandhas. He spoke of the mental and physical phenomena that are the elements of the five aggregates, even referring to them as constituting "the all", and he also spoke of the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. It is exactly these that are called "paramattha dhammas" in the Abhidhamma. So, as the bard said, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." However, Ken, I do consider it "a push" to refer to paramattha dhammas as "absolute realities" instead of just as "uncompounded" or "irreducible" or "fundamental" or "concept-independent" phenomena. I'm more comfortable with the "absolute reality" usage for nibbana, but I think it is a great mistake to use it for sankhata dhamma. I think that such usage is conducive to clinging. With metta, Howard #79065 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... ashkenn2k Hi Elaine and Tep When Buddha said take self as a refuge, it was meant to be exhorting oneself. This is a method used by Buddha in arousing energy. When Buddha said on Dhamma as a refuge, it to exhort the investigation of consciouness (panna). These two are important because they are Path factors, faculty, powers, predominance, means of accomplishment and factors of enlightment. Again and again, you will see Buddha like monks go and mediate in the hut etc..... These are exhorting of energy and also conditioning of investigation of citta (panna) and these are mental states. Kind regards Ken O #79066 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? moellerdieter Hi Alex, it seems to me that the best way to get a feedback is to start with telling about your own practise.. ;-) with Metta Dieter #79067 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Elaine Uncontrollable meant that self cannot controls the conditions and causes. What is self is an attachment to greed/self-view/conceit. A very common question that raise in this forum is that if self cannot be control how do we develop the path. IMHO, we are trying the break away the mind set that it is self. Only when this mind set veers away that there is a self to develop, then understanding could arise. Developing the path is not about controlling the self, it is investigating the mental states. Citta thinks. If citta does not think, then there is no salvation because we would be like mechanical machine. As I said earlier, when one think, one ponders, one incline, then it becomes a habit. This is what would happen to kuasla with panna and also with akusala. It works both ways. That is the reason I felt I keep suggesting about reading and investigation about the dhamma. Kind regards Ken O #79068 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality ashkenn2k Hi Howard I was trying to answer this question but was always being delay. Today I resolve to stay up late to answer this interesting question on how does suffering is a proximate cause for faith. In the CMA, the proximate is something to place faith in or the hearing of the Dhamma of the Good Dhamma. Suffering as we know is what Buddha teaches, is part of the Good Dhamma. Question 2, I am not very sure of your question, I hope you do not mind elaborating Question 3, each requisite would have different unique ways. In the kusala cittas, there are eight different types. Four types are related to happiness. But not all would accompany by panna. For mudita, panna may not arise. For hearing of dhamma, panna may or not arise. Some stories, animals heard the dhamma, they were glad but panna did not arise. If this is not the answer, pse do elaborate - thanks Kind regards Ken O #79069 From: Ken O Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) ashkenn2k Hi Larry > In the case of a person who has a leg amputated there can still > arise > pain in the missing leg. This clearly shows that pain is nama but > it is > interesting that the pain seems to arise in the missing leg KO: This is a behavioural conditoning of our mind. In short our latency of attachment to our body is very strong, losing it cause great pains and this memory of the pain comes again and again. Just like at times when we imagine we eat someting sour, saliva automatic comes to the mouth even though we are not eating. It is a accumulating and latency effect. Cheers Ken O #79070 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter Hi Tep, thanks for your feedback ... you wrote: Venerable TB's note about the two major camps with opposite views about 'no self' shows that people will always have opposing opinions & interpretation of 'anatta' and 'atta'. The venerable's "strategy" takes the middle ground between the two extremes; i.e. "the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off". D: I guess all the controversies about anatta would fill plenty of books.. some of our friends , taking anatta from an angle of ultimate truth ( all of our existence , all dhammas are not self- 'characteristic of all paramattha dhammas (absolute realities)'. obviously suspect a soul theory/ eternalistic view of T.B. But the absolute has to realised by penetration and letting go /detachment, in consequence of insight into anicca and dukkha . As you mention "the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off" , and for doing that we need an inner consens- a middle way- in order to confront ourselves . Denying the I ,Self (even as reality of delusion) in the first place only leads to confusion... I wonder , whether the Venerable , despite some kind of scorning about his approach , would not be already quite satisfied that his article at least initiated discussion , contemplation, Dhamma Vicaya... ;-) with Metta Dieter #79071 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/21/2007 1:04:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: Hi Howard I was trying to answer this question but was always being delay. Today I resolve to stay up late to answer this interesting question on how does suffering is a proximate cause for faith. In the CMA, the proximate is something to place faith in or the hearing of the Dhamma of the Good Dhamma. Suffering as we know is what Buddha teaches, is part of the Good Dhamma. Question 2, I am not very sure of your question, I hope you do not mind elaborating ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: For many people, suffering, rather than a cause for faith can be cause for despair, hence my questioning. But I think I do now see how dukkha can be a supportive condition for confidence (in the Dhamma), and that is when suffering leads to questioning, searching, and hearing the Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------- Question 3, each requisite would have different unique ways. In the kusala cittas, there are eight different types. Four types are related to happiness. But not all would accompany by panna. For mudita, panna may not arise. For hearing of dhamma, panna may or not arise. Some stories, animals heard the dhamma, they were glad but panna did not arise. If this is not the answer, pse do elaborate - thanks ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure I'm following your answer, Ken. --------------------------------------------------- Kind regards Ken O ========================== With metta, Howard #79072 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? dcwijeratna Dear Alex, I don't do much meditation. But I try generally to control my behaviour so as not to break the five precepts. Lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79073 From: Elaine Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" shennieca Dear KenO, all, Thanks for your e-m, I know what you mean. When I first joined DSG, I asked questions about conditions and nibbana and then I asked the question 'are we responsible for our actions'. To the Abhidhammikas, if there is no ‘self’, how can they be responsible for ‘their’ actions? There is no 'they' in the first place, there is a tint of Annihilism there. Also, if there is no self, this self also cannot decide to do anything good or bad, so it also has a tint of Fatalism in it. Of course I don't believe in Annihilism or Fatalism but the answers did confuse me a bit. There is also something about the 'rising and falling of the dhamma' every moment in our lives. I thought I was the only one who could not see this 'rising and falling of the dhamma', while the rest of the Abhidhammikas could. Then it turned out that, seeing the rising and falling of the dhamma in daily life, was something you exhort to other people but you don't see it for yourself. It is like telling everyone that apples are sweet but you personally have not eaten an apple yet. So, when people ask more questions about the apple, you don't have the ability to reply. In my opinion, this is not quite right. The best way is, to tell everyone just ‘go and eat the apple for yourself’ and you don't have to ask questions anymore, you can find the answers on your own. But this advice has not been given yet. The essence of Buddhism is that, you cannot understand what the Buddha teaches by reading a paperback or hardcover book. Our mind is that book! We have to read our 'mind', and the method is by watching the nature of the breath. There is no point in saying ‘citta’ this and ‘citta’ that. Anyone who has not seen this ‘citta’, won’t know it. It is not easy to see this citta, it is a high level achievement to be able to see this citta. But we can learn the method of seeing nama-rupa. We cannot understand the answers by hearing it from someone else. If your teacher says, the more you hear about nama-rupa, the more you will understand it? Then he is not teaching you the right thing. With mettaa, Elaine P/S: One thing I find amusing when I came to a western country is that the young people here don't know 'who they are' and they need to 'find themselves'. They have to backpack and travel around the world, to exotic places, to find out "who" they are. What they don't realize is that, the answers to finding out who they are, is in their breath, it is so close to home. :-)) But traveling is fun, I love it too. And you know the cliché in Chinese movies, where the hero goes to a monk or a master and ask fors advice and they monk says I cannot tell you the answer, you have to find out for yourself? My dear hubby thinks that, that is really funny! But it is true. :-)) :D I find it funny too actually. :-)) :D #79074 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reincarnation and Buddhism dcwijeratna Dear Evelyn, >Evelyn: I want to live the way of a Buddhist because I agree with the ideals of Buddhism, but am finding that I do not agree with everything that Buddhism is about.< I am so pleased about what you have written above. The whole of the Buddha's advise is here: sabbapaapassa akaran.m kuslasaa upsampada sacitta pariyodapanam eta.m buddhaana saasana.m Don't do any acts of evil Become skilful ( in leading a life of purity ) Purify your mind That is the advice of the Buddha's. [This is not a literal translation] For a householder disciple, observing the five precepts is enough. But you must try to keep them perfectly. You can't tell a lie even to a baby to lull him to sleep. That is why it is so easy to be a Buddhist (and so difficult) But your reward is happiness--happiness that you can't ger by another means. This talk about kusala cittas and abhidhamma and such things is a total, I repeat, total waste of time. Teaching of the Buddha is for practising not to talk about. In fact, to be a good Buddhist, you don't have to be a Buddhist even. The Laws that the Buddha enunciated does not differentiate between religions, race, caste, creed, colour; not between animals even. All are the same you do good, you get good in return. You do evil, you get evil in return. This is the only advice the Buddha gave to the lay disciples. Even the monastics must start here. Since they have 220 rules to observe, they will go faster. Dear Evelyn, this is not something I concoted. This is the Advice the Buddha gave to his de-facto mother--Ven. Mahaapajaapati. With lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79075 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > In the suttas the Buddha did not use the term 'paramattha dhamma'. You are quite right in that. However, he did speak of the khandhas. He spoke of the mental and physical phenomena that are the elements of the five aggregates, even referring to them as constituting "the all", and he also spoke of the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. >>>> When the Buddha has talked about Khandas, ayatanas, and so on - he may have spoken not to show "Ultimates" but rather the not-self and unsatisfactory and compounded feature of existence. Trying to use that analysis to build a scholastic philosophical tradition is perhaps stretching the original intention too far. Lots of Metta, Alex #79076 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > it seems to me that the best way to get a feedback is to start with telling about your own practise.. ;-) > > with Metta Dieter >>>>>>>>>>> The most frequent practice that I do is Anapanasati (I hope one day to be able to do Metta well). Sitting or Walking. Relaxing body an mind to go deeper and not be disturbed by tension. In modern parlance it is Tranquility-Insight (samatha-vipassana). For example this morning I did 2 hours strait sitting and I try to do some practice later in the day. Too bad that I am struggling with energy levels, so my practice is fairly weak. It is quite funny that i meditate well on coffee (as I've said today I've sat quite well for 2h) in the morning. Also sometimes I do Asubha (to combat lust). Some of my favourite practice suttas are: Anapanasati: The Lamp (anapanasati leads all the way to Cessation of perception & feelings!!!) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html Girimananda http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html Ananda http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.013.than.html Then on pg 1609 of Samyutta Nikaya there is a sutta which says that Metta brings on to 4th Jhana Compassion to Infinite Space Altruistic Joy -> infitine consciousness Upekha -> Base of NOTHINGNESS! Thats 7th Jhana!!! MahaSatipathana (DN22) (explains Anapanasati in more detail). MN106 explains why some people get awakened through (a/rupa) Jhana and some arent. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html MN111: Anupada http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html an09.036: Jhana sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html MN152: Jhana Meditation isn't about getting blind & deaf http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html to name a few suttas. Lots of Metta, Alex #79077 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:17 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? sukinderpal Hi Alex, all, You asked: > What is your meditation practice is like? You have stressed `meditation' a lot. In fact you seem to be have suggested somewhere, this as being the only way to `understand' what the Buddha really taught. As you know by now, I and some others here believe in the need to grow in understanding at the intellectual level all that the Buddha taught. This involves to a good extent, reevaluation of the understanding that we've had about everything, including previously held Buddhist ideas. "Meditation" is one such idea. So I ask you, what is meditation? Intellectually I take this to be depending on context, patipatti / practice or bhavana / mental development. And this I have good reason to *not* associate with any conventional idea about `mediation' that I used to have and which you and others seem to be going by. Are you interested in discussing this? Metta, Sukin #79078 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:14 am Subject: Selflessness = Anatta! bhikkhu0 Friends: Question: What is the first hindrance (samyojana=fetter=mental chain) blocking entrance to the Noble Path leading to NibbÄ?na (sotÄ?patti-magga)? Answer: This first hindrance is Personality View (SakkÄ?ya-ditthÄ«): "Permanent personality" belief is this conceptual hindrance: "Same Self" as baby & old assumption "I am this Me" self-deceit "This Body is my Own" notion "This Body is my Self" notion" "This Body is ME" notion "This Body is my Person" notion "Body is my+own+person" view "Feeling is my+own+person" view "Perception is my+own+person" view "Construction is my+own+person" view "Consciousness is my+own+person" view All are conjectures of the false assumption that these phenomena are stable entities that can be kept unchanging & thereby definable as the core of self. This concept of "a person" is rather a process, a “flux" continuously becoming otherwise. We are more different from what we were 5 minutes ago, than we are different from other persons ... Never are we the ‘same’ ... The Arahat NÄ?gasena once explained a king a “personâ€? as: "Na ca so, na ca anno" Neither the same, nor another… !!! King Milinda's Questions. Milindapanha. -ooOoo- Always changing, Not the Same, yet neither another, but continuously becoming New, Otherwise & Different. -ooOoo- View the world as Empty Thus always Aware, Mogharaja Giving up belief in any Self One may escape Death, since the king of Death cannot see one with such void view. Sutta Nipata 1119 -ooOoo- All phenomena are Egoless, impersonal, without a self or core! Sabbe Dhamma Anatta! -ooOoo- Selflessness = Anatta Is difficult to comprehend as habitually counterintuitive yet the most essential & unique teaching in all the Buddha-Dhamma! -ooOoo- More on this baffling Selflessness: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_Self.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya_ditthi.htm : - ] Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net http://groups.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://groups.google.com/group/What_Buddha_Said #79079 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:54 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > As you know by now, I and some others here believe in the need to > grow in understanding at the intellectual level all that the Buddha > taught. This involves to a good extent, reevaluation of the understanding that we've had about everything, including previously held Buddhist > ideas. "Meditation" is one such idea. > > So I ask you, what is meditation? > Meditation is seeing the impersonal process (DO), conditionality, anicca-dukha-anatta and all the tricks the ignorance throws. Furthermore as it is said somewhere in Vedanasamyutta, the Bliss of Jhana exceeds ordinary sensuality. As Buddha has said "it [jhana] is not to be feared, it is to be cultivated". The higher the Jhana the more refined the pleasure. Since we follow the pleasure-pain axis, we will grab the highest pleasure available. Ultimately, the mastery of Jhana will make mind seek its pleasure rather than Sensuality. If this is taken in the Buddhist scheme of (DO, Anicca-Dukha-Anatta) one is anagamin. If a person realizes that even Jhana is unstable and conditioned, one stops craving even for this non-sensory pleasure and thus achieves Arahatship (generally either from 4th or Cessation of Perception & Feeling). Another additonal way is to get to 4th Jhana, master it and achieve triple knowledge (don't disregard the above points re DO, anicca- dukha-anatta). Lots of Metta, Alex #79080 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:18 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? avalo1968 Hello Alex, Shifting from thinking about things to sensing what is arising and passing away in body and mind. Shifting from the content of thoughts to the experience of the qualities of the stream of thoughts. Shifting from a focus on a specific result to a focus on a process without end unfolding in this moment. Shifting from becoming to being. Regards, Robert A. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello all. > > What is your meditation practice is like? > > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > #79081 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? dcwijeratna Dear Alex, I refer to your response to Sukinder quoted below: "Meditation is seeing the impersonal process (DO), conditionality, anicca-dukha- anatta and all the tricks the ignorance throws. Furthermore as it is said somewhere in Vedanasamyutta, the Bliss of Jhana exceeds ordinary sensuality. As Buddha has said "it [jhana] is not to be feared, it is to be cultivated". The higher the Jhana the more refined the pleasure. Since we follow the pleasure-pain axis, we will grab the highest pleasure available. Ultimately, the mastery of Jhana will make mind seek its pleasure rather than Sensuality. If this is taken in the Buddhist scheme of (DO, Anicca-Dukha- Anatta) one is anagamin. If a person realizes that even Jhana is unstable and conditioned, one stops craving even for this non-sensory pleasure and thus achieves Arahatship (generally either from 4th or Cessation of Perception & Feeling). Another additonal way is to get to 4th Jhana, master it and achieve triple knowledge (don't disregard the above points re DO, anicca- dukha-anatta) . Lots of Metta, Alex" ========================== My perception of the issue is as follows. It is based on the Four Noble Truths. 1. The fourth Noble Truth is the Noble Eightfold Path, also the Middle Path (majjhimaa pa.tipaadaa), or Path leading to Cessation of dukkha (dukkha nirodha gaaminii pa.tipadaa). It is the only only path for Cessation of the Dukkha. 2. Travelling this path leads to Sambhodhi. (Enlightement--by oneself). The prefix 'sam', which is of the greatest significance is dropped in English translations. 3. When you travel that path, the ultimate achievement is: "cakkhu.m udapaadi, ~naa.na.m udapaadi, pa~n~naa udpaadi, vijaa udapaadi, aloko udapaadi." The meaning of all these words cannot be condensed into one word. Let's agree to call to use 'awakening'. 8. With regard to this truth (The Fourth Noble Truth), there are altogether three things that should happen. The first is to get awakened to the fact that "It is a noble truth." 9. Second, that it should be cultivated (bhaavetabba.m), or developed, made to grow, made to increase etc. 10. Third, that it had been cultivated, (bhaavita.m) that on reaching "sambhodhi." 11. The Paali term for the development of the full path is bhaavanaa. 12. So what should be cultivated (bhaavetabba.m) is the path and eigth item (anga) is sammaa samaadhi. 13. In English, getting into this samaadhi by "TRAVELLING THE PATH," has been called meditation. 14. In other word it is the technnique, that is meditation. This is reflectd in words like kamma.t.thaana (crudely, the place of work) meditation-subject etc. 15. This sammaa samadhi involves two many complications. Basically, it seemt ot divide into two paths as you have said. That is how I understand the meaning of meditation. Lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. The four Noble Truths are the Only truths in Buddhism. Really the Truth. The word Paramasaccha has been used for Nibbana--paramasacca.m sacchikaroti. Saadhu as Elaine would say. #79082 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:32 pm Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Dieter, - > > You have made a contribution to the on-going discussion of the Not- > self Strategy. Venerable TB's note about the two major camps with > opposite views about 'no self' shows that people will always have > opposing opinions & interpretation of 'anatta' and 'atta'. The > venerable's "strategy" takes the middle ground between the two > extremes; i.e. "the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden > that we each are carrying and to throw it off". > > >TB: > > As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of > denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group > accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said > their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that > their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have > never been successfully resolved. > > > > +++++++++ Dear tep In teh articleposted by Dieter it says """After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic THERAVADA position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. "" Venerable Thanissaro then goes on to make it clear that he does not agree with the Thervada position. He is of course fully entitled to reject Theravada positions. However, I would think that Buddhist who have faith in the Theravada are also entitled to reject the Venerable's beliefs. Robert #79083 From: "Evelyn" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:05 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? eviebgreen A few times a week. Had one really great meditation session about a month ago, but since then I only seem to get about 15 minutes to about a half an hour. But I at least try to meditate a few times a week. It really helps me relax, worry less, and stress less. -Evelyn #79084 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:08 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Robert A., R: "Shifting from thinking about things to sensing what is arising and passing away in body and mind." Scott: What is the difference between 'thinking about things' and 'sensing what is arising and passing away in body and mind'? What is 'shifting'? R: "Shifting from the content of thoughts to the experience of the qualities of the stream of thoughts." Scott: What is the difference between 'content of thoughts' and 'the experience of the qualities of the stream of thoughts'? R: "Shifting from a focus on a specific result to a focus on a process without end unfolding in this moment." Scott: What does that mean? In particular, what does 'a process without end unfolding in this moment' mean? R: "Shifting from becoming to being." Scott: What does that mean? Sincerely, Scott. #79085 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "The most frequent practice that I do is Anapanasati (I hope one day to be able to do Metta well)." Scott: How does one 'do' either of these things? A: "Sitting or Walking." Scott: I do that too. Is this 'meditating'? A: "Relaxing body an mind to go deeper and not be disturbed by tension. In modern parlance it is Tranquility-Insight (samatha-vipassana)." Scott: How is this different from ordinary relaxation? To what do you refer when you say 'go deeper'? Deeper where? Deeper into what? A: "For example this morning I did 2 hours strait sitting and I try to do some practice later in the day. Too bad that I am struggling with energy levels, so my practice is fairly weak. It is quite funny that i meditate well on coffee (as I've said today I've sat quite well for 2h) in the morning." Scott: Is sitting for two hours 'meditating'? A: "Also sometimes I do Asubha (to combat lust)." Scott: How does this differ from thinking about something else to combat lust? Sincerely, Scott. #79086 From: "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? sukinderpal Hi Alex, all, ============== > As you know by now, I and some others here believe in the need to > grow in understanding at the intellectual level all that the Buddha > taught. This involves to a good extent, reevaluation of the understanding that we've had about everything, including previously held Buddhist > ideas. "Meditation" is one such idea. > > So I ask you, what is meditation? Alex: Meditation is seeing the impersonal process (DO), conditionality, anicca-dukha-anatta and all the tricks the ignorance throws. Sukin: So you are referring to instances of wisdom / Right view of varying levels arisen to experience a reality, including ignorance? ============== Alex: Furthermore as it is said somewhere in Vedanasamyutta, the Bliss of Jhana exceeds ordinary sensuality. Sukin: I don't understand how the bliss of Jhana being greater than sensuality is the reason for cultivating the former? ============== Alex: As Buddha has said "it [jhana] is not to be feared, it is to be cultivated". Sukin: Jhana is a form of kusala second only to Vipassana. So yes, it should be encouraged if and when the conditions are there for its development. However, given that vipassana is about the understanding / insight of *all* conditioned realities including jhana cittas and its mental factors, the Buddha encouraged this over anything else. Moreover Jhana is no trivial matter. It is the end result of the development of kusala of a kind which sees the value of this and the harm of akusala. This leads to seeing the danger particularly of attachment to sense objects and as the understanding gets keener, to recognizing the value of concentrating on some suitable meditation object. The general understanding these days however, is that one needs more or less only to "concentrate" on some chosen object. This is clearly wrong and seems in fact to take one away from considering if whether there is any understanding of even some grosser forms of attachment, let alone more subtle ones, or of the *understanding* required to know what meditation objects are and which one is more suitable than others. Failing this the result would be an increase of self delusion would it not? In any case, given that Jhana is "far" from where most of us are, the more sensible priority ought to be the patient development of understanding of 'conditioned realities' regardless of what these may be in the moment. After all, it is only this one path / practice of 'satipatthana', which is capable of leading one out of the cycle of birth and death, don't you agree? ============= Alex: The higher the Jhana the more refined the pleasure. Since we follow the pleasure-pain axis, we will grab the highest pleasure available. Ultimately, the mastery of Jhana will make mind seek its pleasure rather than Sensuality. Sukin: Grab!? The panna that of Jhana, this itself is not about preference for one kind of pleasure over another. Why should it be this way and why would the Buddha encourage such a thing? That a jhana practitioner seeks to overcome sense contacts and experience Jhana and may end up attaching to the bliss, is not reflection of the kind of preference you seem to be encouraging. Rather this is because he is satisfied with being above sense contacts and with the prospect of rising higher to experience more wholesome states, even to believe wrongly one of these to being the "ultimate goal". ================= Alex: If this is taken in the Buddhist scheme of (DO, Anicca-Dukha-Anatta) one is anagamin. If a person realizes that even Jhana is unstable and conditioned, one stops craving even for this non-sensory pleasure and thus achieves Arahatship (generally either from 4th or Cessation of Perception & Feeling). Sukin: Jhanalabi or anyone else, the Path begins with "hearing the Teachings". Having heard and intellectually understood the Dhamma, one does not wait to experience Jhana in order that one will then come to know the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities. It is only through better and better understanding of realities as being conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta that one then attains Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and finally, Arahatta. You seem to be entertaining the idea that even a Sotapanna and Sakadagami will be lured to the bliss of Jhana not having truly understood the limitation of conditioned realities?! Have I misunderstood you? ================= Alex: Another additonal way is to get to 4th Jhana, master it and achieve triple knowledge (don't disregard the above points re DO, anicca- dukha-anatta). Sukin: Maybe I should have waited for you to elaborate on this "DO, Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta" thing before giving the above comments. You seem to be using this to somehow justify the need to develop Jhana as a means to attain enlightenment??! Metta, Sukin #79087 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhist teaching dcwijeratna Hi Chris, I quote below a portion of your message: " Probably the best account of the Buddha's attitude to truth is given by Jayatilleke in The Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (1963, 61ff). It may be mentioned that for those who find this work hard going, his second, posthumous book, The Message of the Buddha (1975), makes for easier reading. Jaatilleke has been attacked for equating the philosophy of Buddhism too closely with the moder school of logical positivism. In this connection it is perhaps best to let him speak for himself: The Buddha, again, was the earliest thinker in history to recognise the fact that language tends to distort in certain respects the nature of reality and to stress the importance of not being misled by linguistic forms and conventions. In this respect, he foreshadowed the modern linguistic or analytical philosophers. (The Message of the Buddha, 33). It seems hard to find any fault with that. Jayatilleke goes on: He was the first to distinguish meaningless questions and assertions from meaningful ones. As in science he recognised perception and inference as the twin sources of knowledge, but there was one difference. For perception, according to Buddhism, included extra-sensory forms as well, such as telepathy and clairvoyance. Science cannot ignore such phenomena and today there are Soviet as well as Western scientists, who have admitted the validity of extra-sensory perception in the light of experimental evidence. Probably most readers will concede the possibility that the Buddha knew a few things which modern science is only now beginning to discover, or accept." =============================== Before I commence on commenting on the above passage, let me reaffirm that there is only one "Truth" in Buddhism. That is the "cattaari ariyasaccaani"--the Four Noble Truths. I use the singular because all four are interconnected. I can't see a valid basis for Walshe's comment in the 'suttas.' I do not intend to comment on Jayatilleke clause by clause. 1. The substance of his thesis. Belief --> Verification --> Knowledge. 2. This is called JTB (Justified True Belief) theory, and dates back to Plato. 3. Even the logical validity of this theory has been questioned. Gettier [1964] I am not aware of a solution to this problem to date. 4. However, it held sway until that time. Jayatillekes EBTK was before 1964. 5. JTB theory most probably would be adequate when we are dealing with what is called truth and knowledge. 6. But it has no validity with regard to "Truth". The argument is simple. In order to verify you need to experience it. So with regard to the unknown, that is not possible. 7. Really this has been pointed out by various philosophers since Kant. 8. As far as logical positivism is concerned, it is my recollection that they rejected moral discourse as meaningless. 9. One more point: Logical positivism is the basis of science. Now it is well that science advances by paradigm shifts now widely accepted by historians and social scientists. Paradigm shift was first used by Thomas Khun in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1962]. 11. The idea here is simple: Galileof--> Newton-->Einstein [or phlogiston-->ether-->chemical processes, alchemy to chemistry; God to Evolution and so on.] Radical changes in the way we look at the world. World view. 12. So there is nothing absolute in scientific knowledge. [In fairness to Jayatilleke, he most probably would not have not known about Khunian paradigm shifts. 13. What Jayatilleke was trying to do was to fit the Buddha's vision of the world or our knowledge of the world to JTB. 14. He couldn't do that. Because Buddha's vision was a paradigm shift. 15. So he changed the Buddha's vision. 16. The clearest example is his concept of "rational faith." Aakaravatii in Paali. This is really the stream-enterer status. 17. Then the introduction of Abhi~n~naa into his interpretation; which fails the basic test for scientific knowledge--reproducibility. 18. Above are just two examples: the book is full of them. 19. Jayatilleke was not a scientist; He was a philosopher. He was a great among Buddhist philosophers, may be the greatest after Naagarjuna. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79088 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:38 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? avalo1968 Hello Scott, "Shifting from thinking about things to sensing what is arising and passing away in body and mind." - means to not be lost in thought but to really be present for what is going on with your senses at this moment. It could be sensation of the breath, sounds, cold, hot, feelings, emotions, whatever, but to be there with it. "Shifting from the content of thoughts to the experience of the qualities of the stream of thoughts." - means to let go of the story line, such as "this person insulted me" to being present for the sensation of anger. What this practice does is to allow you to see that, although the story lines can be very different, there are common themes in your response to things, such as resentment. This is the quality of the thought and is more important that the story line of the thoughts, which I call the content. "Shifting from a focus on a specific result to a focus on a process without end unfolding in this moment." - means bringing attention what I am doing, mentally and physically at this moment. The "process without end" means the flow of life and it is on this flow that my attention can best be put, rather than on mentally trying to dam up that flow at some point in the future. Isn't that what we do everytime we have a thought such as "if I do this and that, I will be happy". In that statement we are fixing a point in the future where everything stops and I am happy, but when that moment arrives that happiness is just another bubble in the moving stream. "Shifting from becoming to being." - means to rest in the present moment, such as it is - to be at home and at rest right where you are rather than always trying to fix where you are. When I use the word shifting, I just mean that, to the extent that I am capable, I bring my mind from the one to the other. Thank you for your reply. Robert A. #79089 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:20 pm Subject: Question on quote from Atthasalini christine_fo... Hello all, In this quote from ADL ch.3, what does "vegetative" mean? Are Plants sentient beings or sentient? The 'Atthasalini' (Book I, Analysis of Terms, Part II, 65) explains that kamma of different people causes different results at birth and all through life. Even bodily features are the rest of kamma. We read: ...ln dependence on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the destiny of beings without legs with two legs, four legs, many legs, vegetative, spiritual. with perception, without perception, with neither perception nor without perception. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the births of beings, high and low, base and exalted, happy and miserable. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the individual features of beings as beautiful or ugly, high-born or low-born, well- built or deformed. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the worldly conditions of beings as gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, happiness and misery" metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time" #79090 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:48 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy kenhowardau Hi Robert A, ------ R: > When I have read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings, he seems to emphasize that you should just be aware and not cling to views, including views of self or not-self. ------ I am not so sure he is telling us that. However, let's assume that he is. What use would that sort of advice be? As you will have realised by now, I am not the misty-eyed New Age type of person who deals in silly platitudes like "Just be aware, man!" I would be asking, "Be aware of what? Why? How?" When you say, ". . and not cling to views," what does that mean? I suspect you are saying we should just let our minds go blank. Why would we want to do that? Would it be to have some sort of sensory- deprivation experience? I wasted a lot of time in my early years of Buddhism trying to have gee-whiz meditation experiences. Now they hold no attraction for me whatsoever. ---------- R (continuing with what BT is supposedly telling us): > What is important is your experience of the world moment to moment, and as awareness and presence become stronger, the experience is more and more one that is without self. ---------- With respect, Robert, that sounds to me like New Age mumbo jumbo. People go into some kind of meditative trance (or take drugs etc) and have a meaningless, but unusual, experience. Then if they are Christians they say they saw Jesus or God, or if they are Buddhists they say they experienced the void or the first jhana or something. It's just plain silly! ---------------------------------- R: > Why does it need to be more complicated than that? ---------------------------------- It needs to make sense. I have come to learn that the way taught by the Buddha is a way of understanding. In particular, it is a way of understanding the present reality. That can be very complicated. Anyone who is not wanting to understand the present reality will be dissatisfied with the Dhamma. Then they will either move on, and respectfully leave the Dhamma as it was, or they will stay and convert the original Dhamma into an unrecognisable pile of religious mumbo jumbo. Can you see the sense in what I am saying? Or do I sound like a bad tempered old fool? :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello Ken and Elaine, > > Ken: > To my understanding, anatta (no-self, soullessness) is a > characteristic of all paramattha dhammas (absolute realities). Does > that answer your question? #79091 From: Ken O Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality ashkenn2k Hi Howard If you do not mind, pse elaborate more on Queston 3. Thanks Kind regards Ken O #79092 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg]To Sarah: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Recently there were only a few posts written by Sarah, and I have > been wondering if she is busy doing something more important. :-) ... S: Nothing could be more important. :-) ... > You and Phil probably have noticed my ignorance (caused by a lack of > entusiasm) in historical records or research. ... S: Not my favourite topic either... ... >Therefore I am thankful > for the quotes you took from the 60-page introduction by A.K. Warder. > > (I) "Since the descriptions of dhammas maybe older than the final > Dhammasangani text, a substantial part of the > Patisambhidamagga may have been elaborated in the same period, > parallel to it and using some of its contents in the earlier form. > This would mean the latter part of the 3rd century B.C." > (II) "This appears to establish that the last main stage of > composition of the Patisambhidamagga...took place in the early or mid- > 2nd century B.C." > > T: If "the substantial part of the Patisambhidamagga was elaborated > in the 3rd century B.C." , then how could "the last main stage of > composition of the Patisambhidamagga" take place in the early or mid- > 2nd century B.C.? ... S: The way I read it was that there were several main stages (the most substantial being the 3rd century one). In another post sometime ago (#76636), you asked why the teaching of the Abhidhamma was not included in any of his discourses or even in the Patisambhidamagga. I believe it most definitely was. These quotes indicate how the Psm supplements the Vibhanga and Dhammasangani, just as these texts supplement the Sutta-Pitaka. No need to separate Abhidhamma and Dhamma in my view. They are all about dhammas, realities, as taught by the Buddha. See also the following quote which Howard gave before (#76819): In an article at _http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut053.htm_ (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut053.htm) , Dr.Bimala Churn Law writes the following: "Itivuttaka, the Udana and the Patisambhidamagga are the remaining three books of the Khuddaka Nikaya of which the date of composition must depend upon mere conjecture till accidentally we obtain any reliable date. The Itivuttaka is a book of questions of genuine sayings of the Buddha, making no reference to any canonical work or to any historical event ascertaining its date, though it seems that it was the result of an afterthought, of a critical study of the authentic teachings of the Buddha in a certain light and for a specific purpose. The Udana is a curious medley of legends and historical records, presented in a particular setting with a view to emphasising some prononne ed opinions of the Buddha on certain contrversial matters. The Patisambhidamagga presents a systematic exposition of certain important topics of Buddhism, and as such it deserves to be classed rather with the books of the Abhidhammapitaka than with those of Suttanipata. It is quite possible that before the development of the extant Abhidhamma pitaka, it passed as one of the Abhidhamma treatises, Concering there three books the utmost that we can say that they are mentioned even in the list of the Dighabhanakas, being counted there as three among the twelve books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, and that if the tradition about this list is at all credible, these three books must have existed when the list was drawn up, say, in the second century B. C." ***** Metta, Sarah ======== #79093 From: "colette" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) ksheri3 Hi Robert, Bardo for "the hearers", NO? > Yes that is pretty much true but sometimes, if conditions are such, > hearing the right thing at the right time can help someone to understand. This reminds us of alaya-vijnana, where our consciousness does not always remember but when the correct sound vibrations strike our ears we raise from the storehouse consciousness? The student in Bardo is good to listen to that which is there to remind them of the goal they know exists. thanks. toodles, colette #79094 From: "colette" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) ksheri3 Hi Alex, It's late and the morning brings Thanksgiving holiday so I thought I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and say Thanks for the compliment. I have other things I want to say about the word and concept "discarded" but that can wait 'til the day tomorrow. Best wishes. toodles, colette > > Of course. All of this is temporary and are simply a raft to the > other shore which will have to be discarded. > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > #79095 From: Ken O Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Elaine Yes we are responsible for our actions. The confusion part is we keep equating our actions that there must be a self involved. It is understandable as we have tendency that there must be ownership of our actions. In Abhidhamma, there is ownership to our actions, it is a mental state, kamma or volition. When we talk about Annihilism, it is only when we say nothing exist. We do not say nothing exist, we say self does not exist. We do say, feeling exists, it is real. Likewise, kamma exist it is real and does not belong to us. It is anatta. This intricate relationship of mind, mental states and matter is the gist that is now happening to us. They are all anatta but they do exist and they bear fruit. It is also understandable on the validity of paramathas as we cannot see it for ourselves or verify its credibility as we cannot experience it at that level. What I can say is on what we could experience in our daily lives, we experience our feelings rise and falls. Just like listening to sound, it rises and falls. This could be seen, could be investigate. There is no difference in rise and fall, it is the depth we are talking about. Every moment is an experience just like listening to music, seeing a movie. In these moments there could be guarding of the senses, when there is investigation on the nature or panna arise, to understand that sound, seeing, feelings etc are impermanent, suffering and not self. In Abhidhamma, we also say that. We use the systematic approach to it, to dissect it, and this make us aware it is causes and conditions that arise and cease. They are real and anatta. Kind regards Ken O #79096 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/22/2007 3:58:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: Hi Howard If you do not mind, pse elaborate more on Queston 3. Thanks Kind regards Ken O ============================== Ken, I haven't the time to go back & search out my post. Why don't you quote back my question #3 for me and also let me know what sort of additional detail you want? I'll then try to expand in the direction you are interested. With metta, Howard #79097 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:28 am Subject: The Not-self strategy moellerdieter Hi All, I think following sutta will further clarify the issue: (SN XII 61, translation by J.D.Ireland ) "An uninstructed ordinary person, bhikkhus, might well be dispassionate towards this body, made of the four great elements, might well detach himself and be released from it. For what reason? It is seen how this body grows and decays, is taken up and laid aside. Therefore an uninstructed ordinary person might well be dispassionate toward it, might well detach himself and be released from it. But this, bhikkhus, which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness - towards this an uninstructed ordinary person is not able to be dispassionate, is not able to be detached and released. What is the reason? For a long time this has been that with which he identifies himself, to which he has been attached and has held on to, thinking, 'This is mine,' 'I am this,' 'This is myself.' Therefore an uninstructed ordinary person is not able to be dispassionate towards it, to be detached and released from it. "It would be better, bhikkhus, if an uninstructed ordinary person regarded this body, made of the four great elements, as himself rather than the mind. For what reason? This body is seen to continue for a year, for two years, five years, ten years, twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years and even more. But of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night. Just as a monkey wandering in a big forest seizes a branch and letting go of it seizes another: similarly, bhikkhus, of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night. "Now as to this, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple gives well reasoned attention to the dependent arising thus: this being, that is; from the arising of this, that arises: this not being, that is not; from the ceasing of this, that ceases. "That is to say, with ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness comes to be... That is how there is an origin of this whole mass of suffering. But from the complete disappearance and cessation of ignorance, volitional activities cease... That is how there is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering. "So seeing, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is dispassionate towards body, feeling, perception, mental activities and consciousness.45 Being dispassionate he detaches himself, being detached he is released and in release is the knowledge of being released and he knows: Finished is birth, lived is the holy life, done is what had to be done, there is no more of this or that state. unquote with Metta Dieter #79098 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:45 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Robert A, Thank you for the well-described clarifications: R: "..to not be lost in thought but to really be present for what is going on with your senses at this moment. It could be sensation of the breath, sounds, cold, hot, feelings, emotions, whatever, but to be there with it...to let go of the story line, such as 'this person insulted me' to being present for the sensation of anger...bringing attention what I am doing, mentally and physically at this moment... the flow of life and it is on this flow that my attention can best be put, rather than on mentally trying to dam up that flow at some point in the future...to rest in the present moment, such as it is - to be at home and at rest right where you are rather than always trying to fix where you are...I bring my mind from the one to the other." Scott: I was discussing 'meditation' yesterday with an acquaintance who has deep ties to the Rinzai Zen school. We found a common ground on the theme of extraneous and superfluous ideas about 'meditation'. These seem to me to completely confound any meaningful understanding of the whole 'sitting practise' thing. In what you describe I don't see anything beyond relaxation and thinking, that and a somewhat poetic and flowery rational overlay. With respect I ask, what would be the point in doing this? Sincerely, Scott. #79099 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:17 am Subject: Re: Question on quote from Atthasalini scottduncan2 Dear Christine, I hope you are well. Regarding: C: "...in dependence on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the destiny of beings without legs with two legs, four legs, many legs, vegetative, spiritual..." Scott: The footnote (in the PTS edition) to the term 'vegetative' gives the Pali 'ruupino'. I'll check later in the Pali for Atthasaalinii to see if this is the word used in the phrase. I'm not sure, and as Nina often points out, dictionary definitions are not the be all and end all, but for a start, PTS PED: "Ruupin (adj.) [fr. ruupa] 1. having material qualities, possessed of form or shape or body or matter, belonging to the realm of form." Scott: This doesn't seem to imply sentience nor refer to plants. I find it brings to mind the use of 'vegetative' in psychiatry to describe the 'physical' (sleep, appetite, concentration, memory) symptoms of a major depressive episode. Perhaps the word is meant in this sense (since we don't think of plants in this context). I don't know though... Sincerely, Scott. #79100 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality dcwijeratna Hi, Howard, I have not been able to brush up my boolean algebra yet, but I have done some more thinking about dukkha as suffering. Here is why I thought why the five aggregates of grasping is dukkha. I don't know whether I am repeating myself. but I felt that my earlier response was not very coherent. I have never bothered to think about this matter until your e-m. 1. In the definition of dukkha--we can take it as the definition of dukkha because it is Noble Truth--there are many items given as dukkha, viz. jaati, jaraa... 2. Now the last of this is: collectively (put together) the five... is dukkha. 3. Now the Second Noble Truth says that dukkha arises on account of 'thirst' (greed). That most probably should refer to the five... Definition of DO arising (samudaya) confirms that. 4. The Third Noble Truth is cessation of the dukkha. That is not cessation of suffering but cessation of the five... If we consider suffering only ceases then something remains in a perfectly happy unchanging state. That would be most probably sagga or heaven. I am saying these things because, that is what we learnt as children. But the whole thing sounds logical to me. What is your opinion? Kind regards, (DC) D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79101 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question on quote from Atthasalini moellerdieter Hi Christine, perhaps following link may give you additional information conc. plants in Buddhism : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28200204%2F06%29122%3A2%3C252%3ABBPPI\ E%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage with Metta Dieter #79102 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear DC, Thank you very much for your comments. I need to also explain that seeing DO also implies seeing 4 Noble Truths. Simply seeing impermanence is good, but not enough. There have been many non-buddhist who were exposed to impermanence (for example morticians or greek philosopher like Heraclitus) and did not become enlightened. Also the fact of Dukha while not fully understood, is basically also common knowledge (atleast in India). Anatta is not too far from (but not 100% identical) to Materialists idea of a person as a machine. But seeing DO IS BUDDHIST and includes many subtleties. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > 2. Travelling this path leads to Sambhodhi. (Enlightement--by oneself). The prefix 'sam', which is of the greatest significance is dropped in English translations. >>>> 'Sam' means "by oneself"? Thank you very much ! :) What does "Samma" (as in samma samadhi) means? Thanks Lots of Metta, Alex #79103 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > > Alex: > Meditation is seeing the impersonal process (DO), conditionality, > anicca-dukha-anatta and all the tricks the ignorance throws. > > Sukin: So you are referring to instances of wisdom / Right view of > varying levels arisen to experience a reality, including ignorance? >>>> Meditation helps one to clear one's mind (of lust and other defilements). Not only it produces 'bliss of letting go' but it can be used for Buddhist purposes which is seeing DO (which implies seeing 3 characteristics and 4NT). Of course some Yogi's treat Jhanic bliss as an end in itself, get attached to it and even though they've reached 8th Jhana - they don't even achieve Stream! If Alara Kalama or Uddaka Ramaputta heard Buddha's teaching - I am sure that they'd become Arahants right on the spot. > ============== > Alex: > Furthermore as it is said somewhere in Vedanasamyutta, the Bliss of > Jhana exceeds ordinary sensuality. > > Sukin: I don't understand how the bliss of Jhana being greater than > sensuality is the reason for cultivating the former? > ============== Humans are drawn to pleasure and avoid pain. If a human realizes the bliss of Jhana, then they will naturally let go of children's toys (sensuality of 5 senses) and go and grab the bliss of Jhana. Of course it goes without saying that later on one must cultivate detachement from Jhana as well. > Sukin: Jhana is a form of kusala second only to Vipassana. So yes, it> should be encouraged if and when the conditions are there for its > development. However, given that vipassana is about the nderstanding > / insight of *all* conditioned realities including jhana cittas and > its mental factors, the Buddha encouraged this over anything else. >>>> Sutta Quotes? In MN111, Jhana INCLUDES what you call "Vipassana". In Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36) "Vipassana" Elements are also found! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html If we define Jhana as "see nothing, hear nothing, percieve nothing" , then I agree. However this sort of Jhana is what Buddha has ridiculed in MN152. > The general understanding these days however, is that one needs more > or less only to "concentrate" on some chosen object. >>> I don't do this and I don't recommend such "senseless hole". > In any case, given that Jhana is "far" from where most of us are, the > more sensible priority ought to be the patient development of > understanding of 'conditioned realities' regardless of what these may > be in the moment. After all, it is only this one path / practice of > 'satipatthana', which is capable of leading one out of the cycle of > birth and death, don't you agree? >>>> Yes satipathana IS THE ONLY/DIRECT WAY. It can be practiced up to BASE OF NOTHINGNESS (Jhana #7 or Arupa #3). MN111 and AN9.36 . > ============= > Sukin: Grab!? > The panna that of Jhana, this itself is not about preference for one > kind of pleasure over another. Why should it be this way and why would the Buddha encourage such a thing? That a jhana practitioner seeks to overcome sense contacts and experience Jhana and may end up attaching to the bliss, is not reflection of the kind of preference you seem to be encouraging. >>>>> I've answered this question above >>>>> Rather this is because he is satisfied with being > above sense contacts and with the prospect of rising higher to > experience more wholesome states, even to believe wrongly one of these to being the "ultimate goal". >>>> Jhana IS NOT THE ULTIMATE. In fact it is quite mundane (unless practiced with Satipathana). > ================= > Sukin: Jhanalabi or anyone else, the Path begins with "hearing the > Teachings". Having heard and intellectually understood the Dhamma, one > does not wait to experience Jhana in order that one will then come to >>> I've read entire DN,MN,SN, parts (about 200+ AN suttas), parts of KN. Thats more than 99% of Arahants in Buddha's time. I think that only Ven. Ananda in Buddha's time knew more. > know the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities. It is only > through better and better understanding of realities as being > conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta >>>>> Satipathana is the direct (or only) way. Satipathana practice is included in Anapanasati AND UP TO BASE OF NOTHINGNESS ARUPA JHANA. > > ================= > Alex: > Another additonal way is to get to 4th Jhana, master it and achieve > triple knowledge (don't disregard the above points re DO, anicca- > dukha-anatta). > > Sukin: Maybe I should have waited for you to elaborate on this "DO, > Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta" thing before giving the above comments. You seem > to be using this to somehow justify the need to develop Jhana as a > means to attain enlightenment??! > > > Metta, > > Sukin > Satipathana leads to seeing DO, and 3 characteristics. Lots of Metta, Alex #79104 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:30 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? avalo1968 Hello Scott, Scott: In what you describe I don't see anything beyond relaxation and thinking, that and a somewhat poetic and flowery rational overlay. With respect I ask, what would be the point in doing this? Robert A: I do sitting practice because it promotes the shifts I described, and I have found that those shifts change the perspective from which I live my life. So for me, this practice is neither 'extraneous and superfluous', for that change in perspective is essential for finding some peace and joy in life. Let me ask you this: is it that you cannot see how the shifts I described would be helpful and useful, or is it that you can't see how 'sitting practice' would bring about those shifts, or both? Thank you for your reply. Robert A. #79105 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:36 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Robert A: Thanks for the reply: R: "...Let me ask you this: is it that you cannot see how the shifts I described would be helpful and useful, or is it that you can't see how 'sitting practice' would bring about those shifts, or both?" Scott: Well, I can see this as 'helpful and useful', in an entirely mundane, mental-hygiene sort of way, and I can see and how 'sitting practise' might bring these 'shifts' about. What I don't see is how this reflects bhaavanaa in any way, and, more to the point, how this relates to Dhamma. To me this is only relaxation and thinking and amounts to nothing more, 'helpful' or not. Sincerely, Scott. #79106 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "The most frequent practice that I do is Anapanasati (I hope one > day to be able to do Metta well)." > > Scott: How does one 'do' either of these things? >>>> First of all, it seems that you are very uncomfortable when I am using ordinary words. Is it insecurity? Remember that when one uses ordinary words one doesn't have to attach to them. I, you, person are convinient figure of speech towards 5 aggregates, 6 senses, 18 bases, etc etc. Letting go of distractions through Anicca-Dukha-Anatta, following the steps of Anapanasati (first 4 are most important and basic). See MN118 (Anapanasati Sutta) for detailed instructions. > A: "Sitting or Walking." > > Scott: I do that too. Is this 'meditating'? >>>> I do anapanasati in various postures. > A: "Relaxing body an mind to go deeper and not be disturbed by > tension. In modern parlance it is Tranquility-Insight > (samatha-vipassana)." > > Scott: How is this different from ordinary relaxation? To what do > you refer when you say 'go deeper'? Deeper where? Deeper into what? >>>>>> I keep the attention to the 4 satipathanas and I come back to the breath rather than allow mind to wonder. I practice from the frame work of Anicca-Dukha-Anatta. Furthermore I don't simply relax, I OBSERVE as well, trying to keep awareness SHARP. > A: "For example this morning I did 2 hours strait sitting and I try to > do some practice later in the day. Too bad that I am struggling with > energy levels, so my practice is fairly weak. It is quite funny that i > meditate well on coffee (as I've said today I've sat quite well for > 2h) in the morning." > > Scott: Is sitting for two hours 'meditating'? >>>>> I meant anapanasati. > A: "Also sometimes I do Asubha (to combat lust)." > > Scott: How does this differ from thinking about something else to > combat lust? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. >>>>>>>>>>> I also try to keep attention on the mind. Furthermore diversionary thinking is one of the tactics in MN20 (or 19?). Lots of Metta, Alex #79107 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:24 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Venerable Thanissaro then goes on to make it clear that he does not > agree with the Thervada position. He is of course fully entitled to reject > Theravada positions. However, I would think that Buddhist who have > faith in the Theravada are also entitled to reject the Venerable's beliefs. > > Robert > Theravada (especially if we take it to be the one started with Buddhaghose or Moggaliputta Tissa Thera) is ONE of the interpretations of Pali Canon. There have been 17-19 others. What are the chances of Theravada beeing 100% correct regarding Pali Canon (which isn't Theravadin only). There are 2 sides to every schism and Theravada IS NOT the earliest tradition. Personally I believe in the 4 Main Nikayas (with parts of KN). Lots of Metta, Alex #79108 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > When we talk about Annihilism, it is only when we say nothing exist. .>>> Annihilism is when one believes in destruction after death. Some forms of Nihilism believe that nothing exists. >>>>>>>> > It is also understandable on the validity of paramathas as we cannot > see it for ourselves or verify its credibility as we cannot > experience it at that level. What I can say is on what we could > experience in our daily lives, >>>>>> So how can it be an Ultimate Reality IF WE CANNOT PERCIEVE OR VERIFY IT! Reality has to be experienced by someone in order to be real. However if it is experienced, then it is anicca-dukha-anatta and is anything but "Ultimate". Lots of Metta, Alex #79109 From: "Evelyn" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reincarnation and Buddhism eviebgreen So it sounds like to me that I am on the right path, but only that I need to pay attention to what I say and to what I do. This way I can be completely aware of everything and with that awareness become a better person and live more of a happy Buddhist life. I am finding that the ideals of Buddhism is so easy, yet so difficult because everything is so simple. But still happy in my choice to become a Buddhist and live a happy and Buddhist life. Hope that everyone, if you celebrate Thanksgiving, has a good Thanksgiving day. Otherwise, have a wonderful and peaceful day and take care. -Evelyn #79110 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > It's late and the morning brings Thanksgiving holiday so I thought I > wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and say Thanks for the compliment. I have > other things I want to say about the word and concept "discarded" but > that can wait 'til the day tomorrow. > > Best wishes. > > toodles, > colette > Thank you very much. Lots of Metta, Alex #79111 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:26 am Subject: Re: The not-self strategy avalo1968 Hello Ken, Ken: I am not so sure he is telling us that. However, let's assume that he is. What use would that sort of advice be? As you will have realised by now, I am not the misty-eyed New Age type of person who deals in silly platitudes like "Just be aware, man!" I would be asking, "Be aware of what? Why? How?" Robert: Be aware of what is arising and passing away in the mind and body in this present moment. Do this because it changes your perspective on your life. Train to develop the skill of breaking free from the train of thought and returning to present moment experience over and over again. Ken: When you say, ". . and not cling to views," what does that mean? I suspect you are saying we should just let our minds go blank. Why would we want to do that? Would it be to have some sort of sensory- deprivation experience? I wasted a lot of time in my early years of Buddhism trying to have gee-whiz meditation experiences. Now they hold no attraction for me whatsoever. Robert A: Letting the mind go blank is the not what I am saying at all. No wonder you have no interest in meditation if that is what you think it is. What I mean when I say to not cling to views is that you should not take the movies that continuously run in your head as reality. These things tend to sweep us away and make us do things that are not helpful to ourselves and others. When we do that, we are clinging to views, such as when I am unkind to someone because I think this person is responsible for the problems of my life. Ken: R (continuing with what BT is supposedly telling us): > What is important is your experience of the world moment to moment, and as awareness and presence become stronger, the experience is more and more one that is without self. ---------- With respect, Robert, that sounds to me like New Age mumbo jumbo. People go into some kind of meditative trance (or take drugs etc) and have a meaningless, but unusual, experience. Then if they are Christians they say they saw Jesus or God, or if they are Buddhists they say they experienced the void or the first jhana or something. It's just plain silly! Robert A: What I am talking about is actually seeing what is happening in my mind and body moment to moment. What does that have to do with going into a trance or taking drugs or whatever? When did I ever say anything remotely like that? Ken: Anyone who is not wanting to understand the present reality will be dissatisfied with the Dhamma. Then they will either move on, and respectfully leave the Dhamma as it was, or they will stay and convert the original Dhamma into an unrecognisable pile of religious mumbo jumbo. Robert A: What better way to understand the present reality than to train yourself to be able to actually experience this reality, unfiltered by your views and opinions? Ken: Can you see the sense in what I am saying? Or do I sound like a bad tempered old fool? :-) Robert A: That's OK Ken, we understand because we know you don't meditate. :-) Best Regards, Robert A #79112 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:33 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? avalo1968 Hello Scott, Thank you for sharing your perspective with me. Regards, Robert A. #79113 From: Elaine Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" shennieca Dear KenO, I like the way you describe anatta. The best explanation of Anatta, which I find useful, is by Bhikkhu Thanissaro. He explained it like the Buddha did. Is this body mine? Is this feelings mine? If it is not, then be dispassionate about it and let it go. When there are No attachments to these things, then there are No sufferings. This is what Buddhism is all about, a way out of sufferings. May we experience the supramundane anatta someday. Warmest regards, Elaine #79114 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality upasaka_howard Hi, DC - In a message dated 11/22/2007 8:32:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Hi, Howard, I have not been able to brush up my boolean algebra yet, but I have done some more thinking about dukkha as suffering. Here is why I thought why the five aggregates of grasping is dukkha. I don't know whether I am repeating myself. but I felt that my earlier response was not very coherent. I have never bothered to think about this matter until your e-m. 1. In the definition of dukkha--we can take it as the definition of dukkha because it is Noble Truth--there are many items given as dukkha, viz. jaati, jaraa... ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are all dukkha in the sense of "unsatisfactory", because satisfaction is not to be found in them. Moreover, grasping onto dhammas creates dukkha in the sense of "suffering/displeasure/mental pain". The Buddha spoke of not getting what one wants, being separated from what one loves etc as "dukkha". that is the adjectival usage. These hurt. --------------------------------------------------------- 2. Now the last of this is: collectively (put together) the five... is dukkha. 3. Now the Second Noble Truth says that dukkha arises on account of 'thirst' (greed). That most probably should refer to the five... Definition of DO arising (samudaya) confirms that. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed. Our craving for presence or absence of phenomena, actual and imagined, is what hurts. That craving is the primary cause of suffering. Without that tanha, there is no suffering. The five aggregates are among the conditions for suffering, but alone, without the tanha, there is no suffering. They still are dukkha, of course, but only in the passive, negative sense of "not satisfying". Even for a Buddha, the aggregates were dukkha, but they caused no suffering in him. His peace and happiness were perfect. The living Buddha was not beyond sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily sensations, and mental activities, but he was entirely beyond dukkha. -------------------------------------------------------- 4. The Third Noble Truth is cessation of the dukkha. That is not cessation of suffering but cessation of the five... ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha was perfectly awakened and entirely free while yet alive, and the five had not ceased for him. ----------------------------------------------------------- If we consider suffering only ceases then something remains in a perfectly happy unchanging state. That would be most probably sagga or heaven. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What of the living arahant? --------------------------------------------------- I am saying these things because, that is what we learnt as children. But the whole thing sounds logical to me. What is your opinion? Kind regards, (DC) D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ========================== With metta, Howard #79115 From: Elaine Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Hi KenH, Scott, I've read the questions that both of you asked Alex and Robert. Imo, it will be difficult to learn meditation from Q&A like that. It is better to find a meditation teacher. If there is no meditation teacher near the place you live, maybe you can read a book that explains how to do Anapanasati, or the Mahasi Sayadaw method, or the Goenka method, from the start. First of all, my own meditation is like crab/p. But I'd like to explain my understanding, of the importance of meditation. The purpose of meditation is to get rid of the defilements in our mind. The defilements are greed, hatred and delusion. In the olden days, people already knew how to do Samatha, a tranquility meditation which took them to Jhana. With that experience, they don't know what caused suffering and don't know the way out of sufferings. Our Buddha discovered the 4NT. Buddha taught us that everyone of us are able to experience the real nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Some people have good past kamma and they 'get it' faster but some people have to struggle hard. With vipassana bhavana, using Satipatthana method, you watch the breath. You can see the breath changing. This changing is just like all types of changes, but after you watch it for a long time, (hopefully) a moment of wisdom will arise and you will finally understand this change is actually impermanence, Anicca. (I've not been there yet). When you see this as Anicca, then you see.. ooohhhh this is dukkha. When you understand that anicca is unpleasant, you will understand that it is dukkha (suffering). By understanding Anicca, you will also understand Anatta. I don't know what this real Anatta is, it has to be discovered for yourself. (I've not been there either). Basically, vipassana bhavana eradicates the 3 defilements from its "roots", once it is out, it is gone forever. No defilements, no more suffering. Imagine no hatred, greed and delusion from your life. How blissful is that. :-)) But to start doing meditation, you must first have faith that meditation is the real method to eradicate defilements. I have faith that it is real because our Buddha also had to meditate under the Bodhi tree. So, you have to start with faith, then find a good teacher and I hope you will see Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta in this very life. Best wishes, Elaine P/S: I'm recommending meditation but my own effort is almost non-existent (((sad))). :-(( Urgh. #79116 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? moellerdieter Hi Alex and others interested, thanks for your answer. You asked a good question , exchange of experiences always offer the possibility of hints for improvement. Briefly to my practise: usually about one hour sitting meditation (samatha/vipassana anapanasati) in the morning and later walking meditation , less with the attention/noting on (slow) body movement/sensation , but discursive thinking/contemplation/pondering while walking up and down ....with moments of silence.. I am not sure whether there is a general consens about the term 'meditation' , but assume we both refer to the path training (sila, samadhi , panna), of which the samadhi part covers the path elements 6,7 and 8. Perhaps a consequential question to some of our DSG friends would be 'why don't you meditate respectively how do you approach the training in right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, in order pave the way for the panna part? you wrote: The most frequent practice that I do is Anapanasati (I hope one day to be able to do Metta well). Sitting or Walking. Relaxing body an mind to go deeper and not be disturbed by tension. In modern parlance it is Tranquility-Insight (samatha-vipassana). D: Occasional I listen to audio -MP3 players of records from meditation classes, remembering one teacher, who asked his student to learn the Metta Sutta by heart and recite it at the beginning of each session. Maybe a good idea.. I guess you encountered as well plenty of discussions , in which the tandem function of both was not understood ( how can a restless mind be ready for insights..!?) A:For example this morning I did 2 hours strait sitting and I try to do some practice later in the day. Too bad that I am struggling with energy levels, so my practice is fairly weak. D: 2 hours are quite long , when you begin to struggle better change to walking , otherwise the necessary factor for deeper levels - joy - may be spoilt. I do not know how old you are, but I - 61 years young - suppose my missing practise in younger years is difficult to match nowadays, nevertheless trying... A: It is quite funny that i meditate well on coffee (as I've said today I've sat quite well for 2h) in the morning. Also sometimes I do Asubha (to combat lust). D: any object supporting 'mind collectiveness' as a start may be of use.. but then I recognised the habit of some laziness in 'odering some program' before , e.g. going through the aspects of the 4 Great References ( Maha Satipatthana Sutta) You mean 'combatting lust' in respect to the 5 hindrances or to avoid action, you consider unwholesome? A: Some of my favourite practice suttas are: D: thanks for the links .. sometimes I wonder how the usefulness of meditation/samadhi practise is denied, though the Canon provides a multitude of instructions.. with Metta Dieter #79117 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Quick Question on Conditionality dcwijeratna Hi Howard, With regard to your question: ......... " Howard: What of the living arahant?"........ I reason as follows: 1. You become an arahant through "Bodhi" or "Somebodhi." Then you live the life as an arahant until the end of that life. Then finally there is extinction without remainder (parinibbaana). After that you won't be born again. On becoming an arahant you lobha, dosa and moha are eradicated. Therefore you don't collect any more kamma either way--good or bad. The panca... continues just in the present 'moment' until parinibbaana. His alobha, adosa amoha is still there. So until his parinibbaana, he will be motivated by karu.naa. (This is all my theoretical understanding reading books.) Well that is that, Lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79118 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? dcwijeratna Dear Alex, Sammaa means right. However, this sammasambuddha is traditionally used only in the case of the Buddha. because, most probably, he was the discoverer of the right path. Bodhi in the sanskrit form budha, meant any intelligent person (an intellectual). There is even a planet by that name, mercury. Similarly, there were arahants before the Buddha also. The word has a general meaning of suitable to recieve one's respect. With lots of metta. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79119 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reincarnation and Buddhism dcwijeratna Dear Evelyn, Many thanks for your reply. Here is a pragmatic reason to have "clear comprehension." It saves so much time, that you think you have got another 2-3 hours a day. All you need to do is to do what you are doing. "Wash the dishes for washing dishes." When you wish the dishes just concentrate on it, without fretting what a chore it is. Here is another beautiful one: you have 1000 miles to go, so go slowly. Well that is same as haste makes waste. Have a good time on Thanksgiving day! With lot of mettaa (mettaa means friendliness. The Buddhas measure of metta is as a mother loves her child) D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79120 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy kenhowardau Hi Alex, Thanks for keeping the thread going. --------------- KH: > > I would like to concentrate on the suggestion inherent in BT's teaching that he believes in a self. > > A: > Where did TB said "There IS a self". ---------------- There are ways of saying things. One way of saying there is a self would be to simply use the words, "There is a self." I will agree TB does not do that. However, I believe he says the same thing in other ways. You may well ask why he wouldn't simply use those words if that was what he meant. I can think of a few reasons for that. One is that he believes it would interfere with our meditation. As I understand him, he says that atta-belief is consistent with most of Buddhism, but it is not helpful to the meditation part. Please read the following quote: "One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it > What do you think of that, Alex? Hasn't BT said in that quote that the Buddhist teachings of kamma and rebirth require belief in self? You may say I am quoting him out of context. I agree that quoting out of context is a cowardly way of making an argument. But I don't believe I am doing that. I believe that is exactly the way BT meant us to understand him. The trouble is people like you refuse to believe him. You say, "No, TB is not saying that! He is actually saying the opposite." --------------- A: > Unless he has said it, your views are SPECULATIVE SLANDERINGS OF A VENERABLE MONK. --------------- I fully expected to receive that sort of criticism. You may have noticed the defence I have adopted. In my opinion, I am paying TB the courtesy of listening to him and trying to understand what he is saying. You, on the other hand, are refusing to listen to him. You are putting your own words in his mouth. Is that the way to treat a venerable monk? Ken H #79121 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:01 am Subject: Re: Question on quote from Atthasalini abhidhammika Dear Chris F, Scott D, Nina, Robert K, Howard, D M and all How are you? With due respect to the late Professor U Pe Maung Tin and C A F Rhys Davids, `ruupino' in the Pali statement from Atthasaalinii "kammanaanaakara.na.m pa.ticca sattaana.m gatiyaa naanaakara.na.m paññaayati– apadaa dvipadaa catuppadaa bahuppadaa, ruupino aruupino, saññino asaññino nevasaññiinaasaññino" should not have been translated as 'vegitative'. Nor should 'Aruupino' have been translated as `spiritual'. Those terms are presented as contrasts. Thus, ruupino refers to any sentient beings from one-cell amoebas to the Fourth Jhaana Gods with us human beings in-between. Aruupino refers to those so-called formless Jhaana Gods with levels beyond the initial Fourth Jhaana. As such, ruupino merely means life forms with physical bodies while aruupino means life forms without physical bodies. (sattaana.m gati, life forms) With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: Hello all, In this quote from ADL ch.3, what does "vegetative" mean? Are Plants sentient beings or sentient? The 'Atthasalini' (Book I, Analysis of Terms, Part II, 65) explains that kamma of different people causes different results at birth and all through life. Even bodily features are the rest of kamma. We read: ...ln dependence on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the destiny of beings without legs with two legs, four legs, many legs, vegetative, spiritual. with perception, without perception, with neither perception nor without perception. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the births of beings, high and low, base and exalted, happy and miserable. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the individual features of beings as beautiful or ugly, high-born or low-born, well- built or deformed. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the worldly conditions of beings as gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, happiness and misery" metta Chris #79122 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Alex and others interested, > > thanks for your answer. > You asked a good question , exchange of experiences always offer the possibility of hints > for improvement. > Briefly to my practise: usually about one hour sitting meditation (samatha/vipassana anapanasati) in the morning and later walking meditation , less with the attention/noting on (slow) body movement/sensation , but discursive thinking/contemplation/pondering while walking up and down ....with moments of silence.. > > I am not sure whether there is a general consens about the term 'meditation' , but assume we both refer to the path training (sila, samadhi , panna), of which the samadhi part covers the path elements 6,7 and 8. >>> Actually when one does proper (Buddhist) meditation, at that time one is fulfilling ALL 8 factors of Noble 8Path. > D: 2 hours are quite long , when you begin to struggle better change to walking , otherwise > the necessary factor for deeper levels - joy - may be spoilt. >>>> I feel quite well during this time sometimes to the point of blissing out, however I generally am simply PEACED out. There was a time (I don't remember how many years ago, ~4?) when I could sit for 2 hours strait, then take 1 min break, after which I sat for 2 more... At that time however, I didn't practice Buddhist meditation. I was doing heavy one-pointedness concentration. Did help me with depression very well. Lets just say that I have a long way to go. In the begining of this year I could do 2.5 or so hours sitting strait... I am soo lax now! > I do not know how old you are, but I - 61 years young - suppose my missing practise in younger years is difficult to match nowadays, nevertheless trying... > You mean 'combatting lust' in respect to the 5 hindrances or to avoid action, you consider unwholesome? >>> I just turned 24 this month. One of the reasons why I right now don't do much metta is that lust can arise during metta... Furthermore, anger isn't a problem for me. Lots of Metta, Alex #79123 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Question on quote from Atthasalini christine_fo... Hello Scott, Dieter, Suan, all, , Lovely to "see" you all again. Much appreciated. Thanks for the links and the explanations. This has been very helpful. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #79124 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > There are ways of saying things. One way of saying there is a self > would be to simply use the words, "There is a self." I will agree TB > does not do that. However, I believe he says the same thing in other ways. >>> Since the Buddha was VERY careful with talking about this issue, it is not surprising that Ven. TB has copied that attitude. Lets be clear: We (or atleast I am) are not arguing over existence of Atta (which is a speculative and non-buddhist view). The difficulty here seems to be over how you interpret "strategy". Just because something is a strategy it doesn't make it false. Anatta as a strategy doesn't mean that there is Atta. If the Venerable has said that 5 Aggregates are Not-Self, it would be philosophically impossible for him to accept a Self. It is also possible that Venerable teaches in GRADUATED way. Easy and feel good things at first, and then when one is ready he delivers the bottom line. Just like Ajahn Brahm, his public talks are one style and his monastic teachings are MUCH MORE Serious. Even the Buddha DID NOT START WITH ANATTA. --- a step-by-step talk, i.e., a talk on giving, a talk on virtue, a talk on heaven; he declared the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensual passions, and the rewards of renunciation. Then when he saw that Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from hindrances, elated, & bright, he then gave the Dhamma-talk peculiar to Awakened Ones, i.e., stress, origination, cessation, & path. And just as a clean cloth, free of stains, would properly absorb a dye, in the same way, as Suppabuddha the leper was sitting in that very seat, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html --- Buddha knew not only what to teach but also how to teach. > "One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter > when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often > translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two > reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well > with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and > rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma > and takes rebirth? Second, it > > > What do you think of that, Alex? Hasn't BT said in that quote that > the Buddhist teachings of kamma and rebirth require belief in self? >>>>>>>> I think that Venerable is trying to emphasize PRACTICE AND DIRECT KNOWLEDGE rather than idle speculations. You probably know about the amount of debates over these philosophical issues. It is more important to have first hand knowledge FIRST. Lots of Metta, Alex #79125 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dcwijeratna Dear Alex, You mentioned about the Graduated or Step by Step talk of the Buddha in an e-m addressed to Ken. I wish to add one or two comments to your very significant remark. The Pali words for the graduated discourse is: "aanupubbii kathaa" The Buddhas talk on the Four Noble Truths is called: "saamuka.msikaa dhammadesanaa" The Buddha first delivers the aanupubbii kathaa. Then when the Buddha knows (a~n~naasi) that his mind is ready etc., the Buddha delivers the "saamuka.msikaa dhammadesanaa." 1. This was first delivered to Yasa (kulaputta), the sixth convert, after the Bhikkhus of the group of five. (Vinaya Mahaavagga) 2. Subsequently it was repeated many times; (DN) 3. The first is "kathaa," and the second is "dhammadesanaa" 4. The second followed only when the Buddha knew (yadaa bhagavaa a~n~naasi) the mind of the listener. 5. This knowing is not normal knowing--it is higher knowing; direct knowledge of another's mind, called "paracitta vijaana.na ~naa.na". 6. What the Buddha "knows" is that the mind of the listener is in a jhaanic state--malleable, free from hindrances etc. 7. Then the listener gets "dhamma-cakkhu" 8. "ya.m kinci samudaya dhamma.m sabba.m ta.m nirodha dhamma.m' 9. The important implication is: 'daana kathaa--nekkhamme aanisa.msam ta.m pakaasesi.' what can be understood by a mere-worldling (puthujjana), the Dhamma "Four Noble truths" can be understood only by going throug the jhaanic stage. 10. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. 12. Especially with regard to the topic under discussion. 13. By the way I am a great admirer of Achan Brahm, and his teacher Achan Cha. Lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. It was a great pleasure for me to write this first thing in the morning (4.00 am). Very rarely you get a chance to talk of dhamma. The Four Noble Truths--that is dhamma, abhidhamma and everything else the TRUTH. May lot of merit accrue to you. #79126 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy buddhistmedi... Dear Alex (and others), - I am sorry for this late reply -- I was away from my computer for about 36 hours. The flood of emails at DSG was unbelievable; I came back and found myself almost drown. Does that indicate the eye- popping success of the DSG's Abhidhammika Gang and KS, or popularity of the Abhidhamma in general? .............. > >T: I have found the Dhammasangani very helpful in explaining the naama (cittas and cetasikas) & ruupa in more detail than the suttas can. And because of such value I have seen, I am enthusiastic to learn more. ..... > A: > What do you think, what is better > a) To perceive all these Dhammas in ACTUALITY (ie deep meditation) > or > b) Reading the Menu? > > > Furthermore: Many suttas ARE NOT meant to be scholarly works for > modern critical intellect. They are guidelines for practice which > could give you the "Analytical Knowledge" as well as ultimate bliss &peace. > T: You are lucky, Alex. If you CAN "perceive all these Dhammas in ACTUALITY (ie deep meditation)", you don't need even the suttas ! Soon you would be on your "way" to the "ultimate bliss & peace". ................ > >T: Perhaps you've already read the following introduction to the > > Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi. But if you have not, you may find it > very helpful in giving you good & fair reasons to be more optimistic about the Abhidhamma like me. > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html > >>>> > >A: Thank you for the link. I actually have the book. I have said > something about the intro somewhere on this forum... > T: You have the book, but have you READ it? If you have read it, do you DISAGREE with the author? :-)) Tep === #79127 From: "Larry" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:46 pm Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy lbidd2 Hi Dieter, A few comments in line: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi All, > > I think following sutta will further clarify the issue: > > (SN XII 61, translation by J.D.Ireland ) > > "An uninstructed ordinary person, bhikkhus, might well be dispassionate towards this body, made of the four great elements, might well detach himself and be released from it. For what reason? It is seen how this body grows and decays, is taken up and laid aside. Therefore an uninstructed ordinary person might well be dispassionate toward it, might well detach himself and be released from it. But this, bhikkhus, which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness - towards this an uninstructed ordinary person is not able to be dispassionate, is not able to be detached and released. What is the reason? For a long time this has been that with which he identifies himself, to which he has been attached and has held on to, thinking, 'This is mine,' 'I am this,' 'This is myself.' Therefore an uninstructed ordinary person is not able to be dispassionate towards it, to be detached and released from it. > Larry: We are ordinary persons. Are we dispassionate toward our body when we are hungry, tired, sick, have a good or bad appearance? No. Evenso, the greater attachment is to the mind. > "It would be better, bhikkhus, if an uninstructed ordinary person regarded this body, made of the four great elements, as himself rather than the mind. For what reason? This body is seen to continue for a year, for two years, five years, ten years, twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years and even more. But of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night. Just as a monkey wandering in a big forest seizes a branch and letting go of it seizes another: similarly, bhikkhus, of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises as another ceases continually both day and night. > L: It would be more reasonable to be attached to the body because it appears to be more continuous, unlike the mind which changes every minute. Still, we are unreasonable in having greater attachment to the mind. > "Now as to this, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple gives well reasoned attention to the dependent arising thus: this being, that is; from the arising of this, that arises: this not being, that is not; from the ceasing of this, that ceases. > L: "Well reasoned attention" amounts to reasoning, in this case about arising and ceasing of "this" and "that". > "That is to say, with ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness comes to be... That is how there is an origin of this whole mass of suffering. But from the complete disappearance and cessation of ignorance, volitional activities cease... That is how there is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering. > L: Reasoning about kamma. This reasoning can only be speculative or reasoning based on assumption/belief. One could argue that this is the rationale for abhidhamma study. Here the Buddha offers it as the insight practice of the "instructed noble disciple". > "So seeing, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is dispassionate towards body, feeling, perception, mental activities and consciousness.45 Being dispassionate he detaches himself, being detached he is released and in release is the knowledge of being released and he knows: Finished is birth, lived is the holy life, done is what had to be done, there is no more of this or that state. > > unquote L: I wonder if one could become dispassionate toward the mind simply by noticing that it changes from moment to moment. That would certainly be reasonable, as the Buddha says above, and it might be an alternative to reasoning about actions enacted in previous lives coming to "just" fruition in this life. Larry #79128 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... buddhistmedi... Hi Ken O (and Elaine), - Elaine quoted the Cunda Sutta about how a monk should remain "with his self as an island" : > "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. > > This is how a monk remains with his self as an island, his self as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as his refuge, without anything else as a refuge. " T: And I asked : What kind of "self" did the Buddha talk about in the Cunda Sutta? Is this an indication that we should be very careful before saying there is 'no self' ? In message # 79065 you wrote: KO: When Buddha said take self as a refuge, it was meant to be exhorting oneself. This is a method used by Buddha in arousing energy. When Buddha said on Dhamma as a refuge, it to exhort the investigation of consciouness (panna). These two are important because they are Path factors, faculty, powers, predominance, means of accomplishment and factors of enlightment. Again and again, you will see Buddha like monks go and mediate in the hut etc..... These are exhorting of energy and also conditioning of investigation of citta (panna) and these are mental states. ................ T: Clearly you are a faithful-and-true member of the DSG Abhidhammika gang. Tep === #79129 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:11 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... buddhistmedi... Hi RobertK, - Thank you for allowing me to entertain you more. ;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > Others like kusala vitakka are controllable. See Vitakkasanthana > > Sutta: The Relaxation of Thoughts (MN 20). > > > +++++++++ > dear Tep, > What are the khandhas that vitakka is classfied under and do you believe > any khandha is controllable? > Robert > .................. T: Your question already gives the reply you want me to answer ! So you seem to suggest that any khandha is NOT controllable, and since vitakka IS classifiable in the group of the five aggregates, it therefore must be uncontrollable. But who says that the five aggregates are not controllable? Please provide a sutta support. Thanks. Tep === #79130 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? kenhowardau Hi Alex (and all other formal meditators in this thread), In the conditioned world described by the Buddha there are no sentient beings. There are only fleeting phenomena known as namas and rupas. So, when you ask "how do you meditate (in accordance with the Buddha's teaching)" you must be asking, "Which fleeting, conditioned phenomena are properly described as bhavana (mental development, meditation)?" The only correct answer to that question would be a description of a kusala citta accompanied by sati, panna and various other kusala cetasikas. The Buddha gave detailed descriptions of these phenomena and of all other conditioned phenomena. He explained their cause, their cessation and the way leading to their cessation. If you are asking 'how does a sentient being meditate' then your question lies outside the Buddha's teaching. In other words, you would be asking the wrong question. You will never learn the 8fold path while you are asking the wrong question. Ken H #79131 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: You are lucky, Alex. If you CAN "perceive all these Dhammas in > ACTUALITY (ie deep meditation)", you don't need even the suttas ! > Soon you would be on your "way" to the "ultimate bliss & peace". > ................ > >> There is one way for that. PRACTICE Samadhi (attentive stillness). > > T: You have the book, but have you READ it? If you have read it, do > you DISAGREE with the author? :-)) > > Tep > === >>> Not all of it. I have irreconcilable difference of opinion. I've talked about some of it on this board. Unfortunately Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi makes mistakes in the introduction and it seems that he says different things in different places. See 7 cetasikas post on this forum. Anyhow here is the quote where Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi (a big support of AP) "Even though the more elaborate conceptions of Abhidhamma thought may be products of a later age than the Suttas, the Suttanta Bhajaniiya sections of the Vibha"nga can make a cogent claim to antiquity. Evidence suggests that this portion of the Vibha"nga is extremely old, dating from perhaps the third century BC, and thus represents the understanding of the Buddhist community from a period not long after the Buddha's Parinibbana. It would even be plausible to maintain that this body of material was originally an old commentary on basic Suttanta terminology going back to the very first generation of the Buddha's disciples; it is not specifically Abhidhammic in character and may have been absorbed into the Abhidhamma Pitaka owing to the lack of any other suitable repository for it. " http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/critical-5.htm Lots of Metta, Alex #79132 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (15) buddhistmedi... Hi Sarah (and Colette), - Let me proceed to your reply to question 2. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27999 > ... > > Question 2. How are the DSG Abhidhammikas' views different from those of the Maadhyamikas? > ... > S: Again, pls see the link. The Abhidhamma is the study and understanding of intrinsic realities. These are distinct from the causes and conditions from which they arise. The Buddha's teaching is about the truth and knowledge of such realities. This is what is only ever taught by a Buddha. > T: I agree with you about the Abhidhamma in general. But I don't see that it answers the question. Thanks anyway. ;-) Tep === #79133 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and all other formal meditators in this thread), > > In the conditioned world described by the Buddha there are no > sentient beings. There are only fleeting phenomena known as namas and rupas. >>>> What about Vinnana? >>>>> So, when you ask "how do you meditate (in accordance with the > Buddha's teaching)" you must be asking, "Which fleeting, conditioned > phenomena are properly described as bhavana (mental development, > meditation)?" > > The only correct answer to that question would be a description of a > kusala citta accompanied by sati, panna and various other kusala > cetasikas. The Buddha gave detailed descriptions of these phenomena > and of all other conditioned phenomena. He explained their cause, > their cessation and the way leading to their cessation. > > If you are asking 'how does a sentient being meditate' then your > question lies outside the Buddha's teaching. In other words, you > would be asking the wrong question. You will never learn the 8fold > path while you are asking the wrong question. > > Ken H >>>>>>> Technical Jargon and wisdom are two different things. Whom are you trying to impress? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > > > > Hello all. > > > > What is your meditation practice is like? > > > > > > Lots of Metta, > > > > Alex > > > Here is original post: Where did I talked about sentient beings, etc? Ken, you seem to be very concerned about this issue... Lots of Metta, Alex #79134 From: Elaine Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Dear KenH, How is it possible for you to observe these fleeting phenomena known as nama and rupa while you're on the surfboard or playing soccer/football? You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time. ;-)) Regards, Elaine -------------------------- #79135 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:09 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? philofillet HI Scott and all Wow, there has been a big outbreak of talking about meditation that I have missed out and will have to miss out on. (Busy these days) But I just want to comment briefly on the following. > Scott: Well, I can see this as 'helpful and useful', in an entirely > mundane, mental-hygiene sort of way, and I can see and how 'sitting > practise' might bring these 'shifts' about. What I don't see is how > this reflects bhaavanaa in any way, and, more to the point, how this > relates to Dhamma. To me this is only relaxation and thinking and > amounts to nothing more, 'helpful' or not. PH: Scott, the "mundane" aspect of Dhamma is not to be written off so easily. The mental-hygiene aspect is very real, very important. Good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, don't forget that. As we know, mental deeds can be harmful kamma -no, they *are* harmful - to ourselves and others down the road. Any "mental- hygiene" aspect that leads to reducing harmful mental action is most definitely to be praised. Bhvana? I don't know, guess not. Helpging to create conditions for bhavana, yes, I think that's what the texts lay out. And anyone who has not developed mental-hygiene will not have bhavana. Yes, I know there are anecdotes about murderers that become arahants and so on...and "anyone" can refer to a stream of dhammas, if you'd like. I mean, that's the truth of the matter.... In any case, just because there are charlatan self-help programs out there, charlatan counsellors, false and empty promsises in other approaches to mental healing, let's not forget that the Buddha is the best at it. Actually, I wanted to get back to you in that ndsc thread today but I guess I can't. You've probably got a ton of threads to respond to, so don't worry about this one. Just wanted to get that in. Metta, Phil #79136 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) philofillet Hi Matt > PHIL: One thing I find myself thinking about these days is "how do we know that our awareness of dhammas is not just more clinging to concepts" because it seems to me that most of what I see in Abhidhamma will not be object of awareness but could be turned into a conceptual object of clinging by a mind too eager for wisdom. And because this object is defined as "paramattha" one might be more likely to fail to see it as a concept that one is clinging to. > MATT: I don't think that clinging to conceptual Abhidhamma is the only thing we should be wary of. When studying Dhamma there is always the danger of clinging to concepts or ideas about ourselves and Dhamma. If one does not appreciate the need to understand the true nature of realities that are arising and falling away at every moment, then these Abhidhamma and Dhamma concepts, like all concepts, will be an obstacle to insight. > > With regard to Abhidhamma I find it is best to only embrace that which I can, intellectually, experience and which I can appreciate is something that arises and falls away. Ph: Yes, I think A. Sujin does a good job of stressing that we should embrace that which we can - thus all the helpful reminders on "is there seeing now?" But what do you mean by "intellectually experience?" INteresting expression. Could be an oxymoron, but maybe not. >MATT: The rest of the Abhidhamma is conceptual, however, when we have a better understanding of realities the rest does seem to make sense and we can appreciate that only a person of the highest wisdom would be able to see the workings of Nama and Rupa in this way. It also helps to re-enforce the understanding that there are only realities that have no abiding self. Ph: Yes, this is well said. I personally bow to historical evidence that the Buddha did not himself teach Abhidhamma, that it was a later development, but I feel that it is in line with the Buddha's teaching, a deepening of it in many ways and is very helpful. I think it would be a shame to approach the Dhamma without any knowledge whatsoever of Abhidhamma. And certainly helps to get at the Buddha's deep teaching of anatta. He emphasized anatta in his second discourse, so I am somewhat surprised by all the debate about whether he taught it or not.(I've missed fine points of those debates I'm sure.) Matt, I'm basically just touching bases with you because I really want to get to the "spice" thread, but can't today. Probably not for a few days. Thanks for your reply there. Very interesting gist for reflection. Metta, Phil #79137 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: An Introduction to Buddhism- 1 buddhistmedi... Hi Sarah, - I am sorry for misquoting you. >Tep (#77159 to Scott): > Take the Patisambhidamagga of the Arahant Sariputta as an example. In the book there are 201 dhammas to be "directly known" and you might think they are all ultimate realities. Look closer, you'll see ten kasinas and the 32 body parts. What do you think of them, aren't they concepts? But if you asked Sarah, she would quickly say that they are 'cittas' and , therefore, they are ultimate realities. ... S: Are you sure? Have I ever suggested that the kasinas or body parts are cittas? If so, I'd be interested to see where:-)) ... T: No, you did not say exactly that! I was sarcastic because citta had too often been the main theme here. Some of the old messages below should give you the idea why I felt that way. #36336 S: I believe foulness of the body may have been a bad example above. Let's talk about kasina as object of samatha/jhana. How are the jhana cittas themselves different ? .... > S: Of course, subsequent cittas will be very different, but we were talking about the development of samatha and the understanding required from the very beginning for anyone. > #45384 S: When you say that 'one has to prepare oneself for Samatha meditation', again it's different from how I understand samatha bhavana (meditation) to develop. In other words, I believe it is the kusala citta (and cetasikas) that are important, rather than the place or way of sitting. ............. Tep === #79138 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:00 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet Hi Tep > But who says that the five aggregates are not controllable? Please > provide a sutta support. Thanks. Just popping in. I'm confused about this controllability of dhammas. I mean, doesn't the Buddha's second discourse, the anatta sutta, say something along the lines of "if I could have form the way I wanted it, great, but I can't." (rough paraphrase!) Doesn't that sutta clearly get at the uncontrollability of dhammas, whether classified as khandas, ayatanas etc? You know, I am firmly on the side of those who believe in intentional action to practice the Dhamma, but I don't understand this "dhammas are controllable" idea, not if we are speaking strictly about the way dhammas are conditioned. (Rather than speaking about a helpful illusion of being able to control mental states, moods etc?) Maybe you can open a door to something big that I am missing! :) Metta, Phil #79139 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:20 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Phil, PH: "Scott, the "mundane" aspect of Dhamma is not to be written off so easily. The mental-hygiene aspect is very real, very important. Good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, don't forget that. As we know, mental deeds can be harmful kamma -no, they *are* harmful - to ourselves and others down the road. Any "mental- hygiene" aspect that leads to reducing harmful mental action is most definitely to be praised. Bhvana? I don't know, guess not. Helpging to create conditions for bhavana, yes, I think that's what the texts lay out. And anyone who has not developed mental-hygiene will not have bhavana. Yes, I know there are anecdotes about murderers that become arahants and so on...and "anyone" can refer to a stream of dhammas, if you'd like. I mean, that's the truth of the matter...." Scott: I'm not totally sure what you are saying above, Phil, but I am referring to the tendency to claim that mundane, non-Dhamma 'meditation' is meritorious from a Dhamma perspective. I don't think that calling relaxation anything but relaxation is useful or Dhamma. All this talk of 'meditating' and 'how much' is just not useful, in my opinion of course. How does sitting to relax condition any sort of kusala bhaavanaa? Isn't it just, 'I want to relax and feel good'? P: "In any case, just because there are charlatan self-help programs out there, charlatan counsellors, false and empty promsises in other approaches to mental healing, let's not forget that the Buddha is the best at it." Scott: There are charlatans by the cartload professing to be teaching Dhamma, and nowhere more than in the 'meditation' industry. Just look in any popular Buddhist magazine and witness the plethora of 'meditation supplies' sold to those who think 'meditation' is a matter of how much and with what. Let's definitely go back to the natural decisive support condition discussion. This one is only meant to be vexatious, in my opinion. Sincerely, Scott. #79140 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: Me: How does one 'do' either of these things? A: "First of all, it seems that you are very uncomfortable when I am using ordinary words. Is it insecurity?..." Scott: Please note that the quotation marks are around the word 'do'. I am simply unconvinced by the whole notion that what one deliberately sits down to try to do and achieve is 'meditation'. Oh, and please spare me the armchair psychology. I simply fail to see the relevance of 'how much do you meditate?'. One might be discussing weight lifting or maybe yoga. What was the point of this particular topic anyway, out of curiosity? How much one does and how one does it is nothing more than playing at 'meditating', I would suggest. Sincerely, Scott. #79141 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:27 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? philofillet Hi Scott > Let's definitely go back to the natural decisive support condition > discussion. This one is only meant to be vexatious, in my opinion. Ok, sounds good. Back to in a few days or more...sending you de-vex rays.... Metta, Phil #79142 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:09 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... buddhistmedi... Hi Phil, - I am delighted by your down-to-earth discussion of the five aggregates. I also believe in intention (preceded by conviction) to make an effort to practice according to the Dhamma. If the right Dhamma practice failed to produce an intentional result (i.e. happiness here & now, stream entry, or a higher achievement), then our Greatest Teacher's 45 years of teaching would have been in vain. But the eight ariya-puggalas are the proven results. Without an intention there is no action(kamma). With conviction (saddha) in the Teachings we'll make a strong effort/persistence with an intention to abandon evil, unskillful qualities(akusala dhamma) that have arisen, or to develop skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. Of course, we neither wait idly for an akusala dhamma to die down, nor wait for kusala dhammas to arise by themselves. So it is clear that there is a certain degree of control of the five aggregates in the practice of the Dhamma (with an intention) to produce desirable results and avoid the undesirable ones. Some down-to-earth examples of controllable aggregates are: taking aspirin to reduce pains (control of the vedana khandha) and body building by lifting weights (controlling of ruupa khandha). Because the aggregates are inconstant (anicca), changeable and alterable, they tend to behave different than what we wish. They are controllable to some degree, but whatever good results we have achieved soon will deteriorate. That's why the Buddha taught us not to think of (i.e. clinging to) the khandhas as 'mine, me, my self' -- which is the essence of the Anattalakkhana Sutta. Ph: .. doesn't the Buddha's second discourse, the anatta sutta, say something along the lines of "if I could have form the way I wanted it, great, but I can't." (rough paraphrase!) Doesn't that sutta clearly get at the uncontrollability of dhammas, whether classified as khandas, ayatanas etc? T: It seems to say to me : you can't have form/feeling/ ... /consciousness exactly the way you want them every time because they tend to change; and because they chang, they are suffering. Therefore, you should drop your clinging in them. I hope I have opened the door a tiny crack for the light to shine through. Tep === #79143 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:14 pm Subject: Khandhas are uncontrollable rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > So you seem to suggest that any khandha is NOT controllable, and > since vitakka IS classifiable in the group of the five aggregates, it > therefore must be uncontrollable. > > But who says that the five aggregates are not controllable? Please > provide a sutta support. Thanks. > > Tep > === Dear Tep, Yes certainly the khandhas are uncontrollable. This sutta talks about the five khandhas: Majjhima Nikaaya I. 4. 5 Cuulasaccakasutta.m- (35 ) The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka. ""Saccaka the son of Nigan.tha then said thus to the Blessed One. We would ask a certain question from good Gotama. If good Gotama would give us leave and would explain it to us. The Blessed One said, ask Aggivessana what you desire.How does good Gotama advise the disciples and in what sections are they given much training? Buddha: Aggivessana, I advise and train my disciple much in this manner.... ", ...ALL THINGS ARE NOT SELF." .... [Aggivessana disagreed] BUDDHA:..Aggivessana, you that say, matter is your self, do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus, and not otherwise? .No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, feelings are your self, do you wield power over those feelings, as may my feelings be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. .Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, perceptions are your self, do you wield power over those perceptions, as may my perceptions be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier, does not agree with what you say now.. Aggivessana, you, that say, determinations are your self, do you wield power over those determinations, as may my determinations be thus and not otherwise. No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you, that say, consciousness is your self, do you wield power over that consciousness, as may my consciousness be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. ..''' Robert #79144 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:56 pm Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. dhammanando_... Hi Alex, > A: Theravada (especially if we take it to be the one started with > Buddhaghose or Moggaliputta Tissa Thera) is ONE of the interpretations > of Pali Canon. There have been 17-19 others. And to judge from their surviving texts, not even one of these 17-19 schools thought that anatta was a "strategy". The understanding that anatta is an account of how things really are, and that "in the ultimate sense a self is not to be found", is shared by every known Indian Buddhist school, however much they may have differed on other points. Even highly heterodox schools such as the Mahayana and the Puggalavada agreed that anatta was about the way things really are, not just a strategic way of thinking about things. > What are the chances of Theravada beeing 100% correct regarding Pali > Canon (which isn't Theravadin only). What are the chances of Thanissaro's "anatta strategy" being correct, given that his disagreement is not only with the Theravada, but with the whole of Buddhist antiquity? Best wishes, Dhammanando #79145 From: Elaine Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Khandhas are uncontrollable shennieca Dear RobK, Not-self and inconstant does Not mean uncontrollable. How did you come to the conclusion that not-self means uncontrollable? Why is not-self equal to uncontrollable? Why does inconstant mean uncontrollable? Inconstant is Not a synonym for uncontrollable. If the khandhas are uncontrollable, who/what is controlling it? If ignorance is controlling our khandhas, how come some people have more ignorance than others? Sincerely, Elaine ----------------- #79146 From: Elaine Date: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. shennieca Hello Bhante, If a person uses this "anatta strategy" to realize the real anatta, is it still wrong? Are you doubting/accusing Ajahn Thanissaro of having wrong-view of Anatta? Have you written an e-mail to Wat Metta to inform Ajahn about it? Imo, it is wrong to talk bad about another person behind his back. Moreover, Ajahn Thanissaro is a reputable monk. What if the people who are accusing Ajahn Thanissaro have actually misinterpreted Ajahn's message wrongly? Isn't it better to clarify it with Ajahn Thanissaro first before telling the whole world that he is teaching the wrong anatta? I think it is only fair that we give Ajahn Thanissaro a chance to defend himself. The law is, Innocent until proven guilty. I personally think that Ajahn Thanissaro is a good and virtuous monk. There are not many monks like him left on earth. Bhante Dhammanando, I respect you. You have taught me many things in e-sangha. But the Ajahn Thanissaro bashing is really disturbing. Hoping to hear from you. Thank you. With respect, Elaine ----------------------------------- #79147 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:38 am Subject: Re: The not-self strategy dhammanando_... Hi Alex, > Thanissaro: "Immediately after Vacchagotta leaves, Ven. Ananda asks > the Buddha to explain his silence. Had the Buddha really meant to > declare that there is no self, this would have been the perfect time > to do so, for bewildered people were now out of the way. But, again, > he did not take that position." > Alex: Buddha could have then told Ananda (who being a Sotapanna would > understand), "There is NO self". But he didn't. Ananda, being a sotapanna, doesn't need to be told such a thing. Moreover, Ananda has not asked the Buddha whether there's a self or not. Rather, his query concerns the Buddha's pedagogy: 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?' So naturally the Buddha answers the question posed, not a question that hasn't been posed. Best wishes, Dhammanando #79148 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:41 am Subject: Re: The not-self strategy dhammanando_... Hi Alex, > It is also possible that Venerable teaches in GRADUATED way. Easy and > feel good things at first, and then when one is ready he delivers the > bottom line. Just like Ajahn Brahm, his public talks are one style > and his monastic teachings are MUCH MORE Serious. > > Even the Buddha DID NOT START WITH ANATTA. I have to agree with Ken H. that you do Thanissaro a disservice when you try to defend him with this kind of special pleading. Whether a Buddhist teacher starts with anatta or introduces anatta later, either way we should expect that when he does get around to teaching it he will present it as accurately as he can according to his lights. And so when we read "The Anatta Strategy" we should adopt the charitable assumption that this is Thanissaro doing his best and presenting a faithful account of his actual view, not a provisional or dumbed down version of it to palm off on beginners. Best wishes, Dhammanando #79149 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:44 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta of "Self" and the World dacostacharles Dear Alex If you mean "Intellect" or "mental formations," then you are right with respect to some schools of Buddhism. To others, "Intellect" or '"mental formations," are more like heaps or collections, and the "personality aggregate" is more like a specialization - your "unique motivations" - not the whole of "intellect." It can be argued that the personality aggregate is more like how and why you become attached to things; why you are driven to concoct curtain mental formations and not others; why you find pleasure in pain (if you are masochistic), and pain in pleasure if you are a sadist. You ask: "How can a "Knower" be unknowing?" Knowers don't know all. They are not infinite in knowing. Isn't there a knower in you? And if so, how come your knower does not know every thing? There are microscopic beings all over your skin, yet you are unaware of them. Here we have a knower without knowing. Furthermore it is the normal every day self that depends on its aggregates, what ever the number. I agree knowledge of absence of knowing is different than having no knowledge. And that when you pass out, totally unconscious, you don't see black space. You don't see anything. You should read one of the Lion's Roar Suttras. They are attacks against "false" accusations, totally unphilosophical, more about not being the kind of person that would . (e.g., immorality). They talk nothing about the 4 frames of references, 5 aggregates, 6 sense spheres... That is why I said the Lion's Roar Suttras presented plenty ego-based self-personality references. The way you presented the "stream" of Buddhas is the same way some Hindus define the essence of a group of beings. Charles DaCosta _____ #79150 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:56 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Dear Ken H You stated that "I believe the Buddha continually addressed the question, 'Is there a self?' Even so, it might be true that there is only one passage in the Canon where he was asked it point blank. I don't know. But I do know that no ordinary Dhamma teacher would refer to that fact without giving an explanation. Wherever there is any suggestion at all of atta-belief in the Pali Canon, a true Dhamma teacher will immediately dispel it. Does TB make any attempt to dispel the suggestion? No. He says that the Buddha 'refused to take a position either way.' That's not good enough. " I would argue that a true Dhamma teacher will point out how relative the Self is, when needed. And only dispel it when needed! Charles DaCosta _____ #79151 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Hi All, This is worth repeating: ". TB writes, "In the first, Vacchagotta asks the Buddha to take a position on the question of whether or not there is a self, and the Buddha remains silent. In the second, Mogharaja asks for a way to view the world so that one can go beyond death, and the Buddha speaks, teaching him to view the world without reference to the notion of self. This suggests that, instead of being an assertion that there is no self, the teaching on not-self is more a technique of perception aimed at leading beyond death to Nibbana - a way of perceiving things with no self-identification, no sense that 'I am,' no attachment to 'I' or 'mine' involved." (end quote) How much evidence do you people need? :-)" Charles DaCosta _____ #79152 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:29 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Hi Elaine, I like what you had to say , got go Charles DaCosta _____ #79153 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:42 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? sukinderpal Hi Alex, ============= > Alex: > Meditation is seeing the impersonal process (DO), conditionality, > anicca-dukha-anatta and all the tricks the ignorance throws. > > Sukin: So you are referring to instances of wisdom / Right view of > varying levels arisen to experience a reality, including ignorance? >>>> Alex: Meditation helps one to clear one's mind (of lust and other defilements). Not only it produces 'bliss of letting go' but it can be used for Buddhist purposes which is seeing DO (which implies seeing 3 characteristics and 4NT). S> But I need you to be more precise, because I then need to go into the difference between a moment of Jhana and Vipassana and the difference in their objects. In the above you seem to be saying that Jhana is used at some stage to support insight by way of suppressing the hindrances. One implication of this is that the hindrances can never be the object of insight of the particular level, and I don't think that this is what you believe. Perhaps what you are also saying is that Satipatthana supports Jhana as well? If so, could you explain about the mechanism involved? And if Satipatthana is accumulative of panna, at what point does it stop to be effective after which jhana then becomes necessary to support it? You would probably cite the Anapanasati Sutta to support your view, but I would like you to explain in your own words how this thing works? After all you are encouraging everyone to "meditate", how would you explain the reason for this to them? Also in the above, referring to 'bliss of letting go', you seem to be implying that this is related to the `detachment' of vipassana? Don't you think that the path taken to the `suppression of the hindrance' could be said to be due to the failure at *understanding* these as being just another conditioned reality? Would that `letting go' really lead to the detachment which accompanies a moment of true understanding? To my understanding the panna of jhana is one which sees the danger of Tanha in relation to sense objects and this is in no way related to Vipassana panna which sees the need to understand realities "as it is", therefore I don't think that the former can be used as a `support' for the latter in *any* way. ================= Alex: Of course some Yogi's treat Jhanic bliss as an end in itself, get attached to it and even though they've reached 8th Jhana - they don't even achieve Stream! If Alara Kalama or Uddaka Ramaputta heard Buddha's teaching - I am sure that they'd become Arahants right on the spot. S> If they have never heard the Dhamma in that life, a Jhana practitioner would never come to even have any idea about the Path, let alone to walk it. The difference in perspective is huge and he would end up only be going along the path taken and rest satisfied with some level of Jhana or the other. Only a Buddha would know better. If Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta never practiced Satipatthana in their journey through samsara, even if they were alive to hear the Buddha speak, they would still not know satipatthana, let alone become enlightened. But of course they did and so they would have. ============== > Sukin: I don't understand how the bliss of Jhana being greater than > sensuality is the reason for cultivating the former? Alex: Humans are drawn to pleasure and avoid pain. If a human realizes the bliss of Jhana, then they will naturally let go of children's toys (sensuality of 5 senses) and go and grab the bliss of Jhana. S> Tanha is pervasive and deeply rooted and leads to Dukkha, most worldlings would have no idea about this and so they forever seek greater and greater pleasure. The wise ones, those who have not heard the Dhamma, they see this to the extent of sensual objects / pleasures and consequently arrive at the need for Jhana. So even they would surely not go for Jhana with Tanha, would they? Don't they after all seek "calm" away from Tanha and so wouldn't they recognize this kind of tanha as being in fact rather gross? On the other hand, an instructed putthujana may know about the conditioned nature of experiences, yet because his panna is weak, it is not enough to detach from sense objects. In this case he will continue to seek sense pleasures and he may know nothing of jhana. However if and when he does know jhana, could he seek this for the pleasure of it, especially since in his case there is not only the knowledge of the danger of Tanha, but also of Avijja? ============== Alex: Of course it goes without saying that later on one must cultivate detachement from Jhana as well. S> This is just wishful thinking. It is with right understanding now or never! ============== > Sukin: Jhana is a form of kusala second only to Vipassana. So yes, it > should be encouraged if and when the conditions are there for its > development. However, given that vipassana is about the nderstanding > / insight of *all* conditioned realities including jhana cittas and > its mental factors, the Buddha encouraged this over anything else. >>>> Alex: Sutta Quotes? In MN111, Jhana INCLUDES what you call "Vipassana". In Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36) "Vipassana" Elements are also found! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html If we define Jhana as "see nothing, hear nothing, percieve nothing" , then I agree. However this sort of Jhana is what Buddha has ridiculed in MN152. S> The point being made in the Jhana Sutta as with most other suttas citing jhana / vipassana, is that one should know the jhana citta with its factors in terms of the khandhas. This is possible only for those 1) who have developed mastery in the Jhanas and therefore can easily go in and out of it and 2) who have accumulated much understanding of Vipassana in the past. It is by virtue of this latter that the Jhana meditator can upon exiting jhana, then insight the khandhas. This is what the Buddha is teaching to all those who develop Jhana, be they experts in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Jhana. MN111 is a special case, here the Buddha is showing how great Sariputta's panna is. Note, Sariputta here didn't know only the jhana factors as the references in other suttas, but he knew the other accompanying mental factors like perception, contact, volition, energy, mindfulness and so on as well. This showed how keen Saripautta's Vipassana panna was that he could actually so readily switch between objects of Jhana and Vipassana all the way through till the end, (my interpretation which I admit to not being quite confident of :-P). MN152 is the Indriyabhavana Sutta, which perhaps you cited by mistake? Because this is not about Jhana at all, but is in fact about "Satipatthana", though of a high level. =============== > The general understanding these days however, is that one needs more > or less only to "concentrate" on some chosen object. >>> Alex: I don't do this and I don't recommend such "senseless hole". S> :-) Happy to hear this. But then what is actually involved in your own practice? =============== Alex: Yes satipathana IS THE ONLY/DIRECT WAY. It can be practiced up to BASE OF NOTHINGNESS (Jhana #7 or Arupa #3). MN111 and AN9.36 . S> Apparently I don't think that you know what Satipatthana really is, and therefore don't think that you know Jhana either. And this brings us back to the question of what exactly `meditation' is, and then to determine what is Jhana as distinct from Vipassana. =============== > Rather this is because he is satisfied with being > above sense contacts and with the prospect of rising higher to > experience more wholesome states, even to believe wrongly one of these to being the "ultimate goal". Alex: Jhana IS NOT THE ULTIMATE. In fact it is quite mundane (unless practiced with Satipathana). S> And neither is Jhana a part of the Path. If there is really the correct understanding of the Path and hence the significance of Satipatthana / Vipassana, there will be no question of the need for Jhana or any other practice. If there is the understanding that there is but *this* moment to be known, question about "doing" anything else does not arise. This is why contrary to what meditators think and in spite of their criticism of us Abhidhammikas as being "theoretical" and themselves being "practical", theirs is all "idealistic talk" only. One that conditions a conventional activity labeled `practice' and which is clearly wrong. They are lost in dhamma ideas wrongly interpreted through the screen of self-view. The result is mistaking much of the time, akusala for kusala, thinking for direct experience and worse of all, wrong view for right view. It is this latter which feeds their sense of being right about what they do and the resistance to sound and logical arguments made here on DSG. ;-) ================= > Sukin: Jhanalabi or anyone else, the Path begins with "hearing the > Teachings". Having heard and intellectually understood the Dhamma, one > does not wait to experience Jhana in order that one will then come to >>> Alex: I've read entire DN,MN,SN, parts (about 200+ AN suttas), parts of KN. Thats more than 99% of Arahants in Buddha's time. I think that only Ven. Ananda in Buddha's time knew more. S> I am not sure what you are trying to say here. ================= > know the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities. It is only > through better and better understanding of realities as being > conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta >>>>> Alex: Satipathana is the direct (or only) way. Satipathana practice is included in Anapanasati AND UP TO BASE OF NOTHINGNESS ARUPA JHANA. S> Perhaps you need to look at this and other Suttas as being descriptive rather than prescriptive. In this way you may come to discriminate between reference to Vipassana as being *the* practice and separate this from the particular cases of those engaging in Anapanasati, or any other Jhana practice, or seeing the teeth of a woman, or listening to a dhamma discourse, or washing the dishes, or putting a knife through one's throat. ================= Alex: Satipathana leads to seeing DO, and 3 characteristics. S> But……not without Jhana…right? ;-) Metta, Sukin. #79154 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:02 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Thanks for the transmission: P: "Ok, sounds good. Back to in a few days or more...sending you de-vex rays...." Scott: See you when you return. Sincerely, Scott. #79155 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:18 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Hi all, I am beginning to realize that a lot of you are so locked on to the view of no-self that you believe it is impossible to obtain enlightenment without it. I guess this is also why many schools of Bubbliest thought practice and teach according to some kind of graded path. Sometimes we identify with a definition so much that we can't really see when others are saying the same thing but from a different angle (changes in definitions) - This is samsara and as long as you live in it, there is a self that is born, suffers, dies, and is reborn to do it all again. When there is nibb, there is no-self, just nibb, no you, no me! And still, You have to come to the door of Nibb before the door is opened. This is what the Dali Lama meant by a healthy ego is essential to enlightenment, with out it, You have no-chance! Charles DaCosta _____ #79156 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:16 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. dhammanando_... Hi Elaine, If you don't mind I would prefer to keep my contributions to the thread impersonal. I'm not at all interested in discussing whether Thanissaro is a goodie or a baddie, but would rather focus on the question of whether the "strategic" interpretation of anatta is in accordance with the Dhamma. That this interpretation happens to originate with Thanissaro is of no especial importance, given that it's now being voiced by all sorts of people. > If a person uses this "anatta strategy" to realize the real anatta, is > it still wrong? The question that needs to be addressed is *can* anatta be realized by the "anatta strategy"? If this strategy consists in a wrong view of anatta, then the answer is no. > Are you doubting/accusing Ajahn Thanissaro of having wrong-view of > Anatta? It does seem to be the case. > Have you written an e-mail to Wat Metta to inform Ajahn about it? Whatever for? The ajahn is perfectly aware that his take on anatta is not the Theravadin one. He cites the Theravadin view in his "Not Self" essay, asserts that it's not in accordance with the Suttas, and then opposes it with a novel interpretation of his own. > Moreover, Ajahn Thanissaro is a reputable monk. There are thousands of reputable monks. But since not all of them agree on the fundamentals of Dhamma, at least some of them must be in error. So again, it's better to keep the discussion impersonal: "Suppose a bhikkhu were to say: 'In such and such a place there is a sangha with elders and reputable teachers. I have heard and received this from that sangha,' then, bhikkhus, you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared with the Suttas and reviewed in the light of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Suttas or the discipline, the conclusion must be: 'Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this bhikkhu,' and the matter is to be rejected. 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 bhikkhu.' " (Mahaparinibbana Sutta) Best wishes, Dhammanando #79157 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Perfections Corner (39) 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 "Haarita Jaataka" (no. 431) that King Brahmadatta was at that time reigning in Varaanasii. King Brahmadatta in the past was the Venerable Aananda of the present time. The text states: "At that time, the Bodhisatta was born in a brahmin family who possessed wealth worth eighty crores, and because of his golden complexion his parents called him Young Goldskin, Haarita Kumaara. When he was grown up and he had been educated at Takkasilaa, he thought: 'The treasure that my parents assembled is still there, but my parents who were seeking that treasure have died, they do not exist anymore.' When he was considering this, he understood that he himself would also have to die, and hence he gave away his wealth and became a recluse in the Himalaaya, where he cultivated Jhaana, until he could realize the five supernatural powers and the eight attainments. When he wished to obtain salty or sour food, he left the forest, went to the city of Varaanasii and reached the Royal Park. When the king saw him he had confidence in him and offered to have a dwelling place built for him in the Royal Park. He assigned an attendant to wait on him. The recluse obtained food from the palace and he lived there for twelve years. Later on the king went away to pacify a conflict at the frontier and committed the care of the recluse to the queen who from then on ministered to him with her own hands. One day she had prepared his food, and as he delayed his coming, she bathed in scented water, put on a soft tunic of fine cloth, and opening the lattice, she lay down on a couch and let the wind play upon her body. When the recluse came flying through the air to the window, the queen heard the rustling sound of his bark garments. When she stood up quickly, her robe of fine cloth fell off. As soon as the recluse saw this, his defilements which had been dormant for thousands of aeons, rose up like a poisonous snake lying in a box, and hence his skill in jhaana disappeared. The recluse who was unable to apply mindfulness, went inside, seized the queen by her hand and then they gave themselves over to misconduct. His misconduct was rumoured throughout the whole city and the king's ministers reported this in a letter to the king. The king could not believe what was told him and he thought: 'They say this, because they are eager to damage him.' When he had pacified the border country, he returned to Varanasii and asked the queen: 'Is the rumour true that the recluse Haarita and you misconducted yourselves?' The queen answered that it was true. The king did not believe this, although the queen said that it was true. ===to be continued, connie #79158 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:01 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 1 of 20 14. Ti.msanipaato XIV. The Section of the Group of Thirty [Verses] {Canto XIV. Psalm of Thirty-four Verses} 1. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 1. The commentary on the verses of Therii Subhaa Jivakambavanikaa Ti.msanipaate jiivakambavana.m rammanti-aadikaa subhaaya jiivakambavanikaaya theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii, sambhaavitakusalamuulaa anukkamena paribruuhitavimokkhasambhaaraa paripakka~naa.naa hutvaa, imasmi.m buddhuppaade raajagahe braahma.namahaasaalakule nibbatti, subhaatissaa naamamahosi. Tassaa kira sariiraavayavaa sobhanava.n.nayuttaa ahesu.m, tasmaa subhaati anvatthameva naama.m jaata.m. Saa satthu raajagahappavesane pa.tiladdhasaddhaa upaasikaa hutvaa aparabhaage sa.msaare jaatasa.mvegaa kaamesu aadiinava.m disvaa nekkhamma~nca khemato sallakkhantii mahaapajaapatiyaa gotamiyaa santike pabbajitvaa vipassanaaya kamma.m karontii katipaaheneva anaagaamiphale pati.t.thaasi. In the section of thirty [verses], the verses beginning [A rogue stopped the bhikkhunii Subhaa as she was going] to the delightful Jiiva-kamba wood are Therii Subhaa Jivakambavanikaa's. She too performed meritorious deeds under previous Buddhas and accumulated too [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. In due course, producing the foundation of good [deeds], she prepared for and strengthened [her future] deliverance, and possessing matured knowledge, she was born in this Buddha era in a wealth brahman family in Raajagaha. Her name was Subhaa. It is said that the limbs of her body were furnished with a beautiful appearance (sobhana-va.n.na-yuttaa). Therefore, the name Subhaa was appropriate. She gained faith and became a lay follower when the Teacher went into Raajagaha. Afterwards, she saw the danger in sensual pleasures and a profound stirring arose [in her] concerning continued existence. And considering renuniciation as being peaceful, she went forth in the presence of Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii. She devoted herself to the gaining of insight, and in a few days, she was established in the fruition state of a Non-Returner. RD: SHE too, having made her resolve under former Buddhas, and heaping up good of age-enduring efficacy in this and that rebirth, fostering the root of good and perfecting the conditions for emancipation through the ripening of her knowledge, was in this Buddha-era reborn at Raajagaha, in the family of a very eminent brahmin. Her name was Subhaa, and truly lovely was her body in all its members. It was for this reason that she came to be so called. While the Master sojourned at Raajagaha, she received faith and became a lay-disciple. Later she grew anxious over the round of life, and saw the bane of the pleasures of sense, and discerned that safety lay in renunciation. She entered the Order under the Great Pajaapatii the Gotamid, and exercising herself in insight, was soon established in the fruition of the Path of No-return. ===to be continued, connie #79159 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply: > > Me: How does one 'do' either of these things? > > A: "First of all, it seems that you are very uncomfortable when I am > using ordinary words. Is it insecurity?..." > > Scott: Please note that the quotation marks are around the word 'do'. > I am simply unconvinced by the whole notion that what one > deliberately sits down to try to do and achieve is 'meditation'. > It is not so much of as 'doing' but letting go, practicing seeing everything in Anicca-Dukha-Anatta way. It is not about controling but practicing seeing with insight. Scott, why do you seem so less-than-enthusiastic about Bhavana? Lots of Metta, Alex #79160 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:44 am Subject: Control upasaka_howard Hi, all - It seems to me that on the matter of "control" and in many other areas, we tend to forget about the middle-way approach. As an example: Some of us believe that we can control our thoughts. Others believe that to be absolute nonsense and that whatever thoughts arise is entirely beyond control. It seems to me that "getting real" about that would involve paying attention to what actually goes on. When it is deemed necessary by a student to do some math homework, s/he puts away whatever s/he has been doing and turns his/her attention and thinking to the problems. That is "control". On the other hand, much of the specific detail-of-thought that arises when thinking over the problems is not at all planned or consciously hammered out, and just flows along "on its own" - and that is *not* control. If it is thought that "control" requires a self/agent who is controller, then there is no control. On the other hand, if by "control" one only means willful expenditure of energy that contributes to eventual results, there *is* control. If by the exercise of "control" one means the ability to make things be as one wants them to be by mere wish and whim ("Let this be that."), then there is no control. If, on the other hand, one means that volitional actions can be taken that will serve as a few conditions among many that lead to desired results, there *is* control. Can we hold our breath? Of course!! (Control) Can we hold it indefinitely? Of course not!! (No control) With metta, Howard #79161 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:22 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Alex: Meditation helps one to clear one's mind (of lust and other > defilements). Not only it produces 'bliss of letting go' but it can > be used for Buddhist purposes which is seeing DO (which implies > seeing 3 characteristics and 4NT). > > S> But I need you to be more precise, because I then need to go into > the difference between a moment of Jhana and Vipassana and the > difference in their objects. In the above you seem to be saying that > Jhana is used at some stage to support insight by way of suppressing > the hindrances. One implication of this is that the hindrances can > never be the object of insight of the particular level, and I don't > think that this is what you believe. >>> Buddha did not teach separate path such as (insight vehicle and tranquility vehicle). Sutta Jhana INCLUDES samatha-vipassana. Insight helps one to reach Jhana, which than strengthens insight even more. After all, people without wisdom will simply not meditate! As far as I am concerned, Insight & Tranquility GO HAND IN HAND. Tranquility helps to still the water, insight looks to the bottom of it to see what is under it (sand). Or even better example. Lets imagine that mind is like a rapidly moving blades of the fan. Tranquility slows it down, insight looks at the blades. > > Perhaps what you are also saying is that Satipatthana supports Jhana > as well? If so, could you explain about the mechanism involved? >>> You have to be mindful to enter the Jhana (rather than to fall asleep). Satipathana provides that mindfulness. Anapanasati fulfills 4 satipathanas and goes up to Cessation of Perception & feelings. >>>>> And if > Satipatthana is accumulative of panna, >>>> So is Jhana. There is no Jhana without wisdom, no wisdom without Jhana. One who has both is close to Nibbana - Dhp 372 (if memory is correct). at what point does it stop to > be effective after which jhana then becomes necessary to support it? > You would probably cite the Anapanasati Sutta to support your view, > but I would like you to explain in your own words how this thing > works? After all you are encouraging everyone to "meditate", how would you explain the reason for this to them? >>> The reason for PROPER meditation? We have built-in distortions which lead to Dukha that cannot be moved through intellect alone. While some part of wrong view is theoretical, its roots are in Craving. In Ditthisamyutta for dozens of suttas the Buddha was hammering in the point that CRAVING is the cause for wrong views. Jhana helps one to see the inconstancy of 5 aggregates, anicca-dukha-anatta, DO, and how to escape all of it. Meditation is a lab where you can put your knowledge to use. Just a few thoughts. > > Also in the above, referring to 'bliss of letting go', you seem to be > implying that this is related to the `detachment' of vipassana? >>> Jhana is bliss of letting go. Don't > you think that the path taken to the `suppression of the hindrance' > could be said to be due to the failure at *understanding* these as > being just another conditioned reality? Would that `letting go' really lead to the detachment which accompanies a moment of true understanding? >>> I think that "suppresion" is a bit too strong. Rather the word should be "Prevention" through using Anicca-Dukha-Anatta. > > To my understanding the panna of jhana is one which sees the danger of Tanha in relation to sense objects and this is in no way related to Vipassana panna which sees the need to understand realities "as it > is", therefore I don't think that the former can be used as a > `support' for the latter in *any* way. >>>> Jhana develops Insight if it is proper Buddhist Jhana, and not Brahman's Parasiri's "see nothing, hear nothing". > ================= > S> If they have never heard the Dhamma in that life, a Jhana > practitioner would never come to even have any idea about the Path, > let alone to walk it. The difference in perspective is huge and he > would end up only be going along the path taken and rest satisfied > with some level of Jhana or the other. Only a Buddha would know > better. If Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta never practiced > Satipatthana in their journey through samsara, even if they were alive to hear the Buddha speak, they would still not know satipatthana, let alone become enlightened. But of course they did and so they would have. >>> Buddha often said to his monks "Go do Jhana!". Where did he say "Avoid Jhana, go do Vipassana instead!" Alara & co, probably DID practice satipathana. In the suttas (mn 26 or 36?) where Buddha talks about them, he said that they DID have wisdom and other faculties. They were a few tenets short of a full set dcotrine. They taught Atta being (7th or 8th) Jhana. They were VERY close to understanding Anatta. This is why Buddha wanted to teach them first since he KNEW that they would quickly understand him. I would bet that if they heard one sutta, they would become Arahants. > ============== > S> Tanha is pervasive and deeply rooted and leads to Dukkha, most > worldlings would have no idea about this and so they forever seek > greater and greater pleasure. >>> Exactly. Ignorant worldings don't seek Jhana which is pleasure independent of 5 senses. >>>>> The wise ones, those who have not heard the Dhamma, they see this to the extent of sensual objects / pleasures and consequently arrive at the need for Jhana. So even they would surely not go for Jhana with Tanha, would they? >>> Even Anagami have craving for form (one of the fetters). So it is not surprising if worldings aproach Jhana with craving. >> > On the other hand, an instructed putthujana may know about the > conditioned nature of experiences, yet because his panna is weak, it > is not enough to detach from sense objects. In this case he will > continue to seek sense pleasures and he may know nothing of jhana. > However if and when he does know jhana, could he seek this for the > pleasure of it, especially since in his case there is not only the > knowledge of the danger of Tanha, but also of Avijja? >>>> Buddhist Jhana deals with Avijja too. Someone who has lots of Avijja can't and will not want to do Jhana. > ============== > Alex: Of course it goes without saying that later on one must cultivate detachement from Jhana as well. > > S> This is just wishful thinking. It is with right understanding now > or never! >>> This is strait from the Buddha's mouth. MN 106. > ============== > > Sukin: Jhana is a form of kusala second only to Vipassana. So yes, it >>>> Sutta quote? > > Alex: Sutta Quotes? In MN111, Jhana INCLUDES what you call "Vipassana". > In Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36) "Vipassana" Elements are also found! > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html > > If we define Jhana as "see nothing, hear nothing, percieve nothing" , > then I agree. However this sort of Jhana is what Buddha has ridiculed > in MN152. > > S> The point being made in the Jhana Sutta as with most other suttas > citing jhana / vipassana, is that one should know the jhana citta with its factors in terms of the khandhas. This is possible only for those > 1) who have developed mastery in the Jhanas and therefore can easily > go in and out of it and 2) who have accumulated much understanding of Vipassana in the past. It is by virtue of this latter that the Jhana > meditator can upon exiting jhana, then insight the khandhas. This is > what the Buddha is teaching to all those who develop Jhana, be they > experts in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Jhana. >>>>> You can't become an expert at something if you don't practice it, right? > > MN111 is a special case, here the Buddha is showing how great > Sariputta's panna is. Note, Sariputta here didn't know only the jhana > factors as the references in other suttas, but he knew the other > accompanying mental factors like perception, contact, volition, > energy, mindfulness and so on as well. This showed how keen > Saripautta's Vipassana panna was that he could actually so readily > switch between objects of Jhana and Vipassana all the way through till the end, (my interpretation which I admit to not being quite confident > of :-P). > Not just MN111, but Jhana sutta (9.36) as well. Jhana has in it the "Vipassana" practice - up to base of Nothingness. > MN152 is the Indriyabhavana Sutta, which perhaps you cited by mistake? Because this is not about Jhana at all, but is in fact about > "Satipatthana", though of a high level. >>>> That is correct sutta. In it Buddha ridiculed the "see-nothing, hear- nothing" method, after which he told Ananda to go do Jhana. This shows that in Buddhist teaching, Jhana is not separated from Insight. > =============== > > The general understanding these days however, is that one needs more > or less only to "concentrate" on some chosen object. > >>> > > Alex: I don't do this and I don't recommend such "senseless hole". > > S> :-) Happy to hear this. But then what is actually involved in your own practice? >>>> Panna. I don't "concentrate". Even though, "nimittas" are cool, they are not part of the path. So I "let go (anicca-dukha-anatta)" and follow Anapanasati instructions. My anapanasati seems to be most "cittanupassana" like. Seeing impermanence and selflessness of the mind. > =============== > Alex: Yes satipathana IS THE ONLY/DIRECT WAY. It can be practiced up to BASE OF NOTHINGNESS (Jhana #7 or Arupa #3). MN111 and AN9.36 . > > S> Apparently I don't think that you know what Satipatthana really is, and therefore don't think that you know Jhana either. And this brings us back to the question of what exactly `meditation' is, and then to determine what is Jhana as distinct from Vipassana. >>>> If we take Jhana to be like that of Brahman Parasiri, than I agree. But if we take Jhana to be "Samatha-Vipassana", then it all makes sense and cannot be taken apart. Satipathana means seeing as it is. > =============== > > Alex: Jhana IS NOT THE ULTIMATE. In fact it is quite mundane (unless > practiced with Satipathana). > > S> And neither is Jhana a part of the Path. >>>>>>>>>>>>> What a load of Bull! It is most crucial part of the path (especially for Anagami stage). If there is really the > correct understanding of the Path and hence the significance of > Satipatthana / Vipassana, there will be no question of the need for > Jhana or any other practice. If there is the understanding that there >>> Proper Jhana is most important. It includes N8P. 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 It is interesting that in the first part of DN the practice is almost exclusively: morality + preparation for Jhanas. Attaining triple knowledge and full Liberation. DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 (and possibly more suttas.) Jhana is also mentioned in: 15, 16,17,22,26,33 --------- 276. You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of Mara. 282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase. 371. Meditate, O monk! Do not be heedless. Let not your mind whirl on sensual pleasures. Heedless, do not swallow a red-hot iron ball, lest you cry when burning, "O this is painful!" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.25.budd.html -- Upanisa Sitta Suffering (dukkha), Faith (saddha), Joy (pamojja), Rapture (piti), Tranquility (passaddhi), Happiness (sukha), Attentive Stillness (samadhi), Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassana), Disenchantment (nibbida), Dispassion (viraga), Emancipation (vimutti), Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana) ---- "Just as a palm tree with its top cut off is incapable of further growth, in the same way, when a person is rightly intent on Unbinding, he has destroyed the fetter of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, has destroyed it by the root, like an uprooted palm tree deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. This is how it can be known that 'This person, disjoined from the fetter of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, is intent on Unbinding.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.105.than.html#vomit > is but *this* moment to be known, question about "doing" anything else > does not arise. > > This is why contrary to what meditators think and in spite of their > criticism of us Abhidhammikas as being "theoretical" and themselves > being "practical", theirs is all "idealistic talk" only. >> What is your meditation practice like? > Alex: Satipathana leads to seeing DO, and 3 characteristics. > > S> But……not without Jhana…right? ;-) > Jhana includes satipathana Lots of Metta, Alex #79162 From: "Robert" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:41 am Subject: Re: Control avalo1968 Hello Howard, Isn't the issue not so much whether we have control or not, but one of believing we do have control when we do not, learning to recognize the limitations of our ability to control our thoughts, and understanding that thoughts arise from conditions and that our control of thoughts is limited to how we create those conditons? With metta, Robert A. #79163 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... truth_aerator Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > Just popping in. I'm confused about this controllability of > dhammas. I mean, doesn't the Buddha's second discourse, the anatta > sutta, say something along the lines of "if I could have form the > way I wanted it, great, but I can't." (rough paraphrase!) Doesn't > that sutta clearly get at the uncontrollability of dhammas, whether > classified as khandas, ayatanas etc? >>>> While direct control is not possible in many situations, you can indirectly control it through the kamma you make. What can be done is to use Wisdom as opposed to Ignorance, stop craving after feelings, etc. Lots of Metta, Alex #79164 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:06 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable nidive Hi RobertK, > Yes certainly the khandhas are uncontrollable. This sutta talks > about the five khandhas: ... The three characteristics of the khandhas are not controllable. What is impermanent will still be impermanent. What is unsatisfactory will still be unsatisfactory. What is not-self will still be not-self. Though the three characteristics of the khanadhas are uncontrollable, this does not mean that our bodily, verbal & mental actions are uncontrollable. Swee Boon #79165 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:08 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. truth_aerator Dear Bhante, Thank you for joining in. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > A: Theravada (especially if we take it to be the one started with > > Buddhaghose or Moggaliputta Tissa Thera) is ONE of the interpretations > > of Pali Canon. There have been 17-19 others. > > And to judge from their surviving texts, not even one of these 17- 19 schools thought that anatta was a "strategy". >>> Are there any such texts translated to English? I'd like to read them. >>>>>>>>> The understanding that > anatta is an account of how things really are, and that "in the > ultimate sense a self is not to be found", is shared by every known > Indian Buddhist school, however much they may have differed on other > points. Even highly heterodox schools such as the Mahayana and the > Puggalavada agreed that anatta was about the way things really are, not > just a strategic way of thinking about things. > > > What are the chances of Theravada beeing 100% correct regarding Pali > > Canon (which isn't Theravadin only). > > What are the chances of Thanissaro's "anatta strategy" being correct, > given that his disagreement is not only with the Theravada, but with > the whole of Buddhist antiquity? > > Best wishes, > Dhammanando > The discussion isn't about existence of Atta. I do not believe in an Atta. However I do believe in ACTION and BEHAVING according to Anatta teaching. It seems that some highly intelligent people learn about "Anatta, Anicca, Sunyata" and start to build all these exciting philosophies rather than FOLLOW THE N8P to the fullest. All this intellectualization at some point will be a distraction that hinders deep meditative development. I think that Venerable TB also has this in mind. So, I think that Ven. TB is emphasis PRACTICE (this doesn't meant that atta exists). Who knows, maybe he knows more than some scholars? Lots of Metta, Alex #79166 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/23/2007 10:41:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, avalo1968@... writes: Hello Howard, Isn't the issue not so much whether we have control or not, but one of believing we do have control when we do not, learning to recognize the limitations of our ability to control our thoughts, and understanding that thoughts arise from conditions and that our control of thoughts is limited to how we create those conditons? With metta, Robert A. =============================== Ideally, what we believe would be exactly in accord with reality. So the issue is both. Clearly not everything is possible. Some things can be "done" and others cannot. If one allows a no-control position to be taken to the point that no attempt to act usefully is made, it is tragic. If one takes the opposite position that anything is possible, then one is insane. With metta, Howard #79167 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Elaine I like to add this. Citta as I said thinks are also influence by the habitual tendecies. Why we keep wanting this, is this taint that keep this craving again and again. Likewise, this is also for panna. When we start considering dhamma, it also keep the habit going and going of reflection of dhamma, panna would increase. The reason why we always said that we should not base our practise on a self because it feeds the tendencies of craving for self. Regarding BT, I just like to clarify that anatta is not a strategy and it is not a technique. It is the truth of dhamma. Just like conditional dhammas are impermament, this is suffering due to change, due to rise and fall, they are truth. These are truth hence Buddha said the 4NT and not 4 noble strategies or techniques. It is the universal truth which Buddha said that future Buddha will also teach that and also those preceding Buddha also teach that. There is difference between truth and strategy or technique because strategy and technique changes but truth is always truth. What we are learning is understanding this truth. There is no strategy about it, it is already laid open for us to see. Kind regards Ken O #79168 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ashkenn2k Hi Swee Boon A simple analogy would be would you able to control your body not to grow old or dies. If body could be control, then we would live forever and ever. There is no need to learn the dhamma anymore as we would not die. Kind regards Ken O #79169 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:06 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy ashkenn2k Hi Charles > > ". TB writes, "In the first, Vacchagotta > asks the Buddha to take a position on the question of whether or > not there is a self, and the Buddha remains silent. In the second, Mogharaja asks for a way to view the world so that one can go > beyond death, and the Buddha speaks, teaching him to view the world > without reference to the notion of self. This suggests that, instead of being an assertion that there is no self, the teaching on not-self is more a technique of perception aimed at leading beyond death to Nibbana - a way of perceiving things with no self-identification, no sense that 'I am,' no attachment to 'I' or 'mine' involved." (end quote) KO: This is linking two different context. The first Vacchagotta is about not answering because Buddha knows this wanderer is incapable of understanding the meanings of not self. The second context on Mogharaja is that Buddha only explain anatta to those who are able or willing to understand it. It is not a technique because anatta is a truth or the dhamma law. There is no need to suggest or recommend or opinion because it is the truth. Kind regards Ken O #79170 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter Dear Venerable Dhammanando (Alex, Elain and others), nice to meet you online again, hoping you are well. Frankly speaking I am not so glad about what seems to be your stand on the issue and would appreciate a clarification. You may perhaps not have read all the exchange , so I add some comments from previous mails. I hope you do not mind when I refer to your messages to Alex and Elaine as somehow having initiated the discussion . you wrote: I have to agree with Ken H. that you do Thanissaro a disservice when you try to defend him with this kind of special pleading. Whether a Buddhist teacher starts with anatta or introduces anatta later, either way we should expect that when he does get around to teaching it he will present it as accurately as he can according to his lights. And so when we read "The Anatta Strategy" we should adopt the charitable assumption that this is Thanissaro doing his best and presenting a faithful account of his actual view, not a provisional or dumbed down version of it to palm off on beginners. D: one can argue about this or that point of Ven. Thanissaro's essay, the approach in general , etc. , but to expect that all what he publishes must meet the standard of any critical eye appears to me a bit too ambitious. What some of the members incl. me motivated to defend the Venerable in the first place was the impression of scorning a respected senior monk. quoting now from my recent mail to KenH: D: I am missing still any evidence showing clearly that your claim is more than a suspicion on your side. As Howard put it : ' If Ken thinks there is evidence that Ven T has self-view and wishes to promote self-view, Ken needs to provide it, clearly and unambiguously,' and explained to you in a further message , what the Venerable may have in mind, concluding ' Because of this, I do not presume that Ven Thanissaro had a heterodox belief. He *may* have, but I don't know this as fact.' So far I don't have much to add incl. other comments and don' t think it is very useful to discuss what one may read into his wording in order to support your view. This considered you statements ( totally ridiculous / heterodox teaching) are indeed - mildly said - inappropriate . We both discussed before that there is a 'reality ' of I/Self delusion ( a process explained by the links of D.O.) and until this delusion is replaced by wisdom with the help of deep insight and understanding of the nature of khanda attachment, there is a self .. As it it said in S.N. 22 , 79 : 'Happy are the Perfect Ones, no craving is found in them, rooted out is the I conceit, the net of delusion burst through'. It seems to me that the Abhidhammic stand to speak from the ultimate point of view , influences you to suspect strategies applied for detachment being introductions of the self through the backdoor .(?) unquote Ven. D.: And to judge from their surviving texts, not even one of these 17-19 schools thought that anatta was a "strategy". The understanding that anatta is an account of how things really are, and that "in the ultimate sense a self is not to be found", is shared by every known Indian Buddhist school, however much they may have differed on other points. Even highly heterodox schools such as the Mahayana and the Puggalavada agreed that anatta was about the way things really are, not just a strategic way of thinking about things. D: he wrote:'Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon - the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings - suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply' unquote The Buddha repeatedly proclaimed , all what he is teaching is about suffering, the origin ...cessation and the path leading to cessation of suffering, i.e. the 4 Noble Truth, hence it includes as well the anatta part without contradiction of your statement 'The understanding that anatta is an account of how things really are, and that "in the ultimate sense a self is not to be found.' As the Noble Path can be described as a strategy /a medicine to cure the sickness, , the expression 'Not -Self Strategy' , which - considered the necessity to detach, to let go , to remove the Self view/khanda attachment (that I am, that is mine..), in my understanding is not wrong in respect to a full realisation of anatta (e.g. 'Happy are the Perfect Ones, no craving is found in them, rooted out is the I conceit, the net of delusion burst through'. S.N. 22 , 79 ). What is wrong however is when the person assumes there is no strategy/instruction/training necessary and simply take anatta as ultimate fact , instead going through the laboriously process of insights to see it for oneself. (..For a long time this has been that with which he identifies himself, to which he has been attached and has held on to, thinking, 'This is mine,' 'I am this,' 'This is myself.' Therefore an uninstructed ordinary person is not able to be dispassionate towards it, to be detached and released from it. - SN XII 61) As what appears to us -semi-instructed- not yet released beings is a self delusioned will , still caught in samsara (.. vedana- tanha- upadana-bhava -jati). In other words what counts is to recognise the Self delusion (embedded in avijja-sankhara), but not to deny it ( until abolished it is still real hence need for the middle way..) Ven.D.: If you don't mind I would prefer to keep my contributions to the thread impersonal. I'm not at all interested in discussing whether Thanissaro is a goodie or a baddie, but would rather focus on the question of whether the "strategic" interpretation of anatta is in accordance with the Dhamma. That this interpretation happens to originate with Thanissaro is of no especial importance, given that it's now being voiced by all sorts of people. D: did you keep your contribution impersonal? What disturbs me , and I assume others as well , is that the Venerable is criticized for reasons not yet clearly evident. I like to claim that a strategic interpretation of anatta as I mentioned above is in according with the teaching. Ven D: (Elaine:Have you written an e-mail to Wat Metta to inform Ajahn about it?) Whatever for? The ajahn is perfectly aware that his take on anatta is not the Theravadin one. He cites the Theravadin view in his "Not Self" essay, asserts that it's not in accordance with the Suttas, and then opposes it with a novel interpretation of his own. D: I for example would feel more comfortable when monks at least would try to sort differences out in a brotherly way before making disapproval in a sense of Maha Padesa known to the laity. Looking forward to hearing from you, with Metta Dieter #79171 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 11/23/2007 11:54:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: Hi Swee Boon A simple analogy would be would you able to control your body not to grow old or dies. If body could be control, then we would live forever and ever. There is no need to learn the dhamma anymore as we would not die. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why, Ken? Why would living forever make the Dhamma unnecessary? That makes no sense to me in the slightest. ---------------------------------------------------------- Kind regards Ken O ============================== With metta, Howard #79172 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... ashkenn2k Hi Tep T: And I asked : What kind of "self" did the Buddha talk about in the Cunda Sutta? Is this an indication that we should be very careful before saying there is 'no self' ? KO: When Buddha used self, it is used as a designation or median to convey his teaching. IMHO, any kind of self is just our greed with conceit/wrong view. Cheers Ken O #79173 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ashkenn2k Hi Howard If the body cannot dies, the world does not dies. Impermance is not applicable since there is no decay, suffering is not applicable as suffering is due to rise and fall and hence anatta is not applicable. There is no need to know the dhamma at all Kind regards Ken O #79174 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Hi Alex, Thank you for providing the Suttas on meditation. :-)) I like what you said, I'll copy it here so that people won't miss your message. :-)) Alex: 1. Buddha did not teach separate path such as (insight vehicle and tranquility vehicle). Sutta Jhana INCLUDES samatha-vipassana. 2. Insight helps one to reach Jhana, which than strengthens insight even more. After all, people without wisdom will simply not meditate! 3. As far as I am concerned, Insight & Tranquility GO HAND IN HAND. Tranquility helps to still the water, insight looks to the bottom of it to see what is under it (sand). Or even better example. Lets imagine that mind is like a rapidly moving blades of the fan. Tranquility slows it down, insight looks at the blades. 4. The reason for PROPER meditation? We have built-in distortions which lead to Dukha that cannot be moved through intellect alone. While some part of wrong view is theoretical, its roots are in Craving. In Ditthisamyutta for dozens of suttas the Buddha was hammering in the point that CRAVING is the cause for wrong views. Jhana helps one to see the inconstancy of 5 aggregates, anicca-dukha- anatta, DO, and how to escape all of it. 5. You have to be mindful to enter the Jhana (rather than to fall asleep). Satipathana provides that mindfulness. Anapanasati fulfills 4 satipathanas and goes up to Cessation of Perception & feelings. 6. Jhana develops Insight if it is proper Buddhist Jhana, and not Brahman's Parasiri's "see nothing, hear nothing". 7. Ignorant worldings don't seek Jhana which is pleasure independent of 5 senses. 8. Even Anagami have craving for form (one of the fetters). So it is not surprising if worldings aproach Jhana with craving. 9. You can't become an expert at something if you don't practice it, right? 10. Not just MN111, but Jhana sutta (9.36) as well. Jhana has in it the "Vipassana" practice - up to base of Nothingness. 11. That is correct sutta. In it Buddha ridiculed the "see-nothing, hear-nothing" method, after which he told Ananda to go do Jhana. This shows that in Buddhist teaching, Jhana is not separated from Insight. 12. Panna. I don't "concentrate" . Even though, "nimittas" are cool, they are not part of the path. So I "let go (anicca-dukha- anatta)" and follow Anapanasati instructions. My anapanasati seems to be most "cittanupassana" like. Seeing impermanence and selflessness of the mind. 13. But if we take Jhana to be "Samatha-Vipassana" , then it all makes sense and cannot be taken apart. 14. Proper Jhana is most important. It includes N8P. 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.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.039. than.html It is interesting that in the first part of DN the practice is almost exclusively: morality + preparation for Jhanas. Attaining triple knowledge and full Liberation. DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7, 8,9,10,11, 12,13 (and possibly more suttas.) Jhana is also mentioned in: 15, 16,17,22,26, 33 --------- 276. You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of Mara. 282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase. 371. Meditate, O monk! Do not be heedless. Let not your mind whirl on sensual pleasures. Heedless, do not swallow a red-hot iron ball, lest you cry when burning, "O this is painful!" http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ kn/dhp/dhp. 25.budd.html -- Upanisa Sitta Suffering (dukkha), Faith (saddha), Joy (pamojja), Rapture (piti), Tranquility (passaddhi), Happiness (sukha), Attentive Stillness (samadhi), Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassa na), Disenchantment (nibbida), Dispassion (viraga), Emancipation (vimutti), Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana) ---- "Just as a palm tree with its top cut off is incapable of further growth, in the same way, when a person is rightly intent on Unbinding, he has destroyed the fetter of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, has destroyed it by the root, like an uprooted palm tree deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. This is how it can be known that 'This person, disjoined from the fetter of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, is intent on Unbinding.' " http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.105. than.html# vomit (end quote) Very good understanding of the right Buddhist Noble 8 Foldpath. :-)) May we attain the bliss of Nibbana in this very life. With mettaa and respect, Elaine #79175 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" shennieca Hi KenO, I don't mind anatta being a strategy to Nibbana. What do you think of the N8FP? Imo, following the N8FP is a strategy to Nibbana. With metta, Elaine ------------------ #79176 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy moellerdieter Hi Larry, thanks for your feedback.. following a few comments from my side: you wrote: Larry: We are ordinary persons. Are we dispassionate toward our body when we are hungry, tired, sick, have a good or bad appearance? No. Evenso, the greater attachment is to the mind. It would be more reasonable to be attached to the body because it appears to be more continuous, unlike the mind which changes every minute. Still, we are unreasonable in having greater attachment to the mind. D: I suppose the Buddha refered to Yogis detached /dispassionate to the body (sensations), which are obviously not so rare even in India nowadays . But the real problem , as shown in D.O. is delusioned volition (avijja -sankhara) as the background of the 5 khanda-attachment, which an uninstructed person will not see/ understand.. L: "Well reasoned attention" amounts to reasoning, in this case about arising and ceasing of "this" and "that". D: not sure what you mean but if you refer to the D.O. links , I agree L: (That is to say, with ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness comes to be... That is how there is an origin of this whole mass of suffering. But from the complete disappearance and cessation of ignorance, volitional activities cease... That is how there is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.) L: Reasoning about kamma. This reasoning can only be speculative or reasoning based on assumption/belief. One could argue that this is the rationale for abhidhamma study. Here the Buddha offers it as the insight practice of the "instructed noble disciple". D: .. the Buddha refers to the complete disappearance and cessation of ignorance. As ignorance/avijja is defined by not knowing the 4 Noble Truths, its full penetration and replacement (panna) by means of the Noble Path ..the role of abhidhamma is to support the path perfection L: L: I wonder if one could become dispassionate toward the mind simply by noticing that it changes from moment to moment. That would certainly be reasonable, as the Buddha says above, and it might be an alternative to reasoning about actions enacted in previous lives coming to "just" fruition in this life. D: you may remember that in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha indicated the possibility of enlightenment even in 7 days assumed full practise . Knowing our difficulty to keep our attention to all aspects of body, feeling, mind and mind objects occuring in the moments and the favorable circumstances allowing us to do so even for one or two hours, I for my part are rather pessimistic that will work. What you mean by an alternative to reasoning about actions enacted in previous lives? Presented to us here and now is previous kamma (incl.but not only that from previous lives) .. with Metta Dieter #79177 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy ashkenn2k Hi Alex This sutta is clear and I do not understand why the scholars have to debate it or speculate about it. To some people this is like Zen :-). To say that is no self this would mean nothing exist (pse remember I only talk about this for this sutta). This I believe is the contention of many scholars. Now in this particular sutta, self exist because of our attachment to our wrong view, a mental state conditioned by greed. So could Buddha say self does not exist, he cant because he knows that attachement to self exist which is ditthi exist and saying it is not would be annhilistic for this sutta. Thus it is on this context that one cannot say nothing exist. But Buddha knows perfectly, self does not exist and this existence of no self in this context to illustrate that ditthi exist. I also hestitate on explaining this because people who are not clear will likely to be confused. Kind regards Ken O #79178 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:40 am Subject: Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Regarding BT, I just like to clarify that anatta is not a strategy > and it is not a technique.... >>> But it MUST be put into action, otherwise it is useless. It is like doctor giving you a prescription drug to cure your deadly but treatable illness. You put it on an altar, pray to it, show your respects, study every letter, study the font of the letters, the precise weight of the paper, the origin of the paper, check where the ink was made off, how much it weights, what color it is, what sort of printer printed it, where the paper was printed, etc etc. Yet if you don't take the pill, you may die from your illness - and you are missing out on the most important part!!! The use for it!!! >>> It is the truth of dhamma. Just like > conditional dhammas are impermament, this is suffering due to change, > due to rise and fall, they are truth. These are truth hence Buddha > said the 4NT and not 4 noble strategies or techniques. It is the > universal truth which Buddha said that future Buddha will also teach > that and also those preceding Buddha also teach that. > > There is difference between truth and strategy or technique because > strategy and technique changes but truth is always truth. What we are > learning is understanding this truth. There is no strategy about it, > it is already laid open for us to see. Kind regards > Ken O > With that sort of clinging... I hope you ALL THE BEST reaching the path. Lots of Metta and best Wishes, Alex #79179 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Elaine In a way, using our modern way of thinking especially one working in a corporate environment, it is understandable the word strategy is used and it is familiar word which many find a lot affinity with it. N8FP is also a truth, which Buddha declares. Not a strategy but a path, a universal law for salvation. I stop here because if I explain it further, that would be very Abhidhammika like :-). Cheers Kind regards Ken O #79180 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/23/2007 12:36:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: Hi Howard If the body cannot dies, the world does not dies. Impermance is not applicable since there is no decay, suffering is not applicable as suffering is due to rise and fall and hence anatta is not applicable. There is no need to know the dhamma at all Kind regards Ken O ================================ Right now the body has not died. Yet there is dukkha. And were the "the same" body to continually renew without end, still there would be dukkha. The body not dying doesn't imply stasis, but merely that ongoing decay is balanced by ongoing renewal. Rise and fall within a namarupic stream from moment to moment and "across lifetimes" (if the Buddha is to be believed) is a fact right now, and that, in sense, is already a non-cessation. If, instead of multiple lifetimes, there were ongoing renewal within a single, unending lifetime, there still would be dukkha. Satisfaction is not to be found in dhammas or in their absence, but in detachment from them - in relinquishment. Perhaps the goal of Christianity is "eternal life", but the goal of the Dhamma is perfect wisdom, relinquishment and peace. With the complete uprooting of the three poisons, nibbana is realized, nothing is ever again grasped at or pushed away, neither presence nor absence is craved, freedom is attained, and nothing further is required. With metta, Howard #79181 From: Ken O Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Alex What is action? On what basis is this action spring from. Guarding of senses is already an action or volition. Is there a need for a strategy to guard our senses. When panna and sati arise, the senses are guarded. Hence I said, Buddha already laid open for us. Cheers Ken O #79182 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > What is action? On what basis is this action spring from. Guarding > of senses is already an action or volition. Is there a need for a > strategy to guard our senses. When panna and sati arise, the senses > are guarded. Hence I said, Buddha already laid open for us. > Cheers > Ken O > You either follow N8P or find an 'intelligent' excuse not to follow it. It is up to you. Academic study may bring a false and deceptive sense of stability and security which would stop one's progress. Lots of Metta, Alex #79183 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable buddhistmedi... Hi KenO (Swee), - Your reply to Swee reflects an extreme view on controllability. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Swee Boon > > A simple analogy would be would you able to control your body not to > grow old or dies. If body could be control, then we would live > forever and ever. There is no need to learn the dhamma anymore as we > would not die. > T: Avoid the two extremes : 1. All things are 100% uncontrollable. 2. All things are 100% controllable. Tep ==== #79184 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" shennieca Hi KenO, It is OK, I understand. :-)) Imo, for a beginner (like me) if the real explanation of anatta is given in full-force, it would not work, it has to be given in small doses. (i.e. the strategy is needed). Imagine anyone telling a new Buddhist that the Buddha taught no-self is equalled to no-control. What kind of religion would that be? It may be good for some people who lacks the will to live but for normal people, they cannot live with no-control. It is like telling them, there is "no-control but try your best". The sentence itself is already contradictory. How can you try your best without control? Illusion of control, maybe? This no-control is really strange. I'm not a control freak but I think we can be mindful if we put an effort in it. Wise attention and mindfulness, can be developed with practise. For some people, they think it is the citta doing its job during normal daily tasks and when the person wants to do something good, the "Evil-Self-Demon" jumps in and say "This is Self" and it is Oh so Akusala!! Why is doing good deeds connected with the idea of Self? How about doing bad deeds? Does the Self kick in also? (((rolleyes))) Let's take the middle-path. With mettaa, Elaine ------------------- #79185 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:30 am Subject: Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" buddhistmedi... Dear KenO, - Yours is a misinterpretation of the term Not-self Strategy or as you put it, "Anatta Strategy". >KO: > Regarding BT, I just like to clarify that anatta is not a strategy > and it is not a technique. It is the truth of dhamma. Just like > conditional dhammas are impermament, this is suffering due to change, > There is difference between truth and strategy or technique because > strategy and technique changes but truth is always truth. What we are > learning is understanding this truth. There is no strategy about it, > it is already laid open for us to see. > T: Anatta Strategy means a strategy for application of anatta. Anatta is a characteristics or truth of all dhammas (sabbe dhamma anatta). Vipassana on the anatta characteristics of the five khandhas, for example, is a stategy for the realization of the not-self truth. The venerable does not have a language problem like you think he does. Tep ==== #79186 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dieter Möller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. Dear Venerable Dhammanando (Alex, Elain and others), nice to meet you online again, hoping you are well. Frankly speaking I am not so glad about what seems to be your stand on the issue and would appreciate a clarification. You may perhaps not have read all the exchange , so I add some comments from previous mails. I hope you do not mind when I refer to your messages to Alex and Elaine as somehow having initiated the discussion . you wrote: I have to agree with Ken H. that you do Thanissaro a disservice when you try to defend him with this kind of special pleading. Whether a Buddhist teacher starts with anatta or introduces anatta later, either way we should expect that when he does get around to teaching it he will present it as accurately as he can according to his lights. And so when we read "The Anatta Strategy" we should adopt the charitable assumption that this is Thanissaro doing his best and presenting a faithful account of his actual view, not a provisional or dumbed down version of it to palm off on beginners. D: one can argue about this or that point of Ven. Thanissaro's essay, the approach in general , etc. , but to expect that all what he publishes must meet the standard of any critical eye appears to me a bit too ambitious. What some of the members incl. me motivated to defend the Venerable in the first place was the impression of scorning a respected senior monk. quoting now from my recent mail to KenH: D: I am missing still any evidence showing clearly that your claim is more than a suspicion on your side. As Howard put it : ' If Ken thinks there is evidence that Ven T has self-view and wishes to promote self-view, Ken needs to provide it, clearly and unambiguously,' and explained to you in a further message , what the Venerable may have in mind, concluding ' Because of this, I do not presume that Ven Thanissaro had a heterodox belief. He *may* have, but I don't know this as fact.' So far I don't have much to add incl. other comments and don' t think it is very useful to discuss what one may read into his wording in order to support your view. This considered you statements ( totally ridiculous / heterodox teaching) are indeed - mildly said - inappropriate . We both discussed before that there is a 'reality ' of I/Self delusion ( a process explained by the links of D.O.) and until this delusion is replaced by wisdom with the help of deep insight and understanding of the nature of khanda attachment, there is a self .. As it it said in S.N. 22 , 79 : 'Happy are the Perfect Ones, no craving is found in them, rooted out is the I conceit, the net of delusion burst through'. It seems to me that the Abhidhammic stand to speak from the ultimate point of view , influences you to suspect strategies applied for detachment being introductions of the self through the backdoor .(?) unquote Ven. D.: And to judge from their surviving texts, not even one of these 17-19 schools thought that anatta was a "strategy". The understanding that anatta is an account of how things really are, and that "in the ultimate sense a self is not to be found", is shared by every known Indian Buddhist school, however much they may have differed on other points. Even highly heterodox schools such as the Mahayana and the Puggalavada agreed that anatta was about the way things really are, not just a strategic way of thinking about things. D: he wrote:'Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon - the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings - suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply' unquote The Buddha repeatedly proclaimed , all what he is teaching is about suffering, the origin ...cessation and the path leading to cessation of suffering, i.e. the 4 Noble Truth, hence it includes as well the anatta part without contradiction of your statement 'The understanding that anatta is an account of how things really are, and that "in the ultimate sense a self is not to be found.' As the Noble Path can be described as a strategy /a medicine to cure the sickness, , the expression 'Not -Self Strategy' , which - considered the necessity to detach, to let go , to remove the Self view/khanda attachment (that I am, that is mine..), in my understanding is not wrong in respect to a full realisation of anatta (e.g. 'Happy are the Perfect Ones, no craving is found in them, rooted out is the I conceit, the net of delusion burst through'. S.N. 22 , 79 ). What is wrong however is when the person assumes there is no strategy/instruction/training necessary and simply take anatta as ultimate fact , instead going through the laboriously process of insights to see it for oneself. (..For a long time this has been that with which he identifies himself, to which he has been attached and has held on to, thinking, 'This is mine,' 'I am this,' 'This is myself.' Therefore an uninstructed ordinary person is not able to be dispassionate towards it, to be detached and released from it. - SN XII 61) As what appears to us -semi-instructed- not yet released beings is a self delusioned will , still caught in samsara (.. vedana- tanha- upadana-bhava -jati). In other words what counts is to recognise the Self delusion (embedded in avijja-sankhara), but not to deny it ( until abolished it is still real hence need for the middle way..) Ven.D.: If you don't mind I would prefer to keep my contributions to the thread impersonal. I'm not at all interested in discussing whether Thanissaro is a goodie or a baddie, but would rather focus on the question of whether the "strategic" interpretation of anatta is in accordance with the Dhamma. That this interpretation happens to originate with Thanissaro is of no especial importance, given that it's now being voiced by all sorts of people. D: did you keep your contribution impersonal? What disturbs me , and I assume others as well , is that the Venerable is criticized for reasons not yet clearly evident. I like to claim that a strategic interpretation of anatta as I mentioned above is in according with the teaching. Ven D: (Elaine:Have you written an e-mail to Wat Metta to inform Ajahn about it?) Whatever for? The ajahn is perfectly aware that his take on anatta is not the Theravadin one. He cites the Theravadin view in his "Not Self" essay, asserts that it's not in accordance with the Suttas, and then opposes it with a novel interpretation of his own. D: I for example would feel more comfortable when monks at least would try to sort differences out in a brotherly way before making disapproval in a sense of Maha Padesa known to the laity. Looking forward to hearing from you, with Metta Dieter #79187 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. shennieca Hello Bhante Dhammanando, Imo, there are 2 types of view - one is the atta-view and one is the anatta-view. The Atta-view is definitely wrong, it is not Buddhism. But what kind of Anatta-view is wrong? I thought if someone agrees that there is Not-self teaching, he is already accepting Not-self as the truth of the 3 characteristics of all sankhara and dhamma. How can this acceptance of Not-self be wrong? How far can a worldling understand this Not-self teachings, if s/he has not experience the nama-rupa entities during meditation? In your opinion, how is Anatta supposed to be comprehended? (for non-ariyans). If a puthujjana come to me and says s/he totally understands Anatta, I would be cautious. Do you think a normal worldling has the ability to know what the real supramundane Anatta is? I'm hoping to learn about understanding mundane Anatta. Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine --------------------------------------- #79188 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:20 pm Subject: Re: A Homework Paper to be Graded buddhistmedi... Hi Nina, - I am grateful for the helpful feedback on my thoughts about nimitta, sammuti, pa~n~atti, and concepts vs. ultimate realities. Your feedback on the right meanings of these terms may be given as follows. The words in quotations are yours. 1. There are two different meanings for nimitta. a) It pertains to the concept about "the outward appearance or details of a person or thing". b) "Nimitta of a reality" refers to a trailing (left behind) mental image of a fallen-away reality. 2. Sammuti sacca means "what is real in conventional sense, e.g. person, table, etc.". 3. Pa~n~natti in brief is "a term or word or an idea that is conveyed by a term", where "a term can stand for a reality or for what is not real in the ultimate sense". "Pa~n~natti stands for name or word and also for that which is made known". Other meanings can be found in the Co. 4. "Pa~n~natti can also explain what is real: the terms citta, cetasika, rupa. These words are pa~n~nattis. As to the term sammutti, this is used in the texts in combination: sammutti sacca, not sammutti pa~n~natti." 5. The difference between an ultimate reality and concepts may be "made clearer" by means of examples. "Seeing arises and seeing is not imagined, it has an unalterable characteristic. Namely, it experiences what is visible. This is different from sammutti sacca, such as a table or person. It seems that we see persons but in reality this is not so. I would not speak of opposites." 6. "Paramattha dhammas can be directly known by those who have reached the first stage of insight and further. Thus, not only by ariyans. But also now, when we begin, there can be sometimes attention to a characteristic that appears without naming it." .......... Tep === -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Op 19-nov-2007, om 23:31 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > 1. Nimitta is a mental image, formation, or fabrication of whatever > > 'name > > & form' that has been earlier perceived, noticed, or marked in the > > mind. > > Thus we may have a nimitta of each of the five khandhas (e.g. > > sankhara-nimitta). > ------- #79189 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:51 pm Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter (KenH, KenO, Ven. D, Elaine, and so on..), - You noted that all the controversies about anatta would fill plenty of books. Indeed, they are of various forms and people will continue to argue with each other. Thanks to Ven. TB for his Not-self Strategy. It takes a clever person to devise a "strategy of the practice" to throw off the khandha burden that "we each are carrying". [T: Ven TB's words are in the quotations.] That exactly what the "Not-self Stategy" means. >Dieter: As you mention "the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off", and for doing that we need an inner consens- a middle way- in order to confront ourselves. >Denying the I , Self (even as reality of delusion) in the first place only leads to confusion... T: The right middle-way is hard to find, since one must first of all clearly sees the dangers with the two extreme views ('There is a self', and 'there is no self'.). ............. >Dieter: I wonder , whether the Venerable, despite some kind of scorning about his approach , would not be already quite satisfied that his article at least initiated discussion, contemplation, Dhamma Vicaya... ;-) >T: To be aware of what other people are talking about his article, and choose not to react to accusations and scorns is also a skillful strategy. Tep === #79190 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:15 pm Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. buddhistmedi... Hi RobertK (Dieter, KenH, and others), - Thank you for giving an opinion regarding the TB's position. > > Robert K: > In the article posted by Dieter it says > > ""After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic THERAVADA position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation > for the five aggregates. "" > > Venerable Thanissaro then goes on to make it clear that he does not agree with the Thervada position. He is of course fully entitled to reject Theravada positions. However, I would think that Buddhist who have faith in the Theravada are also entitled to reject the Venerable's beliefs. > ......... T: That sounded like a retaliation to me. ;-) Tep === #79191 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Swee Boon > > A simple analogy would be would you able to control your body not to > grow old or dies. If body could be control, then we would live > forever and ever. There is no need to learn the dhamma anymore as we > would not die. > Kind regards > Ken O >>> There is a difference between lack of control on "macro" level (aging & death) and "micro" (bending & extending the limbs) stage. If one wants to extend one's arm, one does it. If one wants to sit, one sits. Lots of Metta, Alex #79192 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]To Sarah: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) buddhistmedi... Hi Sarah, - Thanks again for your suggestion concerning how the story should be (properly) read. > T: If "the substantial part of the Patisambhidamagga was elaborated in the 3rd century B.C." , then how could "the last main stage of composition of the Patisambhidamagga" take place in the early or mid- > 2nd century B.C.? ... S: The way I read it was that there were several main stages (the most substantial being the 3rd century one). ........... T: But, how much confidence do you have on the dates of historical events when the author used lots of words like "maybe", "this would mean", "this appears", "took place in ... or ..." ? ............ >S: In another post sometime ago (#76636), you asked why the teaching of the Abhidhamma was not included in any of his discourses or even in the Patisambhidamagga. I believe it most definitely was. These quotes indicate how the Psm supplements the Vibhanga and Dhammasangani, just as these texts supplement the Sutta-Pitaka. No need to separate Abhidhamma and Dhamma in my view. They are all about dhammas, realities, as taught by the Buddha. T: You have to consider the context of my message #76636; it is not expressing a doubt about the Abhidhamma as being incompatible with the Teachings in the Suttata-Pitaka. In fact it is about disproving the claim (made by friend RobertK) that the great Arahant Sariputta directly taught the Abhidhamma to his 500 disciples without first giving them the fundamental teachings in the Suttas and/or the Patism. > > T (to RobertK): And that is what it should be : a purpose of a monk in learning the Abhidhamma is to make it "easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law". So the Abhidhamma is supposed to support the main Teachings as expounded in the Sutta-Pitaka. Agree? .......... Tep === #79193 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control hantun1 Dear Howard, Howard: It seems to me that on the matter of "control" and in many other areas, we tend to forget about the middle-way approach. As an example: Some of us believe that we can control our thoughts. Others believe that to be absolute nonsense and that whatever thoughts arise is entirely beyond control. It seems to me that "getting real" about that would involve paying attention to what actually goes on. When it is deemed necessary by a student to do some math homework, s/he puts away whatever s/he has been doing and turns his/her attention and thinking to the problems. That is "control". On the other hand, much of the specific detail-of-thought that arises when thinking over the problems is not at all planned or consciously hammered out, and just flows along "on its own" - and that is *not* control. If it is thought that "control" requires a self/agent who is controller, then there is no control. On the other hand, if by "control" one only means willful expenditure of energy that contributes to eventual results, there *is* control. If by the exercise of "control" one means the ability to make things be as one wants them to be by mere wish and whim ("Let this be that."), then there is no control. If, on the other hand, one means that volitional actions can be taken that will serve as a few conditions among many that lead to desired results, there *is* control. Can we hold our breath? Of course!! (Control) Can we hold it indefinitely? Of course not!! (No control) -------------------- Han: I like your post about ‘control’ very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #79194 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:09 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy buddhistmedi... Hi Alex, - You seem to have inexhaustible energy for non-stop Dhamma discussion. Perhaps your body building actions in the early years are giving you the fruits of the labor now. ;-)) -- What is the 'attentive stillness' and how do you practice it? -- You say that Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi "makes mistakes in the introduction (A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma) and it seems that he says different things in different places". As a person who is not familiar with the abhidhamma, that was a tall remark! How do you know that this highly-accomplished, highly-knowledgable and extremely-intelligent venerable makes such mistakes? Defend your position ! Be fair ! Tep === #79195 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (39) hantun1 Dear Connie, Nina and others, The Text: “The recluse who was unable to apply mindfulness, went inside, seized the queen by her hand and then they gave themselves over to misconduct.” -------------------- Han: It reminds me of Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article on Right Speech - Samma Vacca, http://www.audiodharma.org/documents/paramis/RightSpeech.html in which he wrote: “It is said that in the course of his long training for enlightenment over many lives, a bodhisatta can break all the moral precepts except the pledge to speak the truth.” -------------------- Here, one thing bothers me. Is telling lies worse than killing, or stealing, or adultery? Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that Bodhisatta Haarita would commit such sexual misconduct. He should have thought of the King who trusted him and provided him with food and shelter for twelve years. In Burma we used to say that if you want to eat monkey, you should look at the monkey’s face. Before World War II some tribal people in remote places of Northern Burma ate monkey. When the monkey was brought down from the tree by an arrow, the hunter cut its throat and drank the blood straight from the neck. As the life was flowing away, the monkey, clasping the hunter’s head, looked at the hunter like a baby looking at his mother’s face. It was a pathetic sight, and once seen a monkey’s face in this manner, a person may not wish to kill it again, let alone eat it. [It is good that we do not have any more such practice now.] When we apply the above saying to day-to-day events, we include also the victim’s relative whom we have to consider. For example, if I want to harm my teacher’s son, even if the son may not be a good person, I have to think of his father who was my teacher and benefactor; and then I will not harm the son because of his father. In a similar manner, in this Jataka story, even in the moments of passion, Haarita should think of the King who was his benefactor. I do not know whether I can say that the “conditions” for such misconduct and the “conditions” for not thinking of the King, arose in the mind of Haarita at that time? It also reminds me of the Buddha’s words in Anguttara Nikaya, Book of Ones: “No other form do I know, O monks, that so persists in obsessing the mind of a man as the form of a woman. The form of a woman persists in obsessing the mind of a man.” Naaham bhikkhave a~n~nam ekaruupampi samanupassaami, yam evam purisassa cittam pariyaadaaya titthati. Yathayidam bhikkhave itthiruupam. Itthiruupam bhikkhave purisassa cittam pariyaadaaya titthatiiti. Yes, itthi-ruupam is indeed very powerful! mettaa, Han #79196 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:29 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Dear KO: Good arguments but how can you prove there is no such thing as a self ? I can prove there is! According to the Webster Unabridged Dictionary, the definition of self (self), n., pl. selves, adj., pron., pl. selves, v.: -n. 1. a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality: one's own self. 2. a person's nature, character, etc.: his better self. 3. personal interest. 4. Philos. a. the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc. b. the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience. To believe you don't exist would be considered delusional to most psychologists. Some would even go as far as to thing you must be suffering from some form of self-hate. How would you prove them wrong? I you can't use: "Because the Buddha said it!" That would force me to said some thing like, "Oh ye how blindly accepts only part of what is written as the finial Truth, please remember the kalma sutra." I am warming up so there is more to come if you can handle it ! Charles DaCosta PS: if self "what ever" still arises in you, it is ok I will understand. _____ #79197 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:44 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Reincarnation and Buddhism dacostacharles Hi Evelyn Some Buddhist believe Mind re- reincarnates, other believe .. Some believe it is a contamination from Hinduism. There are sutras that point to it though. Some times I believe in it some times I don't. I always believe that the issue is relative. Charles DaCosta _____ #79198 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:02 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet HI ALex (ps to Tep) > While direct control is not possible in many situations, you can > indirectly control it through the kamma you make. Ph: OK, I am more comfortable with "indirectly control" or "influence" than "control" which suggests mastery that just isn't there - certainly not for us, anyways. But no doubt that applying the Buddha's teaching - seeing the teaching as decisive condition or whatever - has a hugely beneficial influence on dhammas! Praise the Buddha for that influence! > > What can be done is to use Wisdom as opposed to Ignorance, stop > craving after feelings, etc. > Ph: Absolutely. I think it would be truer to say "wisdom is used" rather than "use wisdom." But it certainly feels like using wisdom in an intentional way, and its very good for us and others. I think in particular of one very good sutta in AN, which I'd like to post at some point. First wisdom is used to discriminate between the wholesome and unwholesome, and then energy takes over to apply to abandoning that unwholesome or applying the wholesome. "We" don't do it, not truly, but there is definitely a notion of we that are doing it. We can put that "we" to good use! :) Metta, Phil p.s Tep, I'll be back to you on this thread later. #79199 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy lbidd2 Hi Dieter, Dieter: "What [do] you mean by an alternative to reasoning about actions enacted in previous lives? Presented to us here and now is previous kamma (incl.but not only that from previous lives) .. Larry: By "reasoning about actions enacted in previous lives" I mean speculations about actions of body, speech, and mind committed in previous lives which are the cause of present seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. These actions can't be known yet the Buddha recommends that we contemplate such a scenario. The alternative I proposed is mindfulness of the ever changing mind. The Buddha seemed to think attachment to mind was too great for this alternative. So perhaps contemplation of the dependent arising of kamma and kamma result is the best way. What do you think? Larry