#79200 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:41 pm Subject: Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > -- What is the 'attentive stillness' and how do you practice it? >>>>>> I think that good translation of Samadhi is not concentration but attentive stillness. Attentive = you aren't asleep but very mindful Stillness = mind is slowed down or stopped and being observed. The instructions are found in Anapanasati sutta. > -- 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 > === > I may have expressed it incorrectly. What I wanted to say that Ven B.B. (I am grateful for his generally good translations of thr suttas) seems to contradict himself. Somewhere on this Board, I've discussed his contradictions in his Introduction. Some topics where I've talked about: 77288 77262 77263 I'd have so many discussions that I can't seem to find where I've analyzed his intro to Abhidhamma. Those who don't see contradictions in this statement will probably not understand other things I have to say about this topic: On pg3 "The Abhidhamma may be described as a philosophy because it proposes an ontology, a perspectiveon the nature of the real. This perspective has been designated as the "dhamma theory" (dhammavada). Briefly, the dhamma theory maintains that ultimate reality consists of a multiplicity of elementary constituents called dhammas. The dhamms are not noumenon hidden behind phenomena, not "things in themselves" as opposed to mere appearances", but the fundamental components of actuality... The entities of our everyday frame of reference possesses merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational statum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. ... a sharp wedge must be driven between those types of entities that possess ontological ultimacy, that is, the dhammas..." Take a moment and read the above paragraph. Do you notice play of words? Answer is below: "The dhammas are not noumenon hidden behind phenomena, not "things in themselves" as opposed to mere appearances", Vs: It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" . Two gross contradictions. If someone isn't sharp enough to see them, that person will not see others. Anyhow I don't want to be drawn in debates. Lots of Metta, Alex #79201 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:50 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... buddhistmedi... Hi RobertK, Elaine, Swee, Alex (and Phil), - Thank you Robert for the sutta quote that (you think) supports the argument that the khandhas are completely NOT controllable. First, let's hear what other friends here have to say. >Elaine: 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. >Swee: 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. >Alex: 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. .................... T: Now is my turn for a one-million-dollar-worth of comment. This Aggivessana Sutta is not different from the Anattalakkhana Sutta with regard to the anatta principle. 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. ... [T: He repeated the same for feelings, perceptions, determination, and consciousness.] Yes, Robert, to "wield power over" the ruupa and naama is the same as to CONTROL them. Now, what about the meaning of 'self'? Using several other suttas on the meaning of self (atta), I have no doubt that most of the time (with a few exceptions; see DN 9) self means an everlasting ego-identity that behaves exactly as you wish or command. There is no such a thing! Why? We know that both name and form are NOT everlasting; therefore they DO NOT behave EXACTLY as we wish them (command/control them) to be exactly as we want ALL THE TIME. Sometimes they behave so very well and we love them, but other times they do not, and we hate them. We take a medicine. We rest and eat good food and we feel well again. We have a facelift, and we look young once more ! Yes, we CAN control them to a certain degree, but they don't last in the new state for very long; of course, they will misbehave and deteriorate again. Following the Buddha's teaching I have no trouble understanding that each khandha is not a self and all five khandhas are not a self in regard to the perfect definition of everlasting & reamaining in the single perfect condition all the time. And that's exactly what the anatta principle means. The anatta principle does not deny the fact that name and form are manipulable or controllable with some degree of success, some of the time but not all the time. The magical everlasting self is ABSOLUTELY controllable according to wishes and commands. The imperfect, impermanent, inconstant, alterable, changeable name and form (or khandhas) are PARTIALLY controllable through proper control of the supporting conditions. I have no problem accepting the truth that "all things are not self", but not-self is one thing and perfect uncontrollability is another as Elaine has pointed out. Swee goes on to say that the permanent truth of anatta is in itself uncontrollable, but it does not mean that the five khandhas (and the three kinds of action) are not controllable. Alex comes along and shows by an example that ruupa khandha is controllable. Tep === #79202 From: Elaine Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:18 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy shennieca Hi Charles, Thanks for your e-m. There are so many interpretations of anatta, it is quite impossible for unenlightened worldlings to come to a consensus of what anatta is. Even in the olden days, after our Buddha parinibbana, there are already factions that don't agree to certain things. After 2500 years, I'm sure even the most basic teaching will get diluted. Imo, the best way is to find out what "anatta is" is with direct experience - meditate. If I'm not mistaken, a Sotapanna still have a sense of self, they still have lust. Only an Anagamin does not have lust. I believe that in everyone of us, the sense of Self is very strong. Everything is me and mine; views, personality, material goods, everything is my Self. Life itself is Self, isn't it? Some people can say that they don't have any sense of self at all but I don't believe them. I can say, "Oh! This pain is not me! This pain is not mine!", but will the sensation of pain be reduced by just convincing myself like that? I think, I will still feel the pain. With the anatta teachings, if the people still feel the pain, they will ask, "What is our Buddha talking about? Buddha said feelings are not self but why am I hurting?" It will become confusion. What they say and believe is not the same as what they experience. So, I believe the teachings of anatta has to be strategic in this sense. It should Not confuse beginners. The main theme in Ajahn Thanissaro's teachings is meditation, direct experience. No one can lie to you, if you experienced it yourself. :-)) If you ate an apple and it's sweet, someone come and say that apple is salty, you know immediately who's right and wrong. I've never believed what the puthujjanas have to say about not-self. If someone know all the 52 cetasikas, would it lessen their feelings of pain a little bit? Oh well, I hope so for them. When a person meditated and see for themselves the nature of pain, only then they will never be afraid of it (I've not been there yet). Warmest regards, Elaine -------------------------------------- #79203 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy truth_aerator Hi Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > Thanks for your e-m. > > There are so many interpretations of anatta, it is quite impossible for unenlightened worldlings to come to a consensus of what anatta is. Even in the olden days, after our Buddha parinibbana, there are already factions that don't agree to certain things. > > After 2500 years, I'm sure even the most basic teaching will get diluted. Imo, the best way is to find out what "anatta is" is with direct experience - meditate. > > If I'm not mistaken, a Sotapanna still have a sense of self, they still have lust. Only an Anagamin does not have lust. >>>> -- Nanavira Thera's letter regarding Sotapanna ------- I venture to think that if you actually read through the whole of the Vinaya and the Suttas you would be aghast at some of the things a real live sotápanna is capable of. As a bhikkhu he is capable of suicide (but so also is an arahat -- I have already quoted examples); he is capable of breaking all the lesser Vinaya rules (M. 48: i,323- 5; A. III,85: i,231-2); he is capable of disrobing on account of sensual desires (e.g. the Ven. Citta Hatthisáriputta -- A. VI,60: iii,392-9); he is capable (to some degree) of anger, ill-will, jealousy, stinginess, deceit, craftiness, shamelessness, and brazenness (A. II,16: i,96). As a layman he is capable (contrary to popular belief) of breaking any or all of the five precepts (though as soon as he has done so he recognizes his fault and repairs the breach, unlike the puthujjana who is content to leave the precepts broken). There are some things in the Suttas that have so much shocked the Commentator that he has been obliged to provide patently false explanations (I am thinking in particular of the arahat's suicide in M. 144: iii,266 and in the Saláyatana Samy. 87: iv,55-60 and of a drunken sotápanna in the Sotápatti Samy. 24: v,375-7). What the sotápanna is absolutely incapable of doing is the following (M. 115: iii,64-5): -- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) To take any determination (sankhára) as permanent, To take any determination as pleasant, To take any thing (dhamma) as self, To kill his mother, To kill his father, To kill an arahat, Maliciously to shed a Buddha's blood, To split the Sangha, To follow any teacher other than the Buddha. All these things a puthujjana can do. Why am I glad that you are shocked to learn that a sekha bhikkhu can be fond of talk (and worse)? Because it gives me the opportunity of insisting that unless you bring the sekha down to earth the Buddha's Teaching can never be a reality for you. So long as you are content to put the sotápanna on a pedestal well out of reach, it can never possibly occur to you that it is your duty to become sotápanna yourself (or at least to make the attempt) here and now in this very life; for you will simply take it as axiomatic that you cannot succeed. As Kierkegaard puts it, Whatever is great in the sphere of the universally human must...not be communicated as a subject for admiration, but as an ethical requirement. (CUP, p. 320) This means that you are not required to admire a sotápanna, but to become one. Let me illustrate the matter in a different way. It is possible that you were living as a young man in India in the Buddha's day, and that at the same time there was a young girl of a neighbouring family who had been with her parents to hear the Buddha teach. And she may have understood the Buddha's Teaching and become sotápanna. And perhaps she might have been given to you in marriage. And you, being a puthujjana, would not know that she was a sekha (for remember, a puthujjana cannot recognize an ariya -- an ariya can only be recognized by another ariya). But even though she was sotápanna she might have loved you, and loved being loved by you, and loved bearing your children, and enjoyed dressing beautifully and entertaining guests and going to entertainments, and even been pleased at the admiration of other men. And she might have taken a pride in working to keep your house in order, and enjoyed talking to you and to your friends and relations. But every now and again, when she was alone, she would have called to mind her sotápanna's understanding of the true nature of things and been secretly ashamed and disgusted at still finding delight in all these satisfactions (which she would see as essentially dukkha). But, being busy with her duties and pleasures as your wife, she would not have had the time to do much practice, and would have had to be content with the thought that she had only seven more human births to endure at the most. Now suppose that one day you had gone to see the Buddha, and he had told you that your wife was not a puthujjana like yourself, but an ariya, one of the Elect -- would you have been content to put her out of reach on a pedestal (where she would, no doubt, have been very unhappy), saying to yourself 'Ah, that is too difficult an attainment for a humble person like me'? Or would not rather your masculine pride have been stung to the quick and be smarting at the thought that your devoted and submissive wife should be 'one advanced in the Dhamma', while you, the lord and master of the household, remained an ordinary person? I think, perhaps, that you would have made an effort at least to become the equal of your wife. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett6d.htm --- Lots of Metta, Alex #79204 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "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: This doesn't mean anything to me. 'Letting go'. What is that? I think this is merely empty rhetoric. Please describe this 'letting go' because it still sounds to me as if you are suggesting that one can do something to let go. I don't think that the term 'practising seeing' is any better. It still sounds like 'doing'. You are not convincing me because you are merely exchanging words for words. 'Practising' is what you do when learning to play the guitar. And even that is bhaavanaa and completely impersonal. It all is. A: "Scott, why do you seem so less-than-enthusiastic about Bhavana?" Scott: More armchair psychology aside, what on earth do I have to be enthusiastic for? Is this a hockey game? Am I cheering for something? Do you know what I think enthusiasm is? Lobha. Nothing more. I think bhaavanaa is nothing special. It goes on moment to moment whether I think so or not and has done back into an infinite past. It is simply the way it is: dhammas develop. The fact that it is mostly akusala bhaavaana would explain why we are having this discussion. The fact that some of it is kusala bhaavanaa would also explain why we are having this discussion. Sincerely, Scott. #79205 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:55 pm Subject: Kin~ncana scottduncan2 Dear Interested Parties, In the Mahaavedalla Sutta, MN 43 (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi), I read this: "Lust is a something, hate is a something, delusion is a something. In a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, these are abandoned, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with so that they are no longer subject to future arising. Of all the kinds of immearsurable deliverance of mind, the unshakeable deliverance of mind is pronounced the best. Now that unshakeable deliverance of mind is void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion." Raago kho aavuso ki~ncano, doso ki~ncano, moho ki~ncano. Te khii.naasavassa bhikkhuno pahiinaa ucchinnamuulaa taalaavatthukataa anabhaavakataa aayati.m anuppaadadhammaa. Yaavataa kho aavuso aaki~nca~n~naa cetovimuttiyo, akuppaa taasa.m cetovimutti aggamakkhaayati. Saa kho panaakuppaa cetovimutti su~n~naa raagena, su~n~naa dosena, su~n~naa mohena. Note 454. "The word ki~ncana is explained by MA as meaning 'impediment' or 'obstacle'. ~Naa.namoli rendered it as 'owning'. I have gone back to the original meaning 'something' to maintain coherence with the statement that its abandonment issues in deliverance of mind through nothingness." PTS PED: "Ki~ncana (adj. -- nt.) [kiĹ‹+cana, equal to kiĹ‹+ci, indef. pron.] only in neg. sentences: something, anything. From the freq. context in the older texts it has assumed the moral implication of something that sticks or adheres to the character of a man, and which he must get rid of, if he wants to attain to a higher moral condition. ... Def. as the 3 impurities of character (raaga, dosa, moha ... (adding maana, di.t.thi, kilesa, duccarita); as obstruction (palibujjhana), consisting in raaga, etc..." Scott: I had thought, upon reading the sutta passage, that this might be an example of abhidhamma in the suttas: a statement to the effect that raaga (or any mental factor) has ultimate reality or is 'something'. Upon reading the various interpretations of the translators, I wasn't so sure. I don't know if MA defines ki~ncana as 'impediment' or 'obstacle' for this sutta in particular or not. Bh. Bodhi chooses to offer his own neo-commentary, bypassing the Commentaries, and choosing to use 'something' instead of 'obstacle' or 'impediment'. Any comments? Sincerely, Scott. #79206 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:08 am Subject: Today is Il Poya Day! bhikkhu0 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Today is Il Poya day; full-moon of November. This holy day celebrates: 1: The Buddha Gotama’s declaration of the next Buddha Metteyya . 2: The sending out in the world of the 60 missionary Arahats 3: The passing away of the general of the Dhamma: Sariputta . 4: The Buddha's 1st explanation of Ä€nÄ?pÄ?nasati Breathing Meditation . On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accept to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one’s own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards NibbÄ?na: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... <....> Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <.....> #79207 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kin~ncana sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > In the Mahaavedalla Sutta, MN 43 (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi), I read this: > > "Lust is a something, hate is a something, delusion is a something. > In a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, these are abandoned, cut off > at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with so that they are > no longer subject to future arising. Of all the kinds of > immearsurable deliverance of mind, the unshakeable deliverance of mind > is pronounced the best. Now that unshakeable deliverance of mind is > void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion." > > Raago kho aavuso ki~ncano, doso ki~ncano, moho ki~ncano. Te > khii.naasavassa bhikkhuno pahiinaa ucchinnamuulaa taalaavatthukataa > anabhaavakataa aayati.m anuppaadadhammaa. Yaavataa kho aavuso > aaki~nca~n~naa cetovimuttiyo, akuppaa taasa.m cetovimutti > aggamakkhaayati. Saa kho panaakuppaa cetovimutti su~n~naa raagena, > su~n~naa dosena, su~n~naa mohena. > > Note 454. "The word ki~ncana is explained by MA as meaning > 'impediment' or 'obstacle'. ..... Sarah: In the Vibhanga (PTS: Book of Analysis), under 'Analysis of Small Items', Threefold Exposition, we read about unwholesome states, including those listed under: - the three bad roots - three types of bad thinking - three types of bad perception - three bad elements - three defilements - three fetters - three types of craving - another three types of craving - three types of conceitedness - three bases of heresy and then: -'three types of impediment' Under this heading, it says: "Therein what are 'three types of impediment'? Impediment of lust; impediment of hatred; impediment of dullness. These are three (types of) impediment." The Pali is: "Tatha katame tayo ki~ncanaa? Raago ki~ncana.m doso ki~ncana.m moho ki~ncana.m. Ime tayo ki~ncanaa." This is referring to the same impediments/obstacles as in the passage you quote. I also don't understand why B.Bodhi has used 'something'. Metta, Sarah ========= #79208 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:37 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument philofillet Hi Sarah A long overdue reply... > > Yes, I was thinking afterwards that "look for" is fair enough. > > Whether we know it or not, we are all looking for comfort in Dhamma, > > I think. > ... > S: I'm pursuing this a little because it is something you've referred to > on a number of occasions and it may have some significance with regard to > various expectations and disappointments you find in what you read and > hear. > > I mentioned that this looking for/finding emotional comfort in Dhamma > didn't ring a bell for me. Last night I conducted a survey in Hong Kong. I > asked Jon if it rang any kind of bell for him at all and he expressed the > same sentiment as I had. Certainly I've never heard him even hint at > anything along these lines at all. So there you have it, 100% of us here > either don't look for/find emotional comfort in the Dhamma (or else the > 100% are seriously deluded:-). Ph: Wow, this is interesting. I know you're being 100% honest as well. I personally get a lot of emotional comfort out of thinking/believing/clinging to making progress in getting rid of certain bad habits of body, speech and mind. And on bad days, I get such pleasure out of picking up a book of suttas and leafing through...emotional comfort in being connected to the Dhamma, protected by the Dhamma, solaced by the Dhamma. Baby and his milk on those bad days. That's fine. > .... > > But it's nice when it comes in unexpected ways. For me, for > > example, Alysson's post on burning conditioned comfort today. There > > was a pleasant metta-ish feeling all day because of reflection on > > all of us, the all, all burning with greed, hatred and delusion. > ... > S: I thought it was the 12 ayatanas, the all, that were blazing...blazing > on account of their impermanence. All truly unsatisfactory and certainly > not worth clinging to. Ph: I think because of the mental object ayatana, the ayatanas can really extend to "the all", can't they? I'll have to check that sutta again. I really thought burning with greed, hatred and delusion was in there. > .... > > Just what is comforting in that? If there was real insight into it > > it would be terrifying, > ... > S: I don't think so. When there is any wisdom, there's no fear. Ph: Yes, no trouble for the wise. But I've heard or read something about insight being debilitating or overwhelming or something when one is not ready for it. Thus the jhanas as a kind of safe retreat or something along that line? > > so I guess there is a pleasant attachment to > > reading and reflecting on suttas, or Abhidhamma, or whatever and > > having a kind of bookstore Buddhist wisdom. And that's fine. It > > conditions me to be a more gentle, more patient person and that's > > really all I'm interested in, for now at least. Deeper understanding > > may come along. > ... > S: I think it's a degree of understanding, rather than the pleasant > attachment which conditions the appreciation and growth of more gentle and > patient qualities, especially metta. Ph: Yes, I'm feeling that way these days. My interest in "understanding"seems to be reviving. > As you say, deeper understanding may or may not develop. We know it > depends on conditions, rather than any wishing or special intention. I'm > glad to see, for example, that you're still carefully considering the > Visuddhimagga, Conditions, Rupas and other readings in spite of declared > other intentions:-). Ph: Yes, the interest in such topics is still there. But I do believe that this understanding will develop more thoroughly in a shelter made by phil's ego motivated by the notion of being a more wholesome person, motivated by the Buddha's straightforward teaching as found in AN. (Just having a look at that very tough sutta Scott posted from MN reminded me how much easier AN suttas are, and how I dispute the AS contention that only people of developed understanding can understand suttas properly) Anyways, all a lot of conceptual plotting, the need for which will gradually be done away with when dhammas/realities are better understood. (I prefer "dhammas" to "realities.") Oh! That's all....I thought your post was much longer... Metta, Phil #79209 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:08 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 2 14. Ti.msanipaato 1. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa Atha na.m ekadivasa.m a~n~nataro raajagahavaasii dhuttapuriso taru.no pa.thamayobbane .thito jiivakambavane divaavihaaraaya gacchanti.m disvaa pa.tibaddhacitto hutvaa magga.m ovaranto kaamehi nimantesi. Saa tassa naanappakaarehi kaamaana.m aadiinava.m attano ca nekkhammajjhaasaya.m pavedentii dhamma.m kathesi. So dhammakatha.m sutvaapi na pa.tikkamati, nibandhatiyeva. Therii na.m attano vacane ati.t.thanta.m akkhimhi ca abhiratta.m disvaa, "handa, tayaa sambhaavita.m akkhin"ti attano eka.m akkhi.m uppaa.tetvaa tassa upanesi. Tato so puriso santaaso sa.mvegajaato tattha vigataraagova hutvaa theri.m khamaapetvaa gato. Therii satthu santika.m agamaasi. Satthuno saha dassanenevassaa akkhi pa.tipaakatika.m ahosi. Tato saa buddhagataaya piitiyaa nirantara.m phu.taa hutvaa a.t.thaasi. Satthaa tassaa cittaacaara.m ~natvaa dhamma.m desetvaa aggamaggatthaaya kamma.t.thaana.m aacikkhi. Saa piiti.m vikkhambhetvaa taavadeva vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m paapu.ni. Arahatta.m pana patvaa phalasukhena nibbaanasukhena viharantii attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa attanaa tena ca dhuttapurisena vuttagaathaa udaanavasena- Then one day, a certain young rogue who lived in Raajagaha and who was in the flower of his youth, saw her going to Jiivakamba Grove as her daytime resting place. He became enamoured of her, blocked her path, and enticed her with sensual pleasures. She made known to him in various ways the dangers in sensual pleasures and her own inclination to renunciation. And she taught him the Doctrine. When he heard the talk on the Doctrine, however, he did not repent but persisted. The therii saw that he did not acquiesce to her word and that he was very infatuated with her eye[s]. "See here, you!" she said. "This eye is highly esteemed by you." And tearing out one of her eyes, she offered it to him. Then a profound stirring arose in that trembling man, and his passion disappeared there and then. He begged the therii's pardon and went away. Then the therii went to the Teacher. At the sight of the Teacher, her eye was restored. Then she stood there suffused with uninterrupted joy with regard to the Buddha. The Teacher, knowing her state of mind, taught her the Doctrine and explained a subject of meditation in order for her to gain the highest path. Discarding her joy, she immediately increased her insight and gained the state of Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. Then having attained Arahatship, she dwelt in the happiness of the fruition state and in the happiness of quenching. Then looking over her attainment and using the verses spoken by her and the rogue as her solemn utterance, she repeated these verses: RD: Now one day a certain libertine of Raajagaha, in the prime of youth, was standing in the Jiivaka Mango-grove, and saw her going to siesta; and feeling enamoured, he barred her way, soliciting her to sensual pleasures. She declared to him by many instances the bane of sensuous pleasures and her own choice of renunciation, teaching him the Norm. Even then he was not cured, but persisted. The Therii, not stopping short at her own words, and seeing his passion for the beauty of her eyes, extracted one of them, and handed it to him, saying: 'Come, then! here is the offending eye of her!' Thereat the man was horrified and appalled and, his lust all gone, asked her forgiveness. The Therii went to the Master's presence, and there, at sight of Him, her eye became as it was before. Thereat she stood vibrating with unceasing joy at the Buddha. The Master, knowing the state of her mind, taught her, and showed her exercise for reaching the highest. Repressing her joy, she developed insight, and attained Arahantship, together with thorough grasp of the Norm in form and meaning. Thereafter, abiding in the bliss and fruition of Nibbana, she, reflecting on what she had won, uttered her dialogue with the libertine in these verses: ===to be continued, connie #79210 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:16 am Subject: Re: Kin~ncana buddhistmedi... Dear Scott, - I very much appreciate your cetana to learn deeply into MN 43 and share it with "interested parties". I am one of them. >Scott: > Any comments? T: To me the most important passage is : "Of all the kinds of immearsurable deliverance of mind, the unshakeable deliverance of mind is pronounced the best. Now that unshakeable deliverance of mind is void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion." It has been the strongest incentive for me everyday to get as close as possible to the mindstate that is "void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion". > Scott: I had thought, upon reading the sutta passage, that this might be an example of abhidhamma in the suttas: a statement to the effect that raaga (or any mental factor) has ultimate reality or is 'something'. T: Yes, I have the same thought that the mind state that is void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion is "an example of abhidhamma in the suttas". Thanks. Tep === #79211 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kin~ncana upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Scott) - In a message dated 11/24/2007 6:19:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: The Pali is: "Tatha katame tayo ki~ncanaa? Raago ki~ncana.m doso ki~ncana.m moho ki~ncana.m. Ime tayo ki~ncanaa." This is referring to the same impediments/obstacles as in the passage you quote. I also don't understand why B.Bodhi has used 'something'. =========================== The PTS dictionary gives "Kiñcana (adj.-- nt.) [kiĹ‹+cana, equal to kiĹ‹ +ci, indef. pron.] only in neg. sentences: something, anything. From the freq. context in the older texts it has assumed the moral implication of something that sticks or adheres to the character of a man, and which he must get" Perhaps that is why he renders it as "something". With metta, Howard #79212 From: Ken O Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:22 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy ashkenn2k Hi Charles I hope you do not mind me saying this, we are talking about dhamma here not about english dictionary. I neither surprised people keep saying we should have a healthy ego, this is the in thing now. Buddha always said not me, not I and not myself. Self in definition by Buddha is different from the dictionary. The dictionary is about a personality, a totality,. In Buddhism, self is an illusion, it is greed with ditthi or mano that we conceive that this self is real. Kind regards Ken O #79213 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:32 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: > > A: "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: This doesn't mean anything to me. 'Letting go'. What is that? >>> Then it is your problem I guess. When I meditate I practice not to grab anything as "I, me, mine". The more I am able to disable the atta reflexes, the deeper mind goes. The deeper mind goes (to the source), the more I see the impersonal process. That fuels even more relinquishing. For practical instructions, Anapasati Sutta is very good place to start. Ultimately one doesn't need to know how every single microchip works in a car, in order to get from point A to point B. Basic understanding of driving will do. N8P is the path towards Nibbana. Lots of Metta, Alex #79214 From: Ken O Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ashkenn2k Hi Alex hmm now you are using macro and micro. But when we use paramatha level and conventional level, you seems to object it :-) When you think you flex you arm everytime you like is basically the citta conditions the rupa to do it. Then we should ask what condition the arm to do it? Is it "I" want that condition it? So does this "I" belongs to you :-). Think about it. Cheers Kind regards Ken O #79215 From: Ken O Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Tep I have spoken enough of this and please allow me to stop discussing this. I just say again, the path and the truth are not strategy. There are universal laws Kind regards Ken O #79216 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:41 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Alex > > hmm now you are using macro and micro. But when we use paramatha > level and conventional level, you seems to object it :-) > > When you think you flex you arm everytime you like is basically the > citta conditions the rupa to do it. Then we should ask what > condition the arm to do it? Is it "I" want that condition it? So > does this "I" belongs to you :-). Think about it. Cheers > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > I knew the answer before I asked it. I simply wanted to see how you would reply. Lots of Metta, Alex #79217 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:44 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable nidive Hi Ken O, > 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. But I did not say that the body would not grow old and die. I said that our bodily, verbal & mental actions are controllable. "Growing old & dying" is a different issue than '"bodily actions" that accrues in merit or demerit'. "Growing old & dying" is old kamma. '"Bodily actions" that accrues in merit or demerit' is new kamma. We may not be able to control old kamma, but we certainly can control what sort of new kamma to accrue (and perhaps one day eventually root out all accruals by following the NEP). Swee Boon #79218 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Dear Venerable Dhammanando (Alex, Elain and others), > 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. > > > 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. >> 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. > 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. > +++++++++ Dear Dieter, You quoted a part of the essay where TB says that he disagrees with the classical Theravada position on anatta. He is surely allowed to do that. I certainly don't take it personally even though I happen to fully accept the classical Theravada position. But also I feel entitled to disagree. However, on dsg (which if you read the group homepage specifies that it is based on Theravada) there are outcries about slander, scorn and hatred because some members disagree with some of the views of one popular bhikkhu. Yet the classical Theravada position has been accepted by how many million Theravada monk since the time of the third council (over 2000 years) until now - Why is it no one feels those monks have been scorned? No one is casting aspersions on his character, merely debating some subtle but nevertheless important points about Dhamma. BTW I would be happy never to mention a name and just, as Bhikkhu Bodhi did, specify 'others', However, when quotes and references are produced from the actual essay with the authors name it becomes a moot point. Robert #79219 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "Then it is your problem I guess." Scott: That's not saying anything. Except, of course, that you know so much more than I and communicate the sentiment in this fashion. Look, if one is to discuss Dhamma, which activity is kusala, one ought to descend from the superficial level of rhetoric, cheer-leading, the rote repetition of catch-phrases, and evangelical fervour. A: "When I meditate I practice not to grab anything as 'I, me, mine'. The more I am able to disable the atta reflexes, the deeper mind goes. The deeper mind goes (to the source), the more I see the impersonal process. That fuels even more relinquishing..." Scott: Alex, please show me how this is anything but words. You write about 'not to grab anything as I, me, mine'. But read it: 'I meditate', 'I practise', 'I am able to disable the atta reflexes', '...I see the impersonal process'. You are just thinking, Alex. Just thinking. And they seem to excite you, your thoughts. A: "For practical instructions, Anapasati Sutta is very good place to start." Scott: Stop preaching. A: "Ultimately one doesn't need to know how every single microchip works in a car, in order to get from point A to point B. Basic understanding of driving will do. N8P is the path towards Nibbana." Scott: Spare me. Sincerely, Scott. #79220 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" moellerdieter Hi Ken O and Tep, I hope you do not mind a comment between.. Ken wrote: 'I have spoken enough of this and please allow me to stop discussing this. I just say again, the path and the truth are not strategy. There are universal laws' D: I say the 4 Noble Truths are the universal law ( proclaimed by the Buddhas of all times) of which the 8fold Noble Path is the strategy , the raft for the other shore , in order to realise the 3rd Noble Truth , cessation of suffering .. nibbana. Nibanna , the (utimate) truth, is not strategy .. but the path leading to it, is . with Metta Dieter #79221 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:09 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. sukinderpal Hi Dieter, > 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. ================== Have you taken upon yourself to be a Dhamma Police or something? Did it not ever occur to you that to be doing such a thing might smell of conceit? When you pointed out to me my criticism of A. Mun's views, it was reasonable to some extent. When you came out to defend TB against Ken H's views, this I understood as being mostly because you agree with his teachings and respect him for that. In both these cases you came up with what I consider to be silly arguments to defend the Bhikkhus concerned. But even that I considered to be `your' problem. But this is too much!! While you so easily point a finger at others for saying what they did in relation to the Bhikkhus concerned, you are here so arrogantly judging another Bhikkhu's Sila and this so quickly after reading just TWO posts! And while I and Ken were talking in terms of "view", one of a Bhikkhu long dead and another of one who may not even hear about this discussion, you are criticizing Ven. Dhammanando in his face in front of many who know him personally. Ken, Ven. Dhammanando and I, we are interested in Dhamma anytime, over `persons'. This is because we respect the Dhamma more than anything else. Hurt feelings should not stop anyone from discussing this once in many lifetime chance of hearing and discussing the Dhamma. You on the other hand seem more interested in judging people's Sila over whether some monk may be propagating Wrong View in the name of Dhamma!? You say that Ken has not given any clear evidence of TB being wrong, but have you considered the possibility of your own inability to recognize the facts provided due to possibly being blinded by attachment to TB / a bhikkhu? Now that I have given vent to my anger, and so as not to cause the moderators to feel even more uncomfortable, I'd like to express my view on the Dhamma. I followed Ken H and brought out this matter about "not-self strategy". Tep hasn't answered my mail and since then I avoided getting involved in the discussions. But here it is: -Each moment there are only dhammas arising and falling away, each conditioned by other dhammas and all these with the characteristics of Anicca, Dukkha and ANATTA. -These dhammas can be known / understood now (without any excuse) as per any level of sati and panna conditioned to arise. -No matter what this level of panna may be, to know and study these dhammas NOW is the only way, the Middle Way. -Off this, means getting lost in ideas about the past and future. And this can never be the Middle Way. -All talk about positions between extremes, if these do not condition an interest to knowing the present reality, it is just that "talk" / "philosophy". -Ideas about `doings' / meditation, involving time, place and posture is such kind of talk in terms of past and future and not about `this moment', now. -Actually it does not even matter that there is almost never any understanding from moment to moment. As long as one understands that this is because these are "conditioned" and one is not lured to ideas about "doing" something else instead, this reflect confidence in the Truth. On the other hand, when one entertains ideas such as `meditation' etc, it could well be due to a struggle against the truth and being driven by Tanha and Miccha Ditthi. -The "Practice" is Satipatthana. -This is knowing the characteristics of a present moment reality directly. -If satipatthana arises, it is conditioned. If ignorance arises, this too is just another conditioned reality. -We can understand this slowly and gradually starting with Pariyatti. -But characteristic of present moment dhammas are indeed the *only* valid object of knowledge. So let us not encourage any other form of practice. -It is through understanding this that "detachment" ever occurs. -TB's `not-self strategy' is an idea superimposed on to an experience. This can only encourage "thinking about" at the expense of any consideration about that very present moment reality. -In other words, it is discouraging of *true* satipatthana even while claiming to be a "tool" for it. -Can drawing the attention away from the present moment reality (of thinking) and the possibility hence of knowing at that very instant, "anatta" directly, and instead to be encouraging an "attitude" (re:strategy) ever lead to knowing dhammas directly later on? Fat chance! -Anyone who believes in the effectiveness of such kind of ideas are therefore being drawn away from the Right Practice!! Actually by now I am having a mind not to post this, but I'll do it having spent much time in composing it, hope that you will not mind. :-) Metta, Sukin #79222 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kin~ncana scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the clarification: S: "The Pali is: 'Tatha katame tayo ki~ncanaa? Raago ki~ncana.m doso ki~ncana.m moho ki~ncana.m. Ime tayo ki~ncanaa.' This is referring to the same impediments/obstacles as in the passage you quote. I also don't understand why B.Bodhi has used 'something'." Scott: Nor I. Sammohavinodanii 2445 has: "Ki~ncana ('ownings') are holdings onto (palibodha)... Raago ki~ncana.m ('greed is an owning'): when greed arises it binds beings and holds onto them, therefore it is called an 'owning'. So also with hate and delusion." Sincerely, Scott. #79223 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:26 am Subject: Re: Kin~ncana scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thank you very much for: T: "I very much appreciate your cetana to learn deeply into MN 43 and share it with "interested parties". I am one of them..." Scott: I think Bh. Bodhi took the liberty of offering his own opinion in the case of his translation. Raaga is a mental factor, but this sutta isn't focusing on this particular aspect of Dhamma, as far as I can see, and as you point out. Some will understand 'mind state' differently as well, I think. Sincerely, Scott. #79225 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine (Kenh, Nina, Phil), I like your question very much; it is funny yet revealing the real problem behind insight development(vipassana bhavana) by a lay person. Does one need to be in seclusion and meditate (as suggested in several suttas), or can s/he see & know an arising paramattha dhamma with satipatthana and panna here & now, any place, any time ? Elaine: 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? T: Let me try to guess an answer, if you will. Observe the hardness of surfboard or football (whatever the case may be), Elaine. You can apply what Nina explained to you in a previous discussion, when she talked about the situation in a kitchen or in front of a computer. Nina (#78979): First the difference between reality and concept has to be known. And also the difference between the moments there is no sati and the moments with sati. Only pa~n~naa can realize this. It is of no use to think of stages of vipassana and to think about it who has attained it. The first stage of insight first: direct understanding of the different characteristics of nama and rupa, thus, of paramattha dhammas. Only at the third stage of insight the arising and falling away of nama and rupa is realized. Attending to the characteristics of dhammas that appear, but pa~n~naa and sati perform their functions, not we. The right attitude is very important. Now in another situation: in the kitchen, at the computer: seeing is always seeing, hardness is always hardness, there is no difference when we change the situation. Thus now you may see that it does not matter what we are doing, where we are. .......... I understand the Abhidhammaika's way More and more these days. No more am I the "Soup Spoon" That dhamma fool I used to be. ;-) Tep === #79226 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter Hi Sukinder, I appreciate your feedback ..though seemingly written with some steam behind... ;-) Today is not only Wan Phra, the day of the monk , as the uposatha days are called in Thailand, but as well Loy Krathong , where the Thai people float little vessels , beautiful constructed by banana leaves , incense sticks and candles inside , in the water anywhere Writers differ about the historical background .. but it has a lovely aspect when having one's own path in mind and the raft simile , hopefully steering in a noble direction . I think it is better to wait for the response of the Venerable , before replying to your mail.... with Metta Dieter #79227 From: Ken O Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ashkenn2k Hi Swee Boon maybe body is not a good illustration. When you said you control, when you meet something you dislike, anger arise within you. When this arise, was there a control there? Then one would say, after that dislike, I control myself not to be angry. This is the gist of all our discussions. In order to control our mind, the mind must not be forgetful, it must be mindful. Usually we would say I stop being angry or I have arisen the unarisen mindfulness. In the same way I ask Alex. If one think "I" have arouse mindfulness, is "I" yours, is "I" belong to you? In many a times, the sutta would say, exhort ourselves etc. This lead to even more confusion. To many, it is clear that Buddha talk about actions, control ourselves for salvations. Satipatthana is about understanding about the dislike that arise. When the dislike is understood as non-self, angry would subside. Where is there "I" to be found in such instances. Where is there a need to say I need to arise it. But again, there rise this questions then how do we follow a dhamma if we cannot control it? There is not such thing as by chance, our kusala or akusala arise. It arise due to a cause, a condition. And there is no such thing as a mechanical process for kamma, if it is, we would not get out of it. The camp who called for action would always question how do we people like us practise our dhamma. In a way, we are describle as non-action camp. We just say, lets study and listening to the dhamma. Lets understand reality. As I said in my earlier emails, the mind is incline to what we have done. This is for both ways, kusala and akusala. Understand realities, would incline our mind to the dhamma. Likewise, not having wise attention, would incline our mind to akusala. In another way, when reality arise, we understand it as a series of conditions, an intricacy of mind and mental, there is no self involved in these dhammas. This is how we practise, this how we guard our senses as when dhamma is understood as not self. it already guard against akusala as when kusala arise, akusala would not arise at the same moment. Kind regards Ken O #79228 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:15 am Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. buddhistmedi... Hi Sukin, - The last message of yours, that I have not yet replied, is #78783 on Nov 16th. Sukin (#79221): Tep hasn't answered my mail and since then I avoided getting involved in the discussions. T: Please accept my apology. I misunderstood you, thinking that you did not expect my reply. It was because you wrote : "Ps: Again I am quite behind in my reading, so please expect some delay in my response." T: If it is not too late to reply, I will be happy to do so. Just let me know. BTW I also am interested in responding to your opinion on the right practice versus the wrong practice you talked about in the message #79211. Are you no longer too busy? ;-) Tep === #79229 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote:> > I have spoken enough of this and please allow me to stop discussing > this. I just say again, the path and the truth are not strategy. > There are universal laws > > > Kind regards > Ken O > I (and other participants, I hope) are NOT arguing that self exists. I personally cannot take any of the 5 khandas as a self (on intellectual level). The argument is: Should one use Anatta also as a strategy or Be simply content with "This is the truth" and resting on the laurels (sp?). I believe that it is NOT enought merely to hold "anatta" as a dogmatic doctrine. One MUST investigate it (to know more and more sublteties) and ACT SELFLESSLY. Lots of Metta, Alex #79230 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter Dear Robert, thanks for your comment.. as mentioned in my mail to Sukin, I prefer to have a comment to my posting from Venerable Dhammanando before further responding. Of course you are entitled to disagree ,but I am still not sure, whether we both indeed do so.. Looking forward to progress in clarification.. with Metta Dieter #79231 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:54 am Subject: Re: 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: > > A: "Then it is your problem I guess." > > Scott: That's not saying anything. Except, of course, that you know > so much more than I and communicate the sentiment in this fashion. > Look, if one is to discuss Dhamma, which activity is kusala, one ought to descend from the superficial level of rhetoric, cheer- leading, the rote repetition of catch-phrases, and evangelical fervour. >>> If you failed to see what I was talking about, then the problem isn't with me. Maybe you are so advanced in your study that my basic comments are being misunderstood. My bad I guess. > > A: "When I meditate I practice not to grab anything as 'I, me, mine'. > The more I am able to disable the atta reflexes, the deeper mind goes. > The deeper mind goes (to the source), the more I see the impersonal > process. That fuels even more relinquishing..." > > Scott: Alex, please show me how this is anything but words. >>>> So you are saying "Show me the anatta". I can't do it, Buddha couldn't do it. You can lead a horse towards the water, but 40 men wouldn't force it drink. >>>>>>>>> You write about 'not to grab anything as I, me, mine'. But read it: 'I meditate', 'I practise', 'I am able to disable the atta reflexes', '...I see the impersonal process'. You are just thinking, Alex. Just thinking. And they seem to excite you, your thoughts. >>>>>> I've said before and I will tirelessly say again: I use "'I meditate', 'I practise', 'I am able to disable the atta reflexes' As means of communications, as linguistic conventions. I do not consider them to be atta. But in order for convinient (and grammatically proper) communication , I used, use and will use these expressions (without of course implying atta). Try to speak English without nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. > A: "For practical instructions, Anapasati Sutta is very good place to > start." > > Scott: Stop preaching. > > A: "Ultimately one doesn't need to know how every single microchip > works in a car, in order to get from point A to point B. Basic > understanding of driving will do. N8P is the path towards Nibbana." > > Scott: Spare me. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. >>>>> Your disrespect towards Dhamma is really showing. Even though I may be rude at times, I can't be THAT rude. IF you trully understand Anatta, then you will have absolutely no problem getting into deep Jhanas and perhaps Nirodha Samapatti. Please don't write wise excuses not to, that simply shows your delusion of Atta hard at work. I'll answer only your good questions. However, I see that this discussion (with you) isn't going in wholesome way, so I'll stop responding to you (until you stop bashing the Dhamma and N8P). Lots of Metta, wishing you the fastest progress, Alex #79232 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Then one would say, after that dislike, I control myself not to be > angry. This is the gist of all our discussions. In order to control > our mind, the mind must not be forgetful, it must be mindful. > Usually we would say I stop being angry or I have arisen the unarisen > mindfulness. In the same way I ask Alex. If one think "I" have > arouse mindfulness, is "I" yours, is "I" belong to you? In many a > times, the sutta would say, exhort ourselves etc. This lead to even > more confusion. To many, it is clear that Buddha talk about actions, > control ourselves for salvations. > I do not hold that volition is a self. "I" does not belong to anyone. However the stream of changes has probabilities of changing either towards wholesome, unwholesome or cessation. Here is the "freedom". Does the impersonal stream changes towards ease or stress (bad kamma)? Does vedana becomes tanha or not? If it becomes tanha, will it be on the side of meritous (siding with acquisitions) or demeritous. Of course even the choice of "seeking Nibbana" is conditioned in a sense that Nibbana is not yet achieved. Lots of Metta, Alex #79233 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:34 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "If you failed to see what I was talking about, then the problem isn't with me. Maybe you are so advanced in your study that my basic comments are being misunderstood. My bad I guess." Scott: I appreciate you discussing with me the process of discussing. Very useful from time to time. It is not a discussion if one discussant, you in this case, presumes to speak from the moral higher ground, thinking to teach something to someone. You don't think I'm 'advanced in [my] study', you think you are. I'd appreciate if you could simply discuss. Don't presume to teach. Lets try again with: You: "When I meditate I practice not to grab anything as 'I, me, mine'. The more I am able to disable the atta reflexes, the deeper mind goes. The deeper mind goes (to the source), the more I see the impersonal process. That fuels even more relinquishing..." Me: "Alex, please show me how this is anything but words." A: "So you are saying "Show me the anatta". I can't do it, Buddha couldn't do it. You can lead a horse towards the water, but 40 men wouldn't force it drink." Scott: This is no way to discuss anything. Where do I say what you impute? What sort of idea could possibly have grabbed you that would have lead you to think that I would ask you to 'show me anatta'? Your probably a decent sort but I don't think that highly of you (no offense). We might have a hope at a regular everyday discussion if this sort of discourse was set aside. No, my statement was a request for you to show by way of cogent argument why what you say has any meaning beyond mere rhetoric. I know the difference between a Buddha and a fellow discussant. You didn't explain any of your terms. You seem to just expect that I accept them as precious drops of wisdom. A: "I've said before and I will tirelessly say again: I use "'I meditate', 'I practise', 'I am able to disable the atta reflexes' As means of communications, as linguistic conventions. I do not consider them to be atta. But in order for convinient (and grammatically proper) communication , I used, use and will use these expressions (without of course implying atta). Try to speak English without nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, etc." Scott: Then please explain what 'I meditate' is. Please explain what 'I practise' is. Please explain what 'I am able to disable the atta reflexes' means. If this is, as you repeat, without atta, then what does it mean to you? I'm discussing your own question with you. A: "Your disrespect towards Dhamma is really showing. Even though I may be rude at times, I can't be THAT rude. IF you trully understand Anatta, then you will have absolutely no problem getting into deep Jhanas and perhaps Nirodha Samapatti. Please don't write wise excuses not to, that simply shows your delusion of Atta hard at work." Scott: Nonsense. A: "I'll answer only your good questions. However, I see that this discussion (with you) isn't going in wholesome way, so I'll stop responding to you (until you stop bashing the Dhamma and N8P)." Scott: Just discuss, Alex. Honestly... Sincerely, Scott. #79234 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy moellerdieter Hi Larry, you wrote : '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. D: maybe you misunderstood .. the Buddha stated that we are heirs of our actions , either from this or previous lives.. but he did not really recommend to contemplate such a scenario , please compare with was is said in MN 2 : 'There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends (instead) to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inaptly: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' etc.. however to be mindful in present action, it is certainly a good reminder to be aware about the fruits of kamma.. and take care for the wholesome L: 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. D: the trouble is, as the Buddha stated , that the mind is delusioned (by ignorance/avijja)which conditions attachment...and that already for a very long time (samsara) so we need to purify the mind (by means of the 8fold Noble Path) L: So perhaps contemplation of the dependent arising of kamma and kamma result is the best way. What do you think? D: I think by thorough study of the law of dependent origination progress into the knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths can be made , aiming to replace the delusion/ignorance(avijja ) by panna and perfect understanding/view so that the kamma result of birth, ageing and death can be overcome.. with Metta Dieter #79235 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:19 am Subject: Re: Kin~ncana lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Interested Parties, > > In the Mahaavedalla Sutta, MN 43 (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi), I read this: > > "Lust is a something, hate is a something, delusion is a something. > In a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, these are abandoned, cut off > at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with so that they are > no longer subject to future arising. Of all the kinds of > immearsurable deliverance of mind, the unshakeable deliverance of mind > is pronounced the best. Now that unshakeable deliverance of mind is > void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion." > Hi Scott, I think you transcribed a piece of the previous paragraph into this paragraph. The last sentence should read: "Of all the kinds of deliverance of mind through nothingness, the unshakable deliverance of mind is pronounced the best." That makes more sense of BB's note with reference to "something" vs "nothingness". Larry #79236 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy lbidd2 Hi Dieter, Thanks for your comments: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > you wrote : > > '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. > > D: maybe you misunderstood .. > the Buddha stated that we are heirs of our actions , either from this or previous lives.. > but he did not really recommend to contemplate such a scenario , please compare with > was is said in MN 2 : > 'There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends (instead) to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inaptly: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' etc.. > Larry: I think this might have more to do with what "I" means. Otherwise it would support my argument: "with ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness" The usual interpretation of this is that "ignorance and volitional formations" refers to action in a previous life and "consciousness" refers to rebirth consciousness and 5-door consciousness. > > > however to be mindful in present action, it is certainly a good reminder to be aware about the fruits of kamma.. and take care for the wholesome > > L: 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. > > D: the trouble is, as the Buddha stated , that the mind is delusioned (by ignorance/ avijja)which conditions attachment...and that already for a very long time (samsara) > so we need to purify the mind (by means of the 8fold Noble Path) Larry: I agree ignorance conditions attachment. Also attachment conditions attachment, and feeling conditions attachment. One thing you won't see in discussions about dependent arising is that perception also conditions attachment, but this can be seen in other suttas. > > L: So perhaps contemplation of the dependent arising of kamma and kamma result is the best way. What do you think? > > D: I think by thorough study of the law of dependent origination progress into the knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths can be made , aiming to replace the delusion/ignorance (avijja ) by panna and perfect understanding/view so that the kamma result of birth, ageing and death can be overcome.. > Larry: Very good. Keep us posted! Larry #79237 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:44 pm Subject: Re: Kin~ncana scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thank you for noting: L: "I think you transcribed a piece of the previous paragraph into this paragraph. The last sentence should read: "Of all the kinds of deliverance of mind through nothingness, the unshakable deliverance of mind is pronounced the best." Scott: You're right Larry, I did leave it out. I've put it back in below. ["Lust is a something, hate is a something, delusion is a something. In a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, these are abandoned, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with so that they are no longer subject to future arising. Of all the kinds of deliverance of mind through nothingness, the unshakable deliverance of mind is pronounced the best.Now that unshakeable deliverance of mind is void of lust, void of hate, void of delusion." Raago kho aavuso ki~ncano, doso ki~ncano, moho ki~ncano. Te khii.naasavassa bhikkhuno pahiinaa ucchinnamuulaa taalaavatthukataa anabhaavakataa aayati.m anuppaadadhammaa. Yaavataa kho aavuso aaki~nca~n~naa cetovimuttiyo, akuppaa taasa.m cetovimutti aggamakkhaayati. Saa kho panaakuppaa cetovimutti su~n~naa raagena, su~n~naa dosena, su~n~naa mohena.] L: "That makes more sense of BB's note with reference to "something" vs "nothingness". Scott: It does. It looks as if 'aaki~nca~n~naa' is rendered as 'nothingness'. Is that correct? ("aki~ncana (adj.) having nothing"). Aaki~nca~n~naayatana is 'the sphere of nothingness', one of the absorptions. From the context, it seems as if this is discussion the release based on 'the unshakeable deliverance of mind', which seems to be differentiated from aaki~nca~n~naayatana. I'm not sure, though. Sincerely, Scott. #79238 From: Dhammanando Bhikkhu Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. dhammanando_... Hi Dieter, > Dieter: 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. Thanks for your consideration, but I have in fact been following this thread from the outset, along with the predecessor from which it arose. >> Dhammanando: 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. > Dieter: 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. I think it rather depends on the character of the media. For example, it would undoubtedly be unfair to take a Buddhist teacher to task for a careless or poorly considered statement on Dhamma that he happened to let slip in the course of an interview or an impromptu public talk. Similarly, if the teacher happens to be unskilled in language and inclined to express himself clumsily and unclearly, then due allowance must be made for this and an effort made to place the most charitable construal upon his words. But such considerations hardly apply to Thanissaro's two articles on anatta. These are not from interviews or public talks, nor are they the works of a man who is unable to express himself clearly. They are carefully phrased essays, written at the author's leisure, with every opportunity to consult the texts, to give undivided attention to what he wants to say, and to hone and polish his words until he's entirely satisfied that they convey his intended meaning. Furthermore, the essays have now been available online for about a decade. During this time they have been discussed, attacked and defended ad nauseum on numerous Buddhist fora. Since the criticisms of his essays have not prompted the author to make even one single revision to them, I think it's safe to assume that he is still satisfied both with what he has said and with the way that he has said it. This being so, it's hard to take the ajahn's defenders seriously when they pass over the plain sense of his words and resort to the special pleading: "Oh, I'm sure that when Thanissaro said x he really meant y." >> Dhammanando: 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. > Dieter: he [Thanissaro] wrote:'Books on Buddhism often state that the > Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or > self." Right. Apart from the dubiousness of "metaphysical tenet" this should suffice as a statement of the Theravadin view. > Thanissaro: "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:" So the Theravada got it all wrong. And since the claim that "there is in the highest sense no self" is shared by all the Indian schools, it seems everyone got it wrong until Thanissaro came along to tell us what anatta really means. Now this is not of course an a priori impossibility, but the sheer improbabilty of it should be enough to at least make us think twice before embracing Thanissaro's novelties. >> Dhammanando: 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. > Dieter: did you keep your contribution impersonal? My first post in this thread was concerned with the wholly novel character of the "not self strategy" -- the lack of any precedent for it in Indian Buddhism. My second post concerned the interpretation of the Vacchagotta Sutta. Both these contributions were austerely impersonal. They were dealing with a certain view, not with Thanissaro per se. My third post departed from strict impersonality because I was replying to Elaine's emotional defence of Thanissaro, and the kind of questions she was asking didn't admit of an impersonal answer. (Hence my notice to her that I wasn't really interested in discussing the sort of points she was bringing up). > Dieter: What disturbs me , and I assume others as well , is that the > Venerable is criticized for reasons not yet clearly evident. Well, I can't answer for all dsg's critics of the "not self strategy", but if there's anything that's not clear in my own posts, please let me know. > Dieter: I like to claim that a strategic interpretation of anatta as I > mentioned above is in according with the teaching. Anyone can claim things. But the point needs arguing and so far in this thread you've offered little in the way of argument. Your posts have consisted mostly of a lot of hand-waving about how naughty we are to suggest that Thanissaro's interpretation might be wrong. >>> Elaine:Have you written an e-mail to Wat Metta to inform Ajahn about >>> it?) >> Dhammanando: 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. > Dieter: 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. Thanissaro has placed his writings in the public arena, making them a legitimate subject for public discussion by anyone who cares to do so. As for the Mahapadesas, I brought these up in response to Elaine's suggestion that Thanissaro is a "reputable monk" and therefore his views should be granted immunity to criticism. The Mahapadesas show that this is not the case. Best wishes, Dhammanando #79239 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (15) ksheri3 Good Morning Tep and Sarah, I agree with Tep here: > T: I agree with you about the Abhidhamma in general. But I don't see > that it answers the question. colette: sarah is speaking in a generalization concerning the Abhidharmikas of the group, it uses a broad brush and broad, sweeping, strokes as a means of creating fullness but it also adds a "flavor" of the text through the application of the Eye- Consciousness. IF this is the case THEN the stereotyping of the Abhidharmikas becomes THE CAUSE & THE CONDITION which then influences the outcome by bringing the baggage of Karma along for the ride. Sarah is avoiding the issue of actually comparing Abhidhammikas and Maadhyamikas. We can say that it's a thorny issue she's avoiding and when we add the "brain smarts" of scholars that have spent their lives manifesting "tenure" on a specific technique or expertise, in this case it may, for instance, be Eastern Philosophy, or a more specialized label, tag, signifier, it is certainly not a generic label, tag, signifier, such as Bachelor of... We also can analysise the factors invovled in maintaining such a label, tag, signifier, since it seperates the individual from other groups of people while at the same time admitting the individual to other groups of people which raises the thorny issue of VALUE STRUCTURE. For instance, why is this person a good person to gratify while another person is the person to tie to a whipping post and humiliate, possibly even draw blood from, since they're tied to a whipping post one may choose to use the Utilitarian psychology to it's fullest extent, in this case we can view Iraq where the imposition of war, death and destruction, is viewed as a function of monetary value, for instance, going after the value of the oil held in Iraq under Saddam Hussein when actually the war may be a result of something as benign as "a woman's right to...": the Suade family runs a sheep farm and does very well herding a large flock of docile sheep while at the same time these docile sheep are influenced by the same sheep in female form in Iraq having many more rights, having greater positions of employment, having greater lifestyles. The same situation exists with ALL OF IRAQ'S NEIGHBORS as well as the developing Muslim communities of Pakastan, Afghanistan, all of Asia, etc, THEREFORE an example is to be set and any and all potential revolts supressed in one broad sweeping stroke since women are indigenous to all countries and play an important role in the competition for the SCARCITY of RESOURCES, as well as a pivotal role in the DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE RESOUCES. And so Hussein had to go and Iraq had to be invaded to put an end to any potential revolt or terrorist capabilities. Adding Utilitarianism raises the issue of creating an educational structure for MALE TERRORISTS and how MEN CONDUCT TERRORISM (a common denominator) for future occurances, accidents, to happen under the guise of "Plausable Deniability" Tep, why don't you open the discussion of what potentials you see as having a factor in the COMPARISON between the Abhidhaammikas and the Maadhyamikas? Maybe you could be so brash as opening yourself up for analysis by giving us your opinion of the Abhidhammika and how the Abhidhamika is felt/seen/heard in this group AND the same for the Maadhyamikas which are a Mahayanist tradition and not Theravadan. I'll open myself up for analysis here since it's a known fact that I love magik, I love operating it, I love DISCOVERING it, this is my nature, it is a part of me, which is why I have no problems with diving head first into the deepest end of the traditions of Tantra, et al. I've been doing this since my automobile accident that created my first and most profound Near-Death Experience in 1978. > 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. colette: those are Sarah's reasons, explanations, for phenomina and how it (phenomina) got the way it got but that is sooooooooo superficial. It simply skims the surface as if an oil slick in San Fransisco harbor/bay or any water bug that walks on water, christian traditions included, it fails to examine the depths of the wisdom and the profoundness of the Buddha's teachings. This is or would be the exploration of the Svabhava of the Buddha's teachings and, for the most part, the Theravadan tradition is centered upon shunning the answers for examining the depth of things. The Theravadan honors and glorifies the individual that is superficial and is content with shallow answers, much like a sheep being herded in Suadi Arabia but needed as incubators for the future line of sheep herders of the Saude family or by the Taliban that do not like the Buddha's image carved into a mountain, or ... or the Iranian meglamaniac problem caused by the return of an exiled lunatic in 1970s and the overthrow of the Shah, etc. Svabhava has no issue for the Theravadan since it destroys the foundation of the Theravadan sheep herder. You'll have to pardon me, right now I'm trying to figure out how Confucianism and Daoism relate to ACTUAL buddhist practices while I've been given a tremendous interference by the display of the actuallity of Hinduism being the complete foundation upon which Buddhism became and was ESTABLISHED in Tibet, et al. This Zhuangzi character and his Daoist thought is amazing but it's only a single part of the whole which comprises buddhism. Now I've completely lost the consciousness I had for the reply and the Process Psychology that was being used inside my head to interact with you here: Xiao Yao You (Wandering Beyond) or "Free and Easy Wandering" or "Going Rambling Without a Destination". Which is why I leave you now. toodles, colette #79240 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:31 am Subject: My Typical Characteristic, no? ksheri3 Good Morning Group, Since I'm grapling with a strenuous piece if work and value the groups insight, vipissana ;-), I thought I'd give you an idea of what it is that's taking my focus and thought at the moment, AND YES, I'm still grappling with The Wild Awakening as well, I got this piece of work from Stanford University: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/ <...>I've been working the thoughts of Confuscianism into my study which has raised the issue of Daoism and the Nihilist/Anarchist Laozi. As with Hinduism these two contemplatives took/drew from the Buddhist doctrine heavily but in the Hindu case Buddhism drew from/took concepts from the Hindu in manifesting it's psychology. One note that may come in handy that I've said to many Western esoteric groups that I've worked with since 2004: I cannot see this thing called "evil" I am blind go it's presence. It's such an abstract concept that I can't see why anybody would place such intense reliability on this concept and absolute necessity for it's presence. For instance society claims that it is wrong and is not to be approached yet they INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY employ the presence of evil, they employ the value of evil, they are addicted to the function of evil then turn around as hypocrits always do, turn around and deplore it AFTER THE FACT. With that said any thoughts on the paper I'm grappling with from Stanford University would be appreciated. Now lets fly off to a comment I recall made by Deiter concerning a blasphemous behavior of instantaneously changing the subject or something to that effect. toodles, colette #79241 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ksheri3 Good Morning Dieter, Yes, I agree with the thought: > D: I say the 4 Noble Truths are the universal law ( proclaimed by the Buddhas of all times) of which the 8fold Noble Path is the strategy , The 4 Noble Truths have Svabhava, self-existance in this case, are universal themes, axioms. The 8 Fold Noble Path is one strategy or path (MEANS) toward the END which is the 4 Noble Truths. Your subject line speaks of "heresy" and well, you Germans have experience with that through that wild and crazy guy named Martin Luther and his attack on a church door with his dagger and a list of heresies he saw in and from Vatican City. Heresy, however, happens to be a concept and well, I might as well go digging in the analysis which is the Abhidharma since, as one of the Three Jewels or places of Refuge, this work is strictly designed to guide the student through the bardo of life and living by examining the characteristics of what is contained within the bardo. I know I opened the door but I didn't have a better word to use other than "contained", I'm hoping it will be passed over and not used at this time but I know I will analise my own characteristic at some given point in the future sinced I recognize the problems with that word used in a Chinese context i.e Great Wall of China, "foot binding" etc. The point was begining to examine was that Heresy is a concept. Heresy as an act is a "deviation from the norm". Here we can raise "deviant behavior" from a status quo i.e. Theravadan. We can also view any PATH as a status quo since it is a course previously troden to give it the designation of "Path". The subject line goes on to suggest "...changing 'mind moments'" which I interpret as being a justification of Yogacara or the "mind only" school since the mind is the object of control and you are suggesting that a mind follows a pre-determined path, course, of thought, Process Psychology, to achieve a certain goal, objective, maybe even a vantage point of view. We all agree that the mind's moments are "instanteneous". I intentionally gave the mind the tangibility to possess something in accordance with the Yogacara thought or "Mind Only" School of thought. The heresy which you speak of seems to be the ability an individual has, possesses, to deviate, or change course, from the path, the prescribed order, of succession of thoughts. This speaks of my continual habit of suggesting that Western organized religion simply manufactures robots on an assembly line and applies their maliable diety which they claim as a creator god, Creationist Theory, which they use and abuse to further their own personal self- gratification. (Much to my chagrin, I found out through a show on Hindu thoughts and practices that Karma is the Hindu word and terminology for "Gratification" where I was completely thrown backward, stunned, by this application of that word) What I'm just trying to make the point of, here, is that the heresy is simply raising the potential for a status quo to be wrong and therefore taking away from the status quo that which, as the parasite that status quos are, the status quo feeds upon. The mind is the crux, the fulcrum and so programming a computer or robot is much like DNA modification or programming a society to follow a certain doctrine such as the concept of "crowd control" to herd sheep the crowd of sheep must remain docile and must not stray from the path or stray outside the castle walls (ancient Western midevil, dark ages, thought and practice to maintain a certain flow of financing, money flow, within the blood system of the Heirarchy). I agree that Ken's choice of actions, to drop a topic of discussion can be and probably is a heresy of sorts but this is in accordance with his nature. His trinity of Mind-Body-Spirit is in harmony and he forsaw disharmony by maintaining the cap, Western theological maintenance cap, of a certain discussion. THANK YOU for raising the observation! toodles, colette #79242 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ksheri3 Good Day Alex, This is certainly a path, course of action, towards the end of Enlightenment: > I believe that it is NOT enought merely to hold "anatta" as a dogmatic > doctrine. One MUST investigate it (to know more and more sublteties) > and ACT SELFLESSLY. > colette: my concept would be that "EXPERIENCE" is the only teacher. Anatta is the first step which must be grasped to integrate the rest of the Buddha's teachings. The self cannot possess this thing or that thing: the self is dependent on it's possessor if it is to exist and thus cannot independently possess something other. Once the student has achieved this consciousness then it can follow that the shunya of the self is identicle to the shunya of objects or things, RUPA. It eventually becomes a question of EVERYTHING BEING NAMA or "mind-made- things", concepts only. Yes, by "knowing" the sublteties the student begins to recognize the shunya of everything and can therefore, act HIGHLY SELFLESSLY. Here we get into the "Motivation" the "Intention" and this raises the issues of "Emotions" and "Emotional Values", Ethics if I may characterize it so abstractly. Very good points you raised. toodles, colette #79243 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... shennieca Hi Tep, I know what you're trying to say. If you're concentrating on the hardness of the surfboard, then your mind is not concentrating on other things like the waves. This can be dangerous when you surf. When you're on your PC and you are concentrating on the hardness of the keyboard, then your mind is not reading the text on the PC. Is that right? Your mind is always "multi-tasting" but if you are really doing bhavana, your mind has to be "concentrated" on one thing at a time, "one-pointedness of the mind". You cannot see the blades of the fan if the fan is moving fast. So what, if I know that the keyboard or the surfboard is hard? Will it enlighten me? I don't think so ~ Can we be mindful while driving a car? What are we mindful of? Of course we have to be mindful while driving a car or else we will run the red-light. This is a superficial mindfulness, I think. But during actual intensive meditation, with high level of mindfulness, seeing is just "seeing" and I think, we don't actually "see" what it is we are looking at. I cannot describe this but you have to try it. With mettaa and respect, Elaine #79244 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:36 pm Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy truth_aerator Lets look at what Ven. TB has said: ----------- intro to DN15 "The second part of the discourse, taking up the teaching of not- self, shows how dependent co-arising gives focus to this teaching in practice. It begins with a section on Delineations of a Self, classifying the various ways in which a sense of "self" might be defined in terms of form. The scheme of analysis introduced in this section — classifying views of the self according to the variables of form and formless; finite and infinite; already existing, naturally developing in the future, and alterable through human effort — covers all the theories of the self proposed in the classical Upanisads, as well as all theories of self or soul proposed in more recent times. The inclusion of an infinite self in this list gives the lie to the belief that the Buddha's teachings on not-self were denying nothing more than a sense of "separate" or "limited" self. The discourse points out that even a limitless, infinite, all-embracing sense of self is based on an obsession in the mind that has to be abandoned. The following section, on Non-delineations of a Self, shows that it is possible for the mind to function without reading a "self" into experience. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html ---- Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates — form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness — he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self- identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1) all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html ---- Lots of Metta, Alex #79245 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine (Nina), - I wasn't really serious in the previous post-- just only mimicking Nina's Abhidhammic interpretation for a little laugh. The poem I wrote also was intended to be funny. >E: I know what you're trying to say. If you're concentrating on the hardness of the surfboard, then your mind is not concentrating on other things like the waves. This can be dangerous when you surf. > T: Frankly, I don't know much about what Nina explains in #78979, since it still sounds too theoretical with no successful cases so far to demonstrate that the theory works. We do know that awareness and concentration that arise with broad attention (i.e. not focusing on one characteristic at a time) are weak. But if you focus all attention on the surfboard hardness, then the surfing can be "dangerous" as you said. > E: When you're on your PC and you are concentrating on the hardness of the keyboard, then your mind is not reading the text on the PC. Is that right? Your mind is always "multi-tasking" but if you are really doing bhavana, your mind has to be "concentrated" on one thing at a time, "one-pointedness of the mind". > T: Right. I am also a believer in developing concentration as the supporting condition for insight knowledges to follow. [ "And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?" "Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward." AN 11.1] .............. >E: Can we be mindful while driving a car? What are we mindful of? Of course we have to be mindful while driving a car or else we will run the red-light. This is a superficial mindfulness, I think. > > But during actual intensive meditation, with high level of mindfulness, seeing is just "seeing" and I think, we don't actually "see" what it is we are looking at. I cannot describe this but you have to try it. > T: I think you are talking about "seeing" as knowledge and vision in the mind. Such a "seeing" (yathabhuta-dassana) of a dhamma with panna of satipatthana (as suggested by Nina) only arises with "knowledge & vision of things as they actually are" as stated in AN 11.1 above. This "knowledge & vision of things" seems to be what Nina calls the "first stage of insight" in her message # 78979 as follows. Nina (#78979): First the difference between reality and concept has to be known. And also the difference between the moments there is no sati and the moments with sati. Only pa~n~naa can realize this. It is of no use to think of stages of vipassana and to think about it who has attained it. ... ... The first stage of insight first: direct understanding of the different characteristics of nama and rupa, thus, of paramattha dhammas. Only at the third stage of insight the arising and falling away of nama and rupa is realized. T: But I am not sure whether Nina thinks the above "direct understanding of the different characteristics of nama and rupa" needs a support of concentration (at least the first jhaana) or not. Nina is the best person to ask. Tep === #79246 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:02 pm Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy buddhistmedi... Hi Alex, - I am interested to know what you think Venerable TB essentially said in his introductions to DN 15 and MN 22. Thanks. Tep === #79247 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) shennieca Hi Connie, Thank you for this Therii story. The tearing out the eye part is shocking. The first time I heard/read this story, I went "eewww". Thank goodness the Therii has the abhinna super power, it's so cool. :-)) :D With mettaa & warm regards, Elaine ------------------ #79248 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... shennieca Hi Tep, Oooh, my e-m sounded serious, hahah. No, it wasn't meant to be like that, I'm sorry. :-)) I wish we could put more emoticons on the screen. :-)) I know what Nina is saying is that, when wisdom arises, there is no thinking involved, she is right. But I don't understood what daily mindfulness is. Even when my teacher tells me or when I read books by Sayadaw, I don't really get it. When washing dishes, we should notice the hand moving, the soap, the water is hot or cold, no thinking should be involved. But it is really difficult to do. Usually, while doing the dishes, it is "thinking, thinking, thinking". I don't know what it is I'm thinking about but there are LOTS of thinking. I can't tune my mind off thinking. Even while I'm sitting, it is still thinking non-stop. I think I'll go bonkers soon. :-(( It would be really nice if we can spend our day just noticing the "realities" like hardness, heat, intention (cetana), it's like meditating all day, that would be really nice. If life's like that, there will be no worries. I don't know if that's possible though... is it possible? I don't know. I hope it is. :-)) Warmest regards, Elaine #79249 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. truth_aerator Hello all. I've gotten sick. It is cold here (often the temp drops below freezing). My parents keep insisting that a very quick cure is to drink Alcohol (vodka) for this. Obviously I am VERY resistent to this for obvious reasons. So the question is: Is it breaking 5th precept if I drink a glass of alchohol as a medicine? The weather is getting terrible, it seems that unless a miracle happens it won't be above freezing. It might fall to 1F next week (thank Buddha not -30-40F) ... :( Lots of Metta, Alex #79250 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... truth_aerator Hi Elaine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > But I don't understood what daily mindfulness is. Even when my teacher tells me or when I read books by Sayadaw, I don't really get it. When washing dishes, we should notice the hand moving, the soap, the water is hot or cold, no thinking should be involved. But it is really difficult to do. > > Usually, while doing the dishes, it is "thinking, thinking, thinking". I don't know what it is I'm thinking about but there are LOTS of thinking. I can't tune my mind off thinking. Even while I'm sitting, it is still thinking non-stop. I think I'll go bonkers soon. :-(( >>>> What you should be doing is observing your mind. Continue your sitting practice when you are doing daily activities. For example: if you practice anapanasati, continue doing it (to the extent possible) while doing the dishes (or whatever else). Or if you are doing Metta (highest worldly Merit, leads to 4th Jhana) continue doing Metta while you are washing dishes. It is actually MORE important to know what your MIND (and the body) is doing, rather than simply following the arms. There is NO secret in the arms, rather it is more important to observe how the process of moment to moment DO happens (which implies anicca-dukha-anatta). Mindfulness also means "self reflexion" as in knowing the current stream of consciousness. We can be conscious but unaware or we can be conscious and fully aware of what is going on. Being fully aware brings many benefits and it trains observational powers that you need during the "formal" sitting practice. Lots of Metta, Alex #79251 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Dear Alex, Scott, I don't think you can "discuss" your meditation practise... What is there to discuss? Just take a cushion, sit on it, and be aware and mindful of the breath or whatever object of meditation that you choose. You will see things that will surprise you. When I was in my early 20s, I went to a retreat and I saw all these "lust" in me, which is not very obvious to me while I'm not meditating. So I asked Mae-chee, what is that so? She says, when the stream is clear and not muddy, you can see the pebbles on the river-bed. You can actually understand yourself more, you know. Some people cannot meditate because there are too many delusions in their mind. So a person must have a somewhat stable condition up there, to start meditating. I have heard of a person who went insane because he did samatha meditation wrongly. So, it is important to find a teacher. The meditative experiences has no superlative. It is better than any discussion you can ever have in your life. (from what I've heard, my own bhavana is still crappy). With mettaa, Elaine #79252 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:15 pm Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy truth_aerator Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Alex, - > > I am interested to know what you think Venerable TB essentially said > in his introductions to DN 15 and MN 22. > > Thanks. > > Tep > === >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to show that Venerable refused to say that self is limitless and infinite - somewhere outside of 5 aggregates. He does the right thing, encourage one to meditate using Anatta, rather than simply speculate and put "The Truth" on the dusty shelve where it will never be used but will be treated with veneration. Anatta IS the truth, but it MUST be used. Otherwise it will boil down to dogma, heated arguments (Pudgalavadins vs Nihilists) on various boards, it will become relic and stale. This is what Mara wants!!! Keep hoarding on all these "wisdoms", but please don't kick Mara in the jewels! If Mara can't erase Buddha's teaching then it will a) Add teachings that appear to be Buddha's but contain poison in them (a beautiful drink that is poisoned) and/or b) Try to convince someone not to practice. "It is too hard. My cittas are not ripe yet... The magga & phala is not available today... This nama-rupa can't do anything. Anatta is the truth but it is not a strategy... Path is too long, so why do it? Later when conditions are right, is a better time..." etc etc. We must be very careful to rely on the Intellect (considering that for Pujjhanas it is mostly under greed/anger/delusion). Buddhism absolutely isn't rational. It is above what is the product of the ego. Before one gets rid of poisons, intellect can really find good, smart, intelligent, "wholesome", excuses on why not do the practice! Buddha has said to be wary of those teachers who go by logic alone. ---- Again, Sandaka, a certain teacher goes by hearsay and takes it as the truth. To a teacher who goes by hearsay, the tradition becomes the truth. He may have heard it correctly or may not have heard it correctly. It becomes the truth to him, the truth may be something else. Sandaka, a wise man should reflect. This teacher goes by hearsay. He preaches what has reached him by tradition and hearsay. What he has heard may be the truth or not. I, should know and turn away from that holy life as unsatisfactory. Sandaka, this is the second holy life, the Blessed One who knows, sees, is perfect and rightfully enlightened has declared as unsatisfactory and should not be lived. The wise man if possible does not live and even if he lives is not convinced, that it is merit.. Again, Sandaka, a certain teacher goes by logic, arguing logically brings out a teaching by himself beaten out. In the teaching of a logical teacher, some arguments may be true and others may not be true. Sandaka, a wise man should reflect. This teacher goes by logic. He preaches what he has beaten out by logical conclusion. His arguments may be authentic or not, I should know and turn away from that holy life as unsatisfactory. Sandaka, this is the third holy life, the Blessed One who knows and sees, is perfect and rightfully enlightened has declared as unsatisfactory and should not be lived. The wise man if possible does not live and even if he lives is not convinced, that it is merit.. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/076-sandaka-e1.htm ---- Anatta has to become EXPERIENTIAL TRUTH, as opposed to being merely in the Intellect (which is part of Mara). ------- 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 Sensual pleasure above ALSO refer to mental pleasures got from various ideas, concepts and thoughts. --- Lots of Metta, Alex #79253 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kin~ncana lbidd2 Hi Scott, Scott: "It looks as if 'aaki~nca~n~naa' is rendered as 'nothingness'. Is that correct? ("aki~ncana (adj.) having nothing"). Aaki~nca~n~naayatana is 'the sphere of nothingness', one of the absorptions. From the context, it seems as if this is discussion the release based on 'the unshakeable deliverance of mind', which seems to be differentiated from aaki~nca~n~naayatana. I'm not sure, though." Larry: I'm not sure what a deliverance of mind is. Maybe a path moment??? The unshakable deliverace of mind results in arahantship. "Of all the kinds of deliverance of mind through nothingness" might refer to the 4 kinds of path moment (sotapanna, once returner, non-returner, arahant) that can spring out of the Base of Nothngness, so to speak. In the section we are discussing three kinds of deliverance of mind (immeasurable deliverance, delverance through nothingness, and signless deliverance) are counted as the same at the level of arahant (unshakable) because lust, hatred and delusion are cut off at the root. Just a guess. Larry #79254 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:56 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine, - Yeah, your last email sounded serious enough! But it was allright. :-) >E: But I don't understood what daily mindfulness is. Even when my teacher tells me or when I read books by Sayadaw, I don't really get it. When washing dishes, we should notice the hand moving, the soap, the water is hot or cold, no thinking should be involved. But it is really difficult to do. T: Let me give an example of mindfulness & awareness in the body movements and postures that I have experienced. I hope you might find it interesting and applicable to you. My first practice was simply keeping the attention to the front with every body posture as often as I could. That is similar to "setting mindfulness to the fore" during the anapanasati meditation. Then I learned to establish mindfulness to the body as the whole (no specific area) during a day. There are two things being involved in the development of mindfulness & awareness in the body : there is a mindfulness that arises with a change in posture or movement, and there is an awareness (sampajanna) of the body-state between one posture/movement and the next. If the mind is distracted (i.e. attention is outside the body, or attention is lost due to a thought or a disruption), then there is no sati at the moment of a posture/movement change and awareness is also lost. There is also a sati to let go of a thinking and to bring back attention to the body again and again. Sometimes the mind is free from distractions for a few minutes, then it is distracted again but not as bad as it used to be. ......... >E: It would be really nice if we can spend our day just noticing the "realities" like hardness, heat, intention (cetana), it's like meditating all day, that would be really nice. If life's like that, there will be no worries. I don't know if that's possible though... is it possible? I don't know. I hope it is. :-)) T: I believe it is possible for any meditators who have attained the 3rd jhaana. But, for me I would be happy enough if, whenever I want, I could "condition" mindful/awareness in the body postures and movements to last longer than 30 minutes each time with no mental distractions. Tep === #79255 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for the comments: E: "I don't think you can "discuss" your meditation practise... What is there to discuss?" Scott: My point exactly - at least there are other fora on which these discussions occur. E: "Just take a cushion, sit on it, and be aware and mindful of the breath or whatever object of meditation that you choose. You will see things that will surprise you." Scott: Now, this is also what I am questioning Alex about. Why on earth would I want to see things that surprise me? Live your life everyday and you'll see the same. This is nothing. E: When I was in my early 20s, I went to a retreat and I saw all these "lust" in me, which is not very obvious to me while I'm not meditating. So I asked Mae-chee, what is that so? She says, when the stream is clear and not muddy, you can see the pebbles on the river-bed. You can actually understand yourself more, you know." Scott: I can see lust in me everyday. I don't have to go anywhere special. Self-understanding is a result of psychotherapy. Why mix it up with Dhamma? What is this about clear or muddy streams? Is that all anyone has to say to surprise you? That means nothing to me. Anyone could say that. Anyone does. E: "Some people cannot meditate because there are too many delusions in their mind. So a person must have a somewhat stable condition up there, to start meditating. I have heard of a person who went insane because he did samatha meditation wrongly. So, it is important to find a teacher." Scott: Dhamma is the teacher. It is not important to find a teacher. E: "The meditative experiences has no superlative. It is better than any discussion you can ever have in your life. (from what I've heard, my own bhavana is still crappy)." Scott: This is not true, Elaine. This is only advising someone to seek experience. Why seek these experiences? This can't be what its all about. I went to see Modest Mouse a few weeks ago. It was the best concert I've seen in awhile. I don't mistake that experience for anything special. It is no different than the so-called 'meditative experiences'. Sincerely, Scott. #79256 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine (and Tep) - In a message dated 11/24/2007 7:27:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi Tep, Oooh, my e-m sounded serious, hahah. No, it wasn't meant to be like that, I'm sorry. :-)) I wish we could put more emoticons on the screen. :-)) I know what Nina is saying is that, when wisdom arises, there is no thinking involved, she is right. But I don't understood what daily mindfulness is. Even when my teacher tells me or when I read books by Sayadaw, I don't really get it. When washing dishes, we should notice the hand moving, the soap, the water is hot or cold, no thinking should be involved. But it is really difficult to do. Usually, while doing the dishes, it is "thinking, thinking, thinking". I don't know what it is I'm thinking about but there are LOTS of thinking. I can't tune my mind off thinking. Even while I'm sitting, it is still thinking non-stop. I think I'll go bonkers soon. :-(( It would be really nice if we can spend our day just noticing the "realities" like hardness, heat, intention (cetana), it's like meditating all day, that would be really nice. If life's like that, there will be no worries. I don't know if that's possible though... is it possible? I don't know. I hope it is. :-)) Warmest regards, Elaine ================================= When the thinking is underway, that is what is happening and is what should be noticed. The thinking need not be all that is happening in the sense of it being in progress every moment. When the mind is alert, clear, and calm, the thinking can be interspersed with awareness of that (just fallen away) thinking. When attention and mindfulness are sufficiently heightened it is even possible to note the penumbral stage of a thought, prior to its being a full-blown thought, a facility requisite for right effort. And the alertness and mindfulness can protect the mind from getting *lost* in thought. Just as seeing and hearing etc can arise, thinking can also arise, and provided that there is no getting lost in the thinking, thinking need not be a problem. The thinking diminishes, anyway, as the mind settles down. With metta, Howard #79257 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/24/2007 7:41:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all. I've gotten sick. It is cold here (often the temp drops below freezing). My parents keep insisting that a very quick cure is to drink Alcohol (vodka) for this. Obviously I am VERY resistent to this for obvious reasons. So the question is: Is it breaking 5th precept if I drink a glass of alchohol as a medicine? The weather is getting terrible, it seems that unless a miracle happens it won't be above freezing. It might fall to 1F next week (thank Buddha not -30-40F) ... :( Lots of Metta, Alex ================================= This is just my opinion, and, of course, the decision on this matter is entirely up to you. There are many things to be done for a cold/flu other than consuming alcohol. There is bed rest, bundling up, fluids, a humidifier, and non-alcoholic, over-the-counter and physician-prescribed medications. If you are ill enough, you should see a doctor and take whatever medicine s/he prescribes. If it contains alcohol but is deemed necessary, it would even be permissible for a monk, I believe, to take it. But unless a doctor prescribes intoxicant medication as a necessity, if you have adopted the precept of abstaining from intoxicants I would suggest sticking with that precept. With metta, Howard P. S. Where do you live, Alex? (Here in NY, it's going down to 31 degrees (F) tonight. Right now it's 35.) #79258 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Dear Scott, If you say meditation is not important, then why did the Buddha have to meditate under the tree? Sincerely, Elaine --------------------------- #79259 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for the reply: E: "If you say meditation is not important, then why did the Buddha have to meditate under the tree?" Scott: Please don't misunderstand. What you call meditation is, in my opinion, not what was happening under the Bodhi tree. Sincerely, Scott. #79260 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi RobertK, Elaine, Swee, Alex (and Phil), - > > Thank you Robert for the sutta quote that (you think) supports the > argument that the khandhas are completely NOT controllable. > T: Now is my turn for a one-million-dollar-worth of comment. > > This Aggivessana Sutta is not different from the Anattalakkhana Sutta > with regard to the anatta principle. > > 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. ... [T: He repeated the same for feelings, > perceptions, determination, and consciousness.] > > Yes, Robert, to "wield power over" the ruupa and naama is the same as > to CONTROL them. We know that both name and form are > NOT everlasting; therefore they DO NOT behave EXACTLY as we wish them > (command/control them) to be exactly as we want ALL THE TIME. > The imperfect, impermanent, inconstant, > alterable, changeable name and form (or khandhas) are PARTIALLY > controllable == === Dear Tep, I want to be sure I haven't missed something: you asked for a sutta and I thought this one did indicate that the khandas are uncontrollable. When I read it I can't find where it says the khandhas are partially controllable or controllable at times? Is there a translation you are using that states it that way? Robert #79261 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable nidive Hi Ken O, > maybe body is not a good illustration. When you said you control, > when you meet something you dislike, anger arise within you. When > this arise, was there a control there? > > Then one would say, after that dislike, I control myself not to be > angry. This is the gist of all our discussions. In order to > control our mind, the mind must not be forgetful, it must be > mindful. Usually we would say I stop being angry or I have arisen > the unarisen mindfulness. In the same way I ask Alex. If one > think "I" have arouse mindfulness, is "I" yours, is "I" belong to > you? In many a times, the sutta would say, exhort ourselves etc. > This lead to even more confusion. To many, it is clear that Buddha > talk about actions, control ourselves for salvations. > > Satipatthana is about understanding about the dislike that arise. > When the dislike is understood as non-self, angry would subside. > Where is there "I" to be found in such instances. Where is there a > need to say I need to arise it. But again, there rise this > questions then how do we follow a dhamma if we cannot control it? > There is not such thing as by chance, our kusala or akusala arise. > It arise due to a cause, a condition. And there is no such thing > as a mechanical process for kamma, if it is, we would not get out > of it. Let's suppose a person who has no knowledge of the 3 characteristics of dhammas but who firmly believes in the efficacy of kamma. When such a person commits an act of merit, thinking it is "I" who made the merit, does not the merit accrue to him? Let's suppose a person who has no knowledge of the 3 characteristics of dhammas but who constantly reflects on the bodily, verbal & mental actions that he has committed and thereafter made restraints. When such a person restraints himself in terms of his bodily, verbal & mental actions, does not the merit of restraining accrue to him? Now, it is a delusion on the part of this person when he thinks it is "I" who makes the merit or it is "I" who restraints, but is there then no conscious making of whatsoever merit by this person? Suppose this person one day comes to know about the 3 characteristics of dhammas and also this delusion known as the fetter of self- identity view. Does his knowledge of such invalidates all of the merits that he has made previously? Desirous of rooting out this fetter of self-identity view which he sees as suffering, he attends appropriately to the cause of the fetter and to the cessation of the fetter. One fine day, he finally roots out this fetter of self-identity view through appropriate attention to the 4NTs, becoming a stream-winner. Does his becoming a stream-winner then invalidates all of the merits that he has previously made? Having become a stream-winner, he furthermore restraints himself in terms of the five flowery senses and keeps in check his mind of ill- will. Is there then no making of merit when the stream-winner restraints himself in terms of the five flowery senses and keeps in check his mind of ill-will? Swee Boon #79262 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... buddhistmedi... Hi RobertK (Elaine, Swee, Alex, Phil, ..) I am amazed that a wise man like you thinks that you can find answers to all questions from a single sutta.. You wrote: > Dear Tep, > I want to be sure I haven't missed something: you asked for a sutta > and I thought this one did indicate that the khandas are > uncontrollable. When I read it I can't find where it says the > khandhas are partially controllable or controllable at times? > Is there a translation you are using that states it that way? > Robert > T: Do you say vedana khandha is not controllable? The following sutta says it is. "With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain." [AN 4.41] Tep ==== #79263 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:44 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... sukinderpal Hi Phil, (ps to Tep) In this post you seem to be somewhere between the belief in control and understanding that control is the function of dhammas. This is better than those ideas expressed in other posts where you seem more inclined towards deliberate `doings'. :-) Yes it is all about NDSC, wisdom performs its function and not we who "use wisdom". The influence is happening all the time, but this 99% of the time, is that of akusala dhammas. As Dhamma students we need to recognize that some of these akusala moments will include those that give rise to the idea of `self needing to do / develop kusala'. Yes, and this is because there is so much ignorance and clinging to self, these moments are usually accompanied by a feeling of us being sincere and right, but lets not be fooled. It is exactly one of the manifestations of Wrong View that it "feels right". And yes, it does feel like one is "being wise" about those decisions. But that's not how the reality of panna functions, does it? Panna knows and detaches, no? Also, you will agree that an ariyan won't have any idea of `being in control' or `one who decides' or "I intend". So why should we encourage such thoughts in ourselves? Is there therefore any way to "put that "we" to good use" other than as a means of communication? ;-) Metta, Sukin PS: Tep, please feel free to reply to my post, just don't expect any quick response. I only read this post of Phil's just now, so you can see that I'm still very behind in my reading here. #79264 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... nidive Hi Tep, > T: Do you say vedana khandha is not controllable? The following > sutta says it is. > > "With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure > nor pain." [AN 4.41] In my opinion, the Buddha in MN 35 which RobertK quoted, merely says that the anicca and anatta nature of dhammas are not controllable. I quote from metta.lk: ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.html ... How does good Gotama advise the disciples and in what sections are they given much training? Aggivessana, I advise and train my disciple much in this manner. "Bhikkhus, matter is impermanent. Feelings are impermanent. Perceptions and determinations are impermanent. Consciousness is impermanent. Bhikkhus, matter is not self. Feelings are not self. Perceptions and determinations are not self. Consciousness is not self. All determinations are impermanent. All things are not self. ... ... 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. ... ----------------------------------------------------------------- The phrase "do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus, and not otherwise" is similar to that in the Anatta-lakkhana sutta as translated by Thanissaro: ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' ----------------------------------------------------------------- The phrase "let this form be thus, let it not be otherwise" is often quoted (and misunderstood in my opinion) by RobertK as evidence of absolute no control. Does it occur to you that this phrase is evidence that the Buddha taught absolute no control? For me, it merely says that if form is the self, then we can control this form to be permanent (be thus) and not otherwise (not be thus). "Be thus / not be thus" in my opinion translates as "be permanent / not be impermanent". We can infer this because in MN 35 the Buddha talks about the impermanence of all things and later the not-selfness of all things. In the Anatta-lakkhana sutta, the Buddha described the 3 characteristics of dhammas in reverse order from anatta->dukkha->anicca in the opening paragraph which I quoted above. Explanation: Form is not-self. (anatta) If form is the self, it would not lend itself to dis-ease. (dukkha) It would be possible to say with regard to form "Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus". (anicca, in my opinion) Later on in the Anatta-lakkhana sutta, the Buddha described the 3 characteristics of dhammas in forward order from anicca->dukkha->anatta. I quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html "What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus the Buddha taught the 3 characteristics of all dhammas in both forward and reverse orders in the Anatta-lakkhana sutta. Swee Boon #79265 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet HI Sukin > In this post you seem to be somewhere between the belief in control > and understanding that control is the function of dhammas. This is > better than those ideas expressed in other posts where you seem more > inclined towards deliberate `doings'. :-) Yes, Phil is not clear on this topic, which is the way it should be because it is a very deep topic. Dhammas are not "controllable", I'm sure of that, but I also believe in deliberate doings to influence dhammas, or to provide conditions, or something like that.. ..the post Howard wrote the other day, praised by Han, was very good, I think, on "control." Metta, Phil #79266 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Dear Scott, What happened under the Bodhi tree? Do you think enlightenment could happen while talking, walking, etc? Actually, someone told me enlightenment could happen sitting on the toilet bowl. I don't know, I guess it could, but only if the mindfulness is very sharp. But sharp mindfulness need good concentration to arise. Even if we move our body a bit, it already breaks the concentration. So I don't know how can sati arise if samadhi is weak... What do you understand by 'samadhi' (concentration)? Do you believe in sila -> samadhi -> panna ? How important is concentration according to the Abhidhamma pitaka? Sincerely, Elaine #79267 From: Elaine Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. shennieca Hi Alex, Please go to a doctor and get a prescription medicine for your cold. Take care of your body, it is a raft that takes you over to the other shore, so please take good care of it. If the raft is broken, there's no chance to paddle across the river. So, take good care of it. May you get well soon. Wear more clothes and keep warm. It started snowing in Toronto three days ago. It is soooo cold here. (Canada is like the Artic during the winter season, imo!!) Warmest regards, Elaine ---------------------- #79268 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:46 pm Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Elaine), --------------- <. . .> H: > When the thinking is underway, that is what is happening and is what should be noticed. --------------- I would be wary of any idea of selecting. The idea of selecting an object for right minfulness is a an idea of control over dhammas. --------------------------- H: > The thinking need not be all that is happening in the sense of it being in progress every moment. When the mind is alert, clear, and calm, the thinking can be interspersed with awareness of that (just fallen away) thinking. When attention and mindfulness are sufficiently heightened it is even possible to note the penumbral stage of a thought, prior to its being a full-blown thought, a facility requisite for right effort. --------------------------- None of the above is mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka, is it? ------------------------------------- H: > And the alertness and mindfulness can protect the mind from getting *lost* in thought. Just as seeing and hearing etc can arise, thinking can also arise, and provided that there is no getting lost in the thinking, thinking need not be a problem. The thinking diminishes, anyway, as the mind settles down. -------------------------------------- According to the Tipitaka, right mindfulness knows the presently arisen object (arammana) of citta. Whatever that object is, right mindfulness knows it. There is no selecting. There is no waiting for a more suitable time. It is the present arammana or none at all. Ken H #79269 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (39) nichiconn Dear Han, I've read that all the precepts are based on non harming, so when we also read truth is most important, i think about truth being the safeguard or refuge. Buddha is the Father Bead on my string. Sariputta is the Mother. There are different ways to read the beads. I bet you could make up one to help you memorize / recite all kinds of things... The Chanting Together Sutta? I'll have to look up Nichikan's bead quote for you sometime. peace, connie ps. some of the points in your post come up again in our next Corner. #79270 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:30 pm Subject: Re: My Typical Characteristic, no? philofillet HI Colette I haven't been in touch with you for awhile. Hope everything's been going well. Sorry, I won't be able to read that paper, but good luck with it. > I cannot see this thing called "evil" I am blind go it's presence. Couldn't we, in Dhamma terms, just understand "evil" as intentional acts that one knows will be to the harm of others, with degree according to the degree of that harm? > It's such an abstract concept that I can't see why anybody would > place such intense reliability on this concept and absolute necessity > for it's presence. For instance society claims that it is wrong and > is not to be approached yet they INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY > employ the presence of evil, they employ the value of evil, they are > addicted to the function of evil then turn around as hypocrits > always do, turn around and deplore it AFTER THE FACT. I don't get this, Colette. What does the hypocrisy of society with respect to evil (which I don't dispute) have to do with the individual's ability to "place intense reliability" on the concept? Metta, Phil #79271 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:58 am Subject: A Star At Dawn, A Bubble In A Stream antony272b2 Hi Howard, all, I haven't read recent posts, but In my meditation this evening I thought about your signature: > /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) Antony: Do you think that the reason why memories of the past seems so important in our identity is when it only goes back to a finite beginning in childhood and the events in between then and now are positioned and have a duration as a percentage of this extension in time. Once the assumption of a beginning falls away, then the percentage approaches zero and flashbacks evaporate. So far so good anyway. With metta / Antony. #79272 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... sukinderpal Hi Phil, Howard, Han, ============== > In this post you seem to be somewhere between the belief in control > and understanding that control is the function of dhammas. This is > better than those ideas expressed in other posts where you seem more inclined towards deliberate `doings'. :-) Phil: Yes, Phil is not clear on this topic, which is the way it should be because it is a very deep topic. Dhammas are not "controllable", I'm sure of that, but I also believe in deliberate doings to influence dhammas, or to provide conditions, or something like that.. S> I was thinking that you will be drawn back into the fold. ;-) ============== Phil: ..the post Howard wrote the other day, praised by Han, was very good, I think, on "control." S> O.K. so I'll comment some on Howard's post # 79160. ============== 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. S> We may try to reason our way into what the Middle Way is by placing two seemingly opposite ideas against each other, the result however would be just another concept. The Middle Way of the Dhamma is treaded only when there is sati to know the present moment. In the meantime any teaching that draws one's attention to the importance of knowing this, this may be considered as being rightly pointing to the Middle Way. ============== Howard: 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. S> And both are wrong, if by using "we" one is expressing "self view". ============== Howard: It seems to me that "getting real" about that would involve paying attention to what actually goes on. S> Or more precisely, when Panna arises to know the present moment. =============== Howard: 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. S> Here Howard seems to be mixing conventional with ultimate reality. When he says, "s/he puts away whatever s/he has been doing and turns his/her attention and thinking to the problems", he is describing a conventional reality and when he says, "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"", here he is pointing to the behavior of conditioned realities. Howard seem therefore to have created a false duality here. =============== Howard: If it is thought that "control" requires a self/agent who is controller, then there is no control. S> Every moment is conditioned and in turn conditions subsequent moments in more than one way. The mistake is in forgetting that all this involves impersonal dhammas and instead "identifying" with thoughts such as "I must be mindful" etc. One goes on to believe this as being a positive condition for the actual arising of any dhammas (eg. Sati) aimed at. During those moments of identifying with the particular thought / intention, no understanding / insight into the moment has occurred and one willingly overlooks this. Instead one goes on to take seriously any action through body, speech or mind that follows as being "good and useful" and identifies with that. =============== Howard: On the other hand, if by "control" one only means willful expenditure of energy that contributes to eventual results, there *is* control. S> Yes, there *is* control, but this is the function of dhammas which we have absolutely no awareness and understanding of. ================ Howard: 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. S> Yes, `volition' is one amongst several other dhammas which condition subsequent moments. The problem is when we identify with what we think to be our `intention', and this is always associated with a `self' doing something, somewhere and sometime. In other words, we are lost in the world of concepts. In this world, we are liable to take the law of cause and effect "wrongly" if uninformed by Dhamma and "wrongly" when we simply project Dhamma ideas into the situation. This latter is characteristic of most Buddhists. ============== Howard: Can we hold our breath? Of course!! (Control) Can we hold it indefinitely? Of course not!! (No control) S> Dualities are `created' in the world of concepts, but this would have been due to some dhamma that has arisen and fallen away and performed its function. That the breath is held, this is by virtue of some dhamma arisen by conditions. That one is then forced to breathe, this too is caused by dhammas beyond control. Equally beyond control are the arising of Avijja, Tanha and Miccha Ditthi which takes the illusion of control for "real". Metta. Sukin #79273 From: Ken O Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" ashkenn2k Hi Dieter I make an exception to speak one more time on this. I hope you do not mind me stop after this. IMHO, 8NP is not a strategy as these eight factors exist and could be experience directly. Strategy is not, it is based on a concept or idea while path is real and exist. Right view exist, right effort exist etc. they are neither a way thought by anyone but only proclaim by Buddha. They are path discover by Buddha as a way out of samsara. this path would be the same for the future Buddha also. Kind regards Ken O #79274 From: Ken O Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (39) ashkenn2k Hi Han These are my personal opinion. It is not about the severity of misconduct. it is about being truthful. When a Bodhisattva set on a path to be a Buddha, he is seeking the truth about the dhamma. This is a very strong paccaya and that would prevent him from telling lies. Kind regards Ken O #79275 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:29 am Subject: Doing Asubha to combat lust philofillet Hi ALex and all This is my favorite subject, or at least it is the field of action (kammatanha or something like that?) where I am at work more than in any other field. And where I see interesting progress *and* understanding that the rivers of lust run very deep (not so deep actualy) and strong and latent tendencies could rise up to the transgression level at any ol' time. > > A: "Also sometimes I do Asubha (to combat lust)." > > > > Scott: How does this differ from thinking about something else to > > combat lust? > > >> I also try to keep attention on the mind. Furthermore diversionary > thinking is one of the tactics in MN20 (or 19?). Funny, I always get MN 19 and 20 mixed up too! But I know what you're referring to. Actually, Nina posted a very excellent series on the ways of dealing with distracting thoughts about 3 years ago, I think. Based on passages from N. Thera's excellent little booklet "Roots of Good and Evil." I personally find asubha reflection to be not helpful, because when there is lust for a woman in front of me (as there was today, I teach English conversation to adult students and many of the female students are very foxy indeed) the accumulated tendencies are so very deep. I have tried reflecting on asubha, but a sexy woman in front of you is not foul no matter if I reflect on her in that way. I have read that asubha is only helpful at the level of jhanas - is that your understanding too? And if there was asubha at the level of jhanas, would that asubha arise to save the day in various lust-inducing situations in daily life? I do have (conditioned by the Buddha's teaching they arise)a variety of tactics for dealing with this very common situation, and I really kind of enjoy working on this. However, I am slack on asubha. Maybe you could motivate me to work on it more. Jhanas is not an option for me with my lifestyle, so it would have to be a shallower form of asubha. (I like the sutta in SN 35 where the fellow asks a senior disciple how the young monks deal so successfully with their lust - he kind of rejects the disciples suggestion to try asubaha, because the mind is so wanton that even the foul can be sexy. He settles on guarding the sense doors as a more reliable (ahem) strategy. Metta, Phil p.s re the booze and colds, I don't believe it's helpful. It warms up the body, but if you grate ginger and drink it with hot water, lemon and honey it will have the same effect. Get well soon. #79276 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:40 am Subject: Field of work? philofillet Hi all In the previous post I was trying to think of the Pali term for something like one's field of work, where one finds oneself concentrated or diligent in Dhamma, the area where one applies oneself. I thought it was kammatanha, but I see that's sensual lust! Can anyone help me? Thanks. Metta, Phil #79277 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Field of work? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, All* --- Phil wrote: > In the previous post I was trying to think of the Pali term for > something like one's field of work, where one finds oneself > concentrated or diligent in Dhamma, the area where one applies oneself. > I thought it was kammatanha, but I see that's sensual lust! .... S: You're thinking of kamma.t.thaana, 'working-ground' or object of bhaavanaa. In the development of samatha, there are the 40 (or sometimes given as 38)kamma.t.thaanas. In the development of vipassana, any reality can be the kamma.t.thaana. [Of course, more in U.P. under 'kammatthana'] I'm glad to read your other messages inc. the reply to me, thanks! Glad the writing's going well. Metta, Sarah p.s. *All - There seems to have been a long 'gap' on Saturday day-time (Asian time, Friday night in the States) when no messages appeared. A trim reminder sent by the mods during this time still hasn't shown up. So if anyone else found the same, they may wish to wait a little longer or just re-post. ========= #79278 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Homework Paper to be Graded jonoabb Hi Tep (and Nina) Just butting in on one of the terms you discuss here (don't worry, I'm not going to grade your homework paper!) Tep Sastri wrote: > 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.". > Another translation would be 'conventional truth' or 'commonly accepted truth'. An rather mundane example of this might be the statement, "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west". This is contrasted with 'paramattha sacca' a truth that is true in the ultimate sense. Jon #79279 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:21 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 3 14. Ti.msanipaato 1. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 368. "Jiivakambavana.m ramma.m, gacchanti.m bhikkhuni.m subha.m; dhuttako sannivaaresi, tamena.m abravii subhaa. 369. "Ki.m te aparaadhita.m me ayaa, ya.m ma.m ovariyaana ti.t.thasi; na hi pabbajitaaya aavuso, puriso samphusanaaya kappati. 370. "Garuke mama satthusaasane, yaa sikkhaa suna desitaa; parisuddhapada.m ana"nga.na.m, ki.m ma.m ovariyaana ti.t.thasi. 371. "Aavilacitto anaavila.m, sarajo viitaraja.m ana"nga.na.m; sabbattha vimuttamaanasa.m, ki.m ma.m ovariyaana ti.t.thasi. [Those who held the council:] 366. A rogue stopped Bhikkhunii Subhaa as she was going to the delightful Jiivakamba Grove. Subhaa said this to him: [Subhaa Jiivakambavanikaa:] 367. What wrong have I done you that you should stand obstructing me? For it is not fitting, sir, that a man should touch a woman who has gone forth. 368. In this weighty teaching of my Teacher, whatever training has been taught by the Sublime One is a purified state without blemish. Why do you stand obstructing me? 369. [Your] mind is disturbed, [mine] is undisturbed. [You] are impure, [I] am completely free from impurity, without blemish, with my mind completely released. Why do you stand obstructing me? RD: In Jiivaka's pleasant woodland walked Subhaa The Bhikkhunii. A gallant met her there And barred the way. To him thus spake Subhaa: *389 (366) 'What have I done to offend thee, that thus in my path thou comest? No man, O friend, it beseemeth to touch a Sister in Orders. (367) So hath my Master ordained in the precepts we honour and follow; So hath the Welcome One taught in the training wherein they have trained me, Purified discipline holy. Why standest thou blocking my pathway? (368) Me pure, thou impure of heart; me passionless, thou of vile passions; Me who as to the whole of me freed am in spirit and blameless, Me whence comes it that Thou dost hinder, standing obnoxious?' (369) *389 The metre now changes from s'loka to that termed vetaaliiya, or, at least, to a metre which in later literature became formulated under that name. It runs approximately thus ('What have I,' etc.): {{c: rest of note cut}} 372. "Daharaa ca apaapikaa casi, ki.m te pabbajjaa karissati; nikkhipa kaasaayaciivara.m, ehi ramaama supupphite vane. 373. "Madhura~nca pavanti sabbaso, kusumarajena samu.t.thitaa dumaa; pa.thamavasanto sukho utu, ehi ramaama supupphite vane. 374. "Kusumitasikharaa ca paadapaa, abhigajjantiva maaluteritaa; kaa tuyha.m rati bhavissati, yadi ekaa vanamogahissasi. 375. "Vaa.lamigasa"nghasevita.m, ku~njaramattakare.nulo.lita.m; asahaayikaa gantumicchasi, rahita.m bhi.msanaka.m mahaavana.m. 376. "Tapaniiyakataava dhiitikaa, vicarasi cittalateva accharaa; kaasikasukhumehi vaggubhi, sobhasii suvasanehi nuupame. [The rogue:] 370. You are young and not ugly. What will going forth do for you? Throw away your yellow robe. Come, let us delight in the wood that is in full flower. 371. The trees send forth a sweet smell in all directions with the pollen of flowers rising up. The beginning of spring is a happy season. Come, let us delight in the wood that is in full flower. 372. At the same time the trees with blossoming crests cry out, as it were, when shaken by the wind. What delight will there be for you if you plunge into the wood alone? 373. You wish to go without companion to the lonely, frightening great wood, frequented by herds of beasts of prey, disturbed by cow elephants who are excited by bull elephants. 374. You [will] go about like a doll made of gold, like a celestial maiden in Cittalataa. O incomparable one, you [will] shine with beautiful garments of fine muslin, with excellent clothes. RD: 'Young art thou, maiden, and faultless - what seekest thou in the holy life? Cast off that yellow-hued raiment and come! in the blossoming woodland Seek we our pleasure. Filled with the incense of blossoms the trees waft (370) Sweetness. See, the spring's at the prime, the season of happiness! Come with me then to the flowering woodland, and seek we our pleasure. (371) Sweet overhead is the sough of the blossoming crests of the forest Swayed by the Wind-gods. But an thou goest alone in the jungle, Lost in its depths, how wilt thou find aught to delight or content thee? (372) Haunted is the great forest with many a herd of wild creatures, Broken its peace by the tramplings of elephants rutting and savage. Empty of mankind and fearsome *390 - is't there thou would'st go uncompanioned? (373) Thou like a gold-wrought statue, like nymph in celestial garden Movest, O peerless creature. Radiant would shine thy loveliness Robed in raiment of beauty, diaphanous gear of Benares. (374) *390 'Although,' remarks the Commentator, 'in that wood there was then nothing of the sort. But this he said, wishing to make her afraid.' ===to be continued, connie #79280 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:33 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn Dear Elaine, The first (buddhist??) tearing out the eye one I heard, it was Sariputta & when the Brahman stomped on it, Sariputta was said to have given up his practice/faith! I couldn't believe that. peace, connie #79281 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Bud... upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Sukin) - In a message dated 11/24/2007 11:43:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: HI Sukin > In this post you seem to be somewhere between the belief in control > and understanding that control is the function of dhammas. This is > better than those ideas expressed in other posts where you seem more > inclined towards deliberate `doings'. :-) Yes, Phil is not clear on this topic, which is the way it should be because it is a very deep topic. Dhammas are not "controllable", I'm sure of that, but I also believe in deliberate doings to influence dhammas, or to provide conditions, or something like that.. ..the post Howard wrote the other day, praised by Han, was very good, I think, on "control." Metta, Phil ==================================== I'd like to add on that with regard to being "somewhere between the belief in control and understanding that control is the function of dhammas," I see no contradiction. All control is nothing more than conditionality. Belief in control and belief in impersonal conditionality are not contradictory. Impersonal conditionality is exactly the nature of control. What is key is that there is no controller or controllers. There are no agents - just activities and phenomena, importantly including desire, effort/energy, and will that condition the arising and cessation of other phenomena, and such conditionality IS control. If control is thought to literally be force exerted by a person, being, or agent, such alleged control is merely imagined. But if control is thought to be what I wrote above, namely impersonal "activities and phenomena, importantly including desire, effort/energy, and will that condition the arising and cessation of other phenomena," then control is quite real. With metta, Howard #79282 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Elaine) - In a message dated 11/25/2007 1:46:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (and Elaine), --------------- <. . .> H: > When the thinking is underway, that is what is happening and is what should be noticed. --------------- I would be wary of any idea of selecting. The idea of selecting an object for right minfulness is a an idea of control over dhammas. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I said nothing of selecting. Please reread the sentence of mine you quoted above. -------------------------------------------- --------------------------- H: > The thinking need not be all that is happening in the sense of it being in progress every moment. When the mind is alert, clear, and calm, the thinking can be interspersed with awareness of that (just fallen away) thinking. When attention and mindfulness are sufficiently heightened it is even possible to note the penumbral stage of a thought, prior to its being a full-blown thought, a facility requisite for right effort. --------------------------- None of the above is mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka, is it? ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, there is also no instruction on how to eat, breathe, walk, and talk. What do you think fine attention reveals? Do thoughts not arise, peak, and cease? Listen, Ken, I will not attempt to persuade anyone who refuses to directly see what is involved anything about meditating. It is as pointless as attempting to describe taste of food to a person who from birth has taken no sustenance except through tranfusion. You seem to believe that all that you need is in a book. Okay, but if you are consistent in that I'd like to know who it is who is keeping you alive. For man cannot live by words alone. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- H: > And the alertness and mindfulness can protect the mind from getting *lost* in thought. Just as seeing and hearing etc can arise, thinking can also arise, and provided that there is no getting lost in the thinking, thinking need not be a problem. The thinking diminishes, anyway, as the mind settles down. -------------------------------------- According to the Tipitaka, right mindfulness knows the presently arisen object (arammana) of citta. Whatever that object is, right mindfulness knows it. There is no selecting. There is no waiting for a more suitable time. It is the present arammana or none at all. Ken H ========================= With metta, Howard #79283 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Re: Doing Asubha to combat lust truth_aerator Dear Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > I personally find asubha reflection to be not helpful, because when there is lust for a woman in front of me (as there was today, I teach English conversation to adult students and many of the female students > are very foxy indeed) the accumulated tendencies are so very deep. I havr tried reflecting on asubha, but a sexy woman in front of you is > not foul no matter if I reflect on her in that way. I have read that > asubha is only helpful at the level of jhanas - is that your > understanding too? And if there was asubha at the level of jhanas, > would that asubha arise to save the day in various lust-inducing > situations in daily life? >>> As I understand it, if one REALLY develops Asubha well - then one can see foulness even on a live body. Actually same is with anapanasati/metta. In some suttas Buddha speaks about the ability to see "foul in what is not foul" (and all variations of this). I am afraid is that this sort of achievement may require a VERY strong retreat. Maybe even up to 20 HRs a day for many days... Lots of Metta, Alex #79284 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: . But unless a doctor prescribes intoxicant > medication as a necessity, if you have adopted the precept of abstaining from > intoxicants I would suggest sticking with that precept. > > With metta, > Howard >>>> Ok Good. I haven't drank alchohol for 1.5 or more (don't remember, I never was a regular drinker) years, so I don't want to break it. Anyhow, I am taken proper medicine (VitC & Cold Fx) > P. S. Where do you live, Alex? (Here in NY, it's going down to 31 degrees (F) tonight. Right now it's 35.) >>> I live in a Cold Freezer called "Canada". Is that low temperature 31F? I just checked the weather forecast and it is said indeed... -5F soon... The good news it is not -40F which may happen.... Lots of Metta, Alex #79285 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... buddhistmedi... Hi Swee (and RobertK), - Essentially, you correctly stated the following in message # 79264 : Swee: The phrase "let this form be thus, let it not be otherwise" is often quoted (and misunderstood in my opinion) by RobertK as evidence of absolute no control. For me, it merely says that if form is the self, then we can control this form to be permanent (be thus) and not otherwise (not be thus). "Be thus / not be thus" in my opinion translates as "be permanent /not be impermanent". T: That phrase is absolutely critical for us to answer RobertK's belief of absolute uncontrollabily of the khandhas. Yes, Swee, 'be thus/not be thus' centers upon the 'anicca' characteristic rather than 'anatta', which is the consequence of aniica --> dukkha and dukkha --> anatta in that order. Thanks. Tep === #79286 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > Scott: Now, this is also what I am questioning Alex about. Why on > earth would I want to see things that surprise me? Live your life > everyday and you'll see the same. This is nothing. > When you are sitting down, mind can be attentively slowed down (which you can't do while doing daily activities). Like a propeller that is spinning so fast that the blades are not seen, ordinary mind is like that. When the mind is still, OBSERVATION of its actions and links of DO can happen. When mind see cittas (& co) rising and falling, you eventually will become a) dispassionate toward them. b) Lose the atta-belief. c) The "surprise" isn't a surprise. It is more of "Why have I been so ignorant before, and why did the deception last so long?" With strong, non distracted attention, and with stilling of the mind you will be able to see HOW it works. This sort of attentive stillness (samadhi) is best done is sitting position the mind will not be disturbed. 2nd best alternative is walking back and forth. These things are not something that can be seen outside of the formal meditation (bhavana, Jhana, Vipassana call it as you will) by anyone. The observation has to be developed and it has to be selective. Even Venerable TB has said that "meditation isn't passive awareness". Lots of Metta, Alex #79287 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:09 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... lbidd2 Hi Tep and all, I think the idea behind "control = self" is that if we can exercise control over rupa for example, then that rupa is _mine_. We do think that way all the time. On the other hand, control is a major element of Vinaya, proper deportment, and the cultivation of tranquility. If you look up "control" in PTS Dictionary you will find 63 usages in this sense scattered throughout the canon. Even in Vism. you have contradictory usages of "mastery" (vasi). In one way there is mastery, in another way there is no mastery. It depends whether there is clinging. Larry #79288 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:10 am Subject: Regarding Khandas, anatta & Control. truth_aerator Hello all. Ultimately out of all of this discussion, regardless of the answer, the only thing that matters is: WHAT TO DO? Do you sit on the coach watching TV or develop N8P? Do you find excuses or solutions?? It is also not a matter of how many times you fall down, what matter is how many times do you get up! Lots of Metta, Alex #79289 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... buddhistmedi... Hi Howard and Elaine, - You two wrote : > >E: > >It would be really nice if we can spend our day just noticing the > "realities" like hardness, heat, intention (cetana), it's like meditating > >all day, that would be really nice. If life's like that, there will be no > > worries. I don't know if that's possible though... is it possible? > >I don't know. I hope it is. :-)) >Howard: > When the thinking is underway, that is what is happening and is what should be noticed. The thinking need not be all that is happening in the sense of it being in progress every moment. When the mind is alert, clear, and calm, the thinking can be interspersed with awareness of that (just fallen away) thinking. > When attention and mindfulness are sufficiently heightened it is even possible to note the penumbral stage of a thought, prior to its being a full-blown thought, a facility requisite for right effort. And the alertness and mindfulness can protect the mind from getting *lost* in thought. Just as seeing and hearing etc can arise, thinking can also arise, and provided that there is no getting lost in the thinking, thinking need not be a problem. The thinking diminishes, anyway, as the mind settles down. > > .................... T: There are evil and worldly thoughts, and there are good thoughts (samma-sankappa) that are beyond the world. The Buddha taught us to stay away from the former. (Itivuttaka, 110, BPS, John Ireland transl) "Whether walking or standing, Sitting or lying down Whoever thinks such thoughts That are evil and worldly – He is following a wrong path, Infatuated with delusive things. Such a bhikkhu cannot reach Enlightenment which is supreme. Whether walking or standing, Sitting or lying down, Whoever overcomes these thoughts- Such a bhikkhu is able to reach Enlightenment which is supreme." ............. Tep ==== #79290 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Homework Paper to be Graded ..Perplexing ... buddhistmedi... Hi Jon, - Thank you very much for the contribution toward my learning of definitions and terminology of the Abhidhamma. >Jon: > Just butting in on one of the terms you discuss here (don't worry, I'm > not going to grade your homework paper!) T: So far I have no idea what grade I am going to get from Nina. She only gave me comments & corrections. .................... > > 2. Sammuti sacca means "what is real in conventional sense, e.g. > > person, table, etc.". > > >Jon: > Another translation would be 'conventional truth' or 'commonly accepted truth'. An rather mundane example of this might be the statement, "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west". > > This is contrasted with 'paramattha sacca' a truth that is true in the > ultimate sense. > T: What would be a supramundane example of sammuti sacca ? Further, you say that paramattha sacca is a truth "that is true in the ultimate sense". That sounds perplexing to me; isn't it true in the conventional sense as well? Tep ==== #79291 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... buddhistmedi... Hi Larry (RobertK, Swee, and all friends), - I am glad to read your timely comment and contribution to this important discussion topic. I am pleased that you have pointed out that "control is a major element of Vinaya, proper deportment, and the cultivation of tranquility", This is an important part of Buddhism that have surprisingly been rejected by some smart members of the DSG Abhidhammika Gang. Yes, Larry, the term mastery(vasi) indicates controllability of the citta and cetasikas. Of course, there is a Self when there is clinging, i.e. attavadupadana. But I am not sure I understand you perfectly well when you wrote: >L: I think the idea behind "control = self" is that if we can exercise control over rupa for example, then that rupa is _mine_. We do think that way all the time. T: I agree that when we exercise control over ruupa, then we cannot help thinking/assuming/grasping that ruupa is "mine". A good example is my wife -- I think she is mine only when she is sweet and does what I like her to do. She is 'other' whenever she stops being nice and agreeable. ;-)) But control is one thing and the upadana that 'this is mine' is another. So, on what reason can you equate control to Self? Thanks. Tep ===== #79292 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:39 am Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Sensual Pleasures ... buddhistmedi... Hi Alex, - Without any question in my mind, you are one of the most sutta- educated lay-Buddhists I have ever known. Thank you for the following remarks. -- "Anatta IS the truth, but it MUST be used. Otherwise it will boil down to dogma, heated arguments (Pudgalavadins vs Nihilists) on various boards, it will become relic and stale." -- "If Mara can't erase Buddha's teaching then it will a) Add teachings that appear to be Buddha's but contain poison in them (a beautiful drink that is poisoned) and/or b) Try to convince someone not to practice..." -- "Buddhism absolutely isn't rational. It is above what is the product of the ego. Before one gets rid of poisons, intellect can really find good, smart, intelligent, "wholesome", excuses on why not do the practice!" ................................... T: Alex, I am interested in the Dhammapada 25 and your remark below. 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 Alex: Sensual pleasure above ALSO refer to mental pleasures got from various ideas, concepts and thoughts. .............................. T: Can you divorce your mind from mental pleasures pertaining to the various ideas, concepts and thoughts? The fact of the matter that you apparently enjoy posting messages and discussing the Dhamma here strongly indicates that your mind still "whirls on sensual pleasures", does it not? Tep ==== #79293 From: Ken O Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ashkenn2k Hi Swee Boon > Desirous of rooting out this fetter of self-identity view which he > sees as suffering, he attends appropriately to the cause of the > fetter and to the cessation of the fetter. One fine day, he finally roots out this fetter of self-identity view through appropriate attention to the 4NTs, becoming a stream-winner. Does his becoming a stream-winner then invalidates all of the merits > that he has previously made? Having become a stream-winner, he furthermore restraints himself in terms of the five flowery senses and keeps in check his mind of ill-will. Is there then no making of merit when the stream-winner restraints himself in terms of the five flowery senses and keeps in check his mind of ill-will? KO: You are talking about law of kamma, that cannot be change until one become an Arahant. Merit making is not the way of Buddha dhamma. Good kuasala only produces good results. That is how one born as heavenly beings. At the moment of kusala, alobha arise, no self is involved but that does not mean panna arise. Hence Brahma when being ask (i remember there is sutta on this) about salvation, he cannot answer it. As you said appropriate attention to the 4NTs, this is call wise attention. When wise attention arise, panna arise, it is panna that penetrates the meaning of not self and not alobha. Panna will not arise when self arise, they are mutually exclusive. I must do this action in order to be enlighted, then self has already arisen. No way could panna arise. The reason when we say do not purposely to arise panna because we could be feeding the self. Many people taught that restrain one self is due to our own willed volitions. But they do not realise, one cannot restraint oneself without kusala conditions our actions. It would be much more beneficial, if panna arise with it. Without kusala understanding the danger of akusala, restrain would not be possible. One actions is already condition by the arisen kusala. As I said earlier, citta thinks, tendency is the a pivotal influence, cetasikas are the partners. The strength of how we think would be depending on how much we understand it. The more we understanding this nature, the easier we would break the strangulations, its bonds. Understanding of this nature is not possible with one thinks one will it because as I said panna and self are exclusive. Kind regards Ken O #79294 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/25/2007 10:44:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I live in a Cold Freezer called "Canada". Is that low temperature 31F? I just checked the weather forecast and it is said indeed... -5F soon... The good news it is not -40F which may happen.... ============================= Brrrr! I guess that cold is the price you pay for living in the land of political liberalism! ;-)) With metta, Howard #79295 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:11 am Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Sensual Pleasures ... truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > Hi Alex, - > T: Can you divorce your mind from mental pleasures pertaining to the > various ideas, concepts and thoughts? The fact of the matter that you > apparently enjoy posting messages and discussing the Dhamma here > strongly indicates that your mind still "whirls on sensual pleasures", does it not? > Tep > ==== > Tep, I have a long way to go. If the talk leads to dispassion rather then passion, then it is a good talk. ------ "And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to. "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. "He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing. [alex: becomes sotapanna] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html --------- But you do have a point and it is good one. Ultimately I will have to let go of the intellectual graspings. It is just all in its due time... Better to think about Dhamma rather than natural inclinations of the hormonal mind. It is actually one of the methods to control thoughts. "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — connected with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Lots of metta, Alex #79296 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for the reply: E: "What happened under the Bodhi tree?" Scott: SN 56(11,1): "...So long, bhikkhus, as my knowledge and vision of these Four Noble Truths as they really are in their three phases and twelve aspects was not thoroughly purified in this way, I did not claim to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world with its devas, Maara, and Brahmaa, in this generation with its ascetics, and brahmins, its devas and humans. But when my knowledge and vision of these Four Noble Truths as they really are in their three phases and twelve aspects was thoroughly purified in this way, then I claimed to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world with its devas, Maara, and Brahmaa, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans. The knowledge and vision arose in me: 'Unshakable is the liberation of my mind. This is my last birth. Now there is no more renewed existence." Dhammacakkappavattana sutta.m Yaavakiiva~nca me bhikkhave, imesu catusu ariyasaccesu eva.m tipariva~n~na.m dvaadasaakaara.m yathaabhuuta.m ~naa.nadassana.m na suvisuddha.m ahosi, neva taavaaha.m bhikkhave, sadevake loke samaarake sabrahmake sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya anuttara.m sammaasambodhi.m abhisambuddho pacca~n~naasi.m. Yato ca kho me bhikkhave, imesu catusu ariyasaccesu eva.m tipariva.t.ta.m dvaadasaakaara.m yathaabhuuta.m ~naa.nadassana.m suvisuddha.m ahosi, athaaha.m bhikkhave, sadevake loke samaarake sabrahmake sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya anuttara.m sammaasambodhi.m abhisambuddho pacca~n~naasi.m. ~Naa.na~nca pana me dassana.m udapaadi akuppaa me cetovimutti, ayamantimaa jaati natthidaani punabbhavoti. Idamavoca bhagavaa attamanaa pa~ncavaggiyaa bhikkhuu bhagavato bhaasita.m abhinandunti. Scott: Knowledge and vision arose conditioned not only by mere postures but by aeons of cultivation and development. E: "Do you think enlightenment could happen while talking, walking, etc? Actually, someone told me enlightenment could happen sitting on the toilet bowl. I don't know, I guess it could, but only if the mindfulness is very sharp. But sharp mindfulness need good concentration to arise." Scott: Yes, anwhere, any posture, by conditions only. Sati and cittass'ekaggataa are only two mental factors involved. We need to learn so much about this. Sincerely, Scott. #79297 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, H: "Brrrr! I guess that cold is the price you pay for living in the land of political liberalism! ;-))" Scott: Good for road hockey though... Sincerely, Scott. #79298 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:43 am Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Sensual Pleasures ... buddhistmedi... Hi Alex (and RobertK, Swee, Elaine), - You were talking about controlling thoughts : >Alex: > But you do have a point and it is good one. Ultimately I will have to > let go of the intellectual graspings. It is just all in its due time... > Better to think about Dhamma rather than natural inclinations of the > hormonal mind. It is actually one of the methods to control thoughts. > > "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — connected with > desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring > to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another > theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. " > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html > Tep: I like MN 2 very much too as one of the most important suutas on manipulation of vitakka to cut off kilesas. In message #79008 I told Howard that kusala vitakka (wholesome thoughts) are controllable, citing MN 20: >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. T: And RobertK replied (#79038): >dear Tep, >What are the khandhas that vitakka is classfied under and do you believe any khandha is controllable? >Robert .................................. T: Alex, using your exceptional sutta knowledge, what would you respond to Robert K? He is very "unshakable", believe me. Thanks. Tep ==== #79299 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter Dear Venerable Dhammanando ( and all), thank you for your prompt answer. you wrote: 'Thanks for your consideration, but I have in fact been following this thread from the outset, along with the predecessor from which it arose.' D: I am pleased to learn about that, Bhante.. ;-) Ven.Dh.: ( Dieter: 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.) I think it rather depends on the character of the media. For example, it would undoubtedly be unfair to take a Buddhist teacher to task for a careless or poorly considered statement on Dhamma that he happened to let slip in the course of an interview or an impromptu public talk. Similarly, if the teacher happens to be unskilled in language and inclined to express himself clumsily and unclearly, then due allowance must be made for this and an effort made to place the most charitable construal upon his words. But such considerations hardly apply to Thanissaro's two articles on anatta. These are not from interviews or public talks, nor are they the works of a man who is unable to express himself clearly. They are carefully phrased essays, written at the author's leisure, with every opportunity to consult the texts, to give undivided attention to what he wants to say, and to hone and polish his words until he's entirely satisfied that they convey his intended meaning. Furthermore, the essays have now been available online for about a decade. During this time they have been discussed, attacked and defended ad nauseum on numerous Buddhist fora. Since the criticisms of his essays have not prompted the author to make even one single revision to them, I think it's safe to assume that he is still satisfied both with what he has said and with the way that he has said it.' D: this is a wellfounded explanation, Bhante and I have to rest my case for this point: the essay ' Not-Self Strategy should meet the standard of the critical eye.., possibly I did Ven. Thanissaro even a disfavor by indicating otherwise.. VenDh: This being so, it's hard to take the ajahn's defenders seriously when they pass over the plain sense of his words and resort to the special pleading: "Oh, I'm sure that when Thanissaro said x he really meant y." D: I am not sure whom/what you mean . As I am concerned I did not take sides yet,but ask for a clarification of this matter because of recognised confusion and disturbance. The Buddha used plenty of metaphors, analogies , similes , aphorism when it was benefitial for understanding...this is not to say it must apply to the 'special pleading' you mention. VenDh: Dieter: he [Thanissaro] wrote:'Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self." Right. Apart from the dubiousness of "metaphysical tenet" this should suffice as a statement of the Theravadin view. D: Can self and soul be understood as a synonym ? The term soul is connected with eternity , whereas ' self ' leaves the possibility of delusion and ignorance and therefore liberation. Books have been written because the truth of anatta needs to be unveiled, to be carefully examined (khanda attachment) .. The Theravadin view is not 'anatta ! ' but a careful guidance towards insight/ detachment in realisation of that wisdom/ ultimate truth. Ven.Dh.: Thanissaro: "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:" So the Theravada got it all wrong. And since the claim that "there is in the highest sense no self" is shared by all the Indian schools, it seems everyone got it wrong until Thanissaro came along to tell us what anatta really means. Now this is not of course an a priori impossibility, but the sheer improbabilty of it should be enough to at least make us think twice before embracing Thanissaro's novelties. D: I agree ,it is a strange statement :'the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering':" Anatta as being ultimate truth , is accepted seeing the ignorance in respect to the links of D.O. : i.e. there is a conditioning but nothing like any self substance. As I mentioned before , one cannot totally reject Ven Th.'s statement, because logically the whole teaching - as proclaimed by the Buddha - concerns suffering and the cessation of suffering and as such anatta is part of it , i.e. not a ' metaphysical tenet' VenDh: Dieter: What disturbs me , and I assume others as well , is that the > Venerable is criticized for reasons not yet clearly evident. Well, I can't answer for all dsg's critics of the "not self strategy", but if there's anything that's not clear in my own posts, please let me know. D: I try to address that.. Ven:Dh: Dieter: I like to claim that a strategic interpretation of anatta as I mentioned above is in according with the teaching. Anyone can claim things. But the point needs arguing and so far in this thread you've offered little in the way of argument. Your posts have consisted mostly of a lot of hand-waving about how naughty we are to suggest that Thanissaro's interpretation might be wrong. D: sorry, in case I offered little of arguments in my previous mail hoping to be more clear now. yes, anyone can claim things.. good, that Theravadins have a common understanding that finally the Buddha Dhamma (Sutta and Vinaya Pitaka) is the teacher as determined by the Buddha before his passing away (valid for each individual or group , whether monks or laity ,claiming to speak of the Dhamma and so subject to Maha Padesas in case of doubt) Please let me repeat what I wrote before : '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 . ' Frankly speaking , I hoped you would have at least indicated, that the wording is as I said inapproriate and not , what it seems to me : belittle my concern as a ' lot of handwaving' . VenDh: Thanissaro has placed his writings in the public arena, making them a legitimate subject for public discussion by anyone who cares to do so. As for the Mahapadesas, I brought these up in response to Elaine's suggestion that Thanissaro is a "reputable monk" and therefore his views should be granted immunity to criticism. The Mahapadesas show that this is not the case. D: very well.. and the critics are as well not granted immunity.. and until now I believe not to be alone to maintain that there is still no evidence provided 'clearly and unambiguously', and be pleased to learn from you further details. looking forward to hearing from you, Bhante.. with Metta Dieter #79300 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:05 am Subject: Re: Doing Asubha to combat lust .. Vangisa Bhikkhu .. buddhistmedi... Hi Phil and Alex, - Alex was right about strong training of the mind is needed to overcome lust. > Alex: > As I understand it, if one REALLY develops Asubha well - then one can see foulness even on a live body. Actually same is with > anapanasati/metta. In some suttas Buddha speaks about the ability to see "foul in what is not foul" (and all variations of this). > > I am afraid is that this sort of achievement may require a VERY > strong retreat. Maybe even up to 20 HRs a day for many days... > .......................... T: The venerable Ananda taught Vangisa Bhikkhu in SN 8.4 about asubha sanna AND a few other bhavanas necessary to support asubha sanna (otherwise, it may not work). [Vangisa Bhikkhu:] With sensual lust I burn. My mind is on fire. Please, Gotama, from compassion, tell me how to put it out. [Ven. Ananda:] From distorted perception your mind is on fire. Shun the theme of the beautiful accompanied by lust. See mental fabrications as other, as stress, & not-self. Extinguish your great lust. Don't keep burning again & again. Develop the mind — well-centered & one — in the foul, through the foul. Have your mindfulness immersed in the body. Be one who pursues disenchantment. Develop the theme-less. Cast out conceit. Then, from breaking through conceit, you will go on your way at peace [SN 8.4, Ananda Sutta] ............................ Tep ==== #79301 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Elaine, > > Thanks for the reply: > > E: "What happened under the Bodhi tree?" > > Scott: SN 56(11,1): > DO (conditionality) was the 3rd Knowledge gained from the 4th Jhana. -------- I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but it is not easy to achieve that pleasure with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance.' "So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana [2nd, 3rd, 4th] With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details. "This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. "This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' "This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.004.than.html http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/085-bodhirajakumara-e1.htm --- Furthermore that sort of enlightment is often taught in the suttas. DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Lots of Metta, Alex #79302 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:21 pm Subject: Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter (and Dhammanando Bhikkhu, Elaine, Howard, Alex, ...), - I totally support your position concerning the defence of Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (TB) in 1) and 2) below. 1) What some of the members including you are motivated to defend the Venerable TB in the first place was the impression of scorning a respected senior monk. 2) There is still no evidence provided clearly and unambiguously that Ven TB has a self-view and wishes to promote self-view. T: Further, I agree with you that your concern, which is also mine, should not be labelled as a ' lot of handwaving' . However, I disagree with you when you agreed with Dhammanando Bhikkhu as follows. Dieter: "I agree, it is a strange statement : 'the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering':" T: My reason to disagree is the TB's statement above is not strange, but it has to be read carefully as follows: The Buddha taught anatta as a main truth for gaining release from suffering, not as a metaphysical assertion. In order to gain release one must devise a proper questioning approach as a strategy for contemplation and penetration of the anatta characteristic in all sankhara dhamma. ..................... Tep === #79303 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:16 pm Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: And RobertK replied (#79038): > > >dear Tep, > >What are the khandhas that vitakka is classfied under and do you > believe any khandha is controllable? > >Robert > .................................. > > T: Alex, using your exceptional sutta knowledge, what would you > respond to Robert K? He is very "unshakable", believe me. >>> Arahant's Panna is unshakeable or worldling's fixed wrong view. What do we mean by "control" ? Do we imply 0%, partial or complete control? What has happened in the past cannot be changed, but what mind does NOW can partially change the stream. Furthermore we need to rememeber that there is difference between ease of changability between vinnana + nama & rupa. You can't instantly change the body, but mind can change so fast that the Buddha couldn't find a similie on how fast it changes. "I don't envision a single thing that is as quick to reverse itself as the mind — so much so that there is no feasible simile for how quick to reverse itself it is." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.048.than.html The key point is to make the mind to reverse towards what is worthwhile (detachement, seclusion, release). Since all rupa actions are based due to volition (mind), the slow to change rupa CAN be effected to a certain degree by the mind 1. Mind precedes all [mental] states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. 2. Mind precedes all [mental] states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. Clearly first 2 lines of Dhp show that THERE IS A CHOICE between impure and pure actions. Buddha wouldn't teach ethics if it was all due to past cittas over which we have no control. 3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html Again there is selection between harbouring or not evil thoughts. These two lines would be meaningless as an instruction on "What is to be Done?" if we followed a strict classical atomistic determinism. For example today we know that (atleast on a subatomic level) we can speak ONLY in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. The mind is more of a quantum mechanics while rupa is more towards classical mechanics. What is impossible for rupa, may be possible towards mind (since the mind is not resisting unlike some rupa). In SN, there are many suttas which talk about feeding & starving the hindrances. There are suttas which talk about feeding & starving the 7 Enlightment Factors. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.051.than.html This shows that attention CAN be selective, although if mind is negligent it may be HARDER to pull eyes off something attractive. --- Rupa CAN indirectly be controlled through Kamma: Now what, monks, is old karma? The eye is to be seen as old karma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear ... The nose ... The tongue ... The body ... The intellect is to be seen as old karma, fabricated & WILLED, capable of being felt. This is called old karma. SN35.145 --- WILLED!!! Anyhow I wonder if "It was all due to past causes that I've committed parajika offence" statment by a monk would be accepted. "Everything is due to past causes (cittas, cetasikas, etc) Would also mean that Devadatta caused schism not due to his willful volition, but merely due to cittas & cetasikas rising and falling... And that Buddha was merely automaton without any real compassion. He was simply acting the way not due to volition&vijja but simply due to past causes - which of course is BULL!!! Buddha had a choice (see his deliberations to teach or not), and so did Devadatta. Also remember that while mind may not have direct control over past causes from DO, mind does have a choice re: Vedana. To act or to re- act? To act with craving, aversion & delusion or with Sati-sampajanna- Vijja etc? When mind is self-reflexive (sati), it can hold unwholesome qualities in check. --- Past is no longer existing, future is not yet existing. The present is when future (one nonexistant) becomes past (another non-existent). I'd like to say that we generally do not see the present, we lag behind by ~1/4 s (250ms reaction time). So very often when we try to control the present, we may fail due to the fact that we grasp something already non existent. If an ordinary person would try to play tennis with a pro, even if that pro is female - the ordinary person would not be even able to hit back the 70-100 mph tennis ball flying at him. The reaction time needs to be trained, as the ball will reach the other side of the court in under 1 second. When you meditate you are training MENTAL reaction time. If meditator practicing letting go (Anatta put into action) manages to bring reaction time totally to a real present 0ms (no lag) - then it is Cessation of Perception and Feelings. You have hit the ball and are no longer under power from "present" conditions that arise at that time. Arahants in a way have more "freedom" due to the fact that hindrances cannot arise, while the ordinary mind has to be very careful and selective about what it feeds and what it starves. For those who aren't mental pro athletes yet, there are lower Jhanas which require less reaction time. They are temporary freedom from the hindrances... Those who aren't mindful, often notice a hindrance when it is too late and at THAT time are almost under its sway and then it would be hard to deal with it. But if one's attention has a quick reaction time, than the hindrance might be simply a "bleep", a "sanna", the ceases quickly enough not to grow into a big problem. We need to feed the mind like we need to feed the body. Let us feed the mind with enlightment factors and starve it from the hindrances. Mara is very cunning and will stop at nothing. If it could infiltrate Ven. Ananda (DN16) who was head & shoulders above us, nothing to say about us and certain commentators. Luckily the Buddha has shown us a place which Mara cannot touch. It is called 1st Jhana, 2nd Jhana, 3rd Jhana, 4th Jhana, and all the arupa's + Cessation + 3 meditations. Lets kick Mara in the Jewels! Before then, we run the risk of mishandling knowledge. -- "Suppose that a wild deer is living in wilderness glen. Carefree it walks, carefree it stands, carefree it sits, carefree it lies down. Why is that? Because it has gone beyond the hunter's range. 5 In the same way, a monk — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. This monk is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to the Evil One. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html#t-6 And a very stern passage from Dhp: 72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.05.budd.html This is one of the reasons why a person MUST be very strong in ethics and morality before jumping to metaphysics. Lots of Metta, Alex #79304 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:24 pm Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will buddhistmedi... Dear Alex (RobertK, Han, Elaine, Scott, KenH), - You are my true Dhamma friend, Alex. I am very impressed by your writing in both quality, style and content -- your knowledge of the dhammas and the Suttanta Pitaka is second to none. It is time you should consider publishing a book about the Teachings. Thanks. Tep ==== #79305 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:46 pm Subject: Re: Doing Asubha to combat lust .. Vangisa Bhikkhu .. antony272b2 Hi Phil, Alex, Tep, As a layperson I've found an effective way to reduce lust by giving dana to the Rape Crisis Center. With metta / Antony. #79306 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... lbidd2 Hi Tep, Tep: "But control is one thing and the upadana that 'this is mine' is another. So, on what reason can you equate control to Self?" Larry: The Buddha's argument is that if there is no control over a dhamma the dhamma cannot be self. Therefore the wrong view is that there _is_ control over a dhamma when that dhamma is taken to be self. Self is sometimes defined as me or mine. In this case "mine" makes more sense. Also we often think what is mine is who and what I am. Larry #79307 From: Elaine Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Dear Scott, I don't understand Conditions. 1) How does this condition (for enlightenment) arise? 2) Would anyone "know" whether this condition is already here? 3) Are the conditions recognizable? 4) Do these conditions just happen to us? 5) Do you think one day, Nibbana will just fall right into our lap, because the conditions are right? If there is no effort put into achieving Nibbana, then it is much a "given" thing, right? Nibbana will come one day, although it will take aeons, whether you meditate or not, you don't have to 'do' anything or 'not do' anything. I doubt Buddha taught us that. Buddha taught us to "avoid evil, do good and purify our mind". I think "condition" is another word for "fate". I cannot believe our Buddha taught "Fatalism with a twist by using the word Condition". I don't think I can ever accept your views on Conditions. Our past kamma cannot be changed but our present kamma is in our own hands. With metta, Elaine #79308 From: Elaine Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will shennieca Dear Alex, You are a true Dhamma friend (kalyanamitta). Thank you!! (((HUGS))) :-)) :D May we get a glimpse of Nibbana in this very life. With mettaa & respect, Elaine #79309 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will truth_aerator Dear Elaine, Thank you very much for your kind words :) Lots of Metta, Alex #79310 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Typical Characteristic, no? dcwijeratna Dear Collette This refers to your e-m of Novemeber 24, on the above subject. I quote from the above e-m of yours: "As with Hinduism these two contemplatives took/drew from the Buddhist doctrine heavily but in the Hindu case Buddhism drew from/took concepts from the Hindu in manifesting it's psychology" I am particularly interested in the second clause: "... Buddhism from/took concepts from the Hindu in manifesting it's psychology ..." This statement is not very clear to me, I would be very grateful if you would kindly clarify the following: 1. What exactly is the Buddhism the writer is referring to: Theravaada, Mahaayaana etc.? 2. What concepts were taken from the Hindu Psychology by "Buddhism"? Without these the writer's statement would not convey a lot to any reader, at least to me? Thank you, Sincerely, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79311 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (15) dcwijeratna Dear Collette, I refer to your e-m Nov 24, on the above subject addressed to Tep and Sarah. There is just one little point I wish to clarify. It appears as if you distinguish between Buddhism and Theravaada, and possibly with the 'original' teaching of the Buddha. Is my understanding correct? Then another point: What it your own stand-point from which you look at these things? That also would help us to understand things little better, I guess? D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79312 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dcwijeratna Hi Charles, I hope you would not mind my butting into your discussion with KO. I won't be offended if you don't respond. You wrote: "Good arguments but how can you prove there is no such thing as a self ?" According to my understanding of the Teachings of the Buddha, the answer to your question is 'by travelling the Buddhist path--the Noble Eightfold Path'. There is no other way. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79313 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:14 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (15) buddhistmedi... Hi Colette, - You wrote : I agree with Tep here .. Thank you very much for boosting my confidence a little. >C: Tep, why don't you open the discussion of what potentials you see as having a factor in the COMPARISON between the Abhidhaammikas and the Maadhyamikas? Maybe you could be so brash as opening yourself up for analysis by giving us your opinion of the Abhidhammika and how the Abhidhamika is felt/seen/heard in this group AND the same for the Maadhyamikas which are a Mahayanist tradition and not Theravadan. T: You know I cannot think of myself as knowledgable about the Abhidhamma or Maadhyama. So I am not qualified to write an essay comparing the two camps. Sticking my neck out too far is a risky thing to do ! Tep === #79314 From: "tom" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:39 pm Subject: UG on the value of much thinking: zorroelbueno Everything was thrown out of my system. I don't know how I was thrown off the merry go round. I went round and round and round. I was lucky -- luck, not in the sense that when you go to a gambling place and win if you're lucky. They put me on a merry go round; I went on and on and on. I didn't have the guts to jump off. I was just thrown off like an animal thrown from the top of a tree. The animal just gets up and runs off. UGK #79315 From: "colette" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:58 pm Subject: Re: My Typical Characteristic, no? ksheri3 Hi Phil, No problems, if, somehow, you feel that there is a problem with not responding or communicating with me. I'm used to solitary confinement since 1981 as a result of an opinion formulated and issued to me and a few of my friends, at that time, from the L.A. Archdiocese -- I had just discovered manuscripts on sex magik and wanted to try them out to see if they worked. > Sorry, I won't be able to read that paper, but good luck with it. > colette: A shame, it's a good paper: Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western. As I said, I am certainly grappling with it and it is a struggle without any dictionaries and thesauruses. I once had a library of Grimoires (manuscripts on the processes and practices of magik) which I needed dictionaries and thesauruses. > > I cannot see this thing called "evil" I am blind go it's presence. > > Couldn't we, in Dhamma terms, just understand "evil" as > intentional acts that one knows will be to the harm of others, with > degree according to the degree of that harm? > colette: first thought in the few seconds I have, is that this is a good process, action, to take. Let me read it again tomorrow and consider it better. ---------------------------- > > It's such an abstract concept that I can't see why anybody would > > place such intense reliability on this concept and absolute > necessity > > for it's presence. For instance society claims that it is wrong and > > is not to be approached yet they INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY > > employ the presence of evil, they employ the value of evil, they > are > > addicted to the function of evil then turn around as hypocrits > > always do, turn around and deplore it AFTER THE FACT. > > I don't get this, Colette. What does the hypocrisy of society with > respect to evil (which I don't dispute) have to do with the > individual's ability to "place intense reliability" on the concept? > colette: WHAT? ARE YOU BLIND AS WELL? Didn't you see the blatant contradiction I stated that society dictates that evil is to be avoided, hated, etc, but then when everybody has decided to rely on this "value" they call "good" then the status quo turns around and uses, employs, that which they dictated everybody else NOT USE, NOT EMPLOY. Total Hypocracy and in line with Austin Osman Spare's manuscript Cermon of the Hypocrit, which can be found in Chaos Magik or the ChaosMatrix. Thanx for the input, Hope ya get back up to speed here, eventhough I'm in & out and not very consistent on posting here lately myself. toodles, colette #79316 From: "Peter Bowen" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. bowen.peter I have found Ven. Dhammanando's posts in this thread to be quite logical, consistent, and well-reasoned. He speaks plainly and fairly, I think, about the subject of "non-self" as well as Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his writings. In addition, he is a careful and erudite exponent of the Classical Theravada point of view. I have learned much from him in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future as well. With metta, Peter Bowen #79317 From: "colette" Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... ksheri3 Hi Larry, I Luv that response! Kudos to ya baby -- what wrong view is how it got to be wrong view and how the wrong view grew into something other, which you clasified as the self, but I'd clasify it that way to. VEry good response and soooooooooooo easily understood. I even lived how you furthered the definition by showing Tep that the "self" can be seen not only as I or me but as "mine" this works into the suttas nicely, but I'm sure Tep knows this. I enjoyed reading another good post before I get off the computer. toodles, colette #79318 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partially Controllable by Conditions ... lbidd2 Thanks Colette, seeya L. C: "I enjoyed reading another good post before I get off the computer." #79319 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. sarahprocter... Dear Peter, Just a brief note to welcome you to DSG (as I think this was your first message here) and to thank you for chipping in on this extremely controversial thread! I've also been glad to read Ven Dhammanando's posts on the topic (as well as everyone else's -- it takes different opinions to have a good discussion, I think!) I'll look forward to reading any of your further comments on any of the threads. If you'd care to introduce yourself a little, that would also be appreciated by many, I'm sure. Hope to discuss Dhamma with you in future. Metta, Sarah #79320 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control sarahprocter... Hi Robert A (& Howard), Good to read more of your reflections recently, Robert. --- Robert wrote: > 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 .... S: So far, I thought this was very good... (although strictly speaking, I'd say it's the thinking rather than the thoughts themselves that arise from conditions). .... > and that our control of thoughts is > limited > to how we create those conditons? .... S: The question here is what is this 'we' that creates anything? If you say that of course, 'we' is just used conventionally and that you know there are only the 5 khandhas, then you are saying that "control of thoughts is limited to how the khandhas create those conditions." I'd then respond by saying I almost agree. Even now there are khandhas arising and falling away, conditioned by past khandhas and conditioning future khandhas even as we speak. No control by any self at all. Metta, Sarah ======== #79321 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:32 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > 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. ... S: Always good to see you around:-) Charles, it is impossible 'to obtain enlightenment' without the development of understanding of present dhammas. Part of the development of this understanding is the realization that these dhammas are anatta. They are mere elements arising and falling away. Take seeing consciousness as an example. It is a mere dhamma which arises, experiences visible object and then falls away. There is no atta, no self in it, outside it, owning it or owned by it. If this is not clearly (and directly understood), it will not only be impossible to attain enlightenment, it'll be impossible to even attain insights leading to such enlightenment. There has to be a clear understanding of namas and rupas (and their distinction) from the outset. This body, this self, all that we find so important are just namas and rupas - those dhammas which can experience, such as seeing consciousness and those dhammas which can never experience, such as visible object, hardness and so on. Charles, you mentioned that you have a lot of time on your hands at the moment. I'm sorry to hear that you're still not having any luck on the job front, but why not make the most of the opportunity to really study and consider the texts, such as 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas' which we gave you when we had our enjoyable get-together in Hong Kong?:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #79322 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:42 am Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will kelvin_lwin Alex, (Tep/RobK) I don't see a very convincing argument in your post or answering RobK's original question. If you had taken the time to look at RobK's position then a lot of your post wouldn't be needed. It's basic knowledge that citta is faster than rupa and has an effect on rupa as does kamma (total 4 causes). > > >What are the khandhas that vitakka is classfied under and do you > > believe any khandha is controllable? > > >Robert > A: What do we mean by "control" ? Do we imply 0%, partial or complete > control? What has happened in the past cannot be changed, but what > mind does NOW can partially change the stream. K: Look at any Sutta with definition of control and controllability of khandas. > A: 1. Mind precedes all [mental] states. Mind is their chief; they are > all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts > suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. > > 2. Mind precedes all [mental] states. Mind is their chief; they are > all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts > happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. > > Clearly first 2 lines of Dhp show that THERE IS A CHOICE between > impure and pure actions. Buddha wouldn't teach ethics if it was all > due to past cittas over which we have no control. K: It's unclear to me how those lines show what you claim. It just states two possibilities and kammic law. It's clear that past cittas = kamma but the question is how does the present citta arise. > > A3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." > Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. > > 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." > Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.01.budd.html > > A:Again there is selection between harbouring or not evil thoughts. > These two lines would be meaningless as an instruction on "What is to > be Done?" if we followed a strict classical atomistic determinism. > For example today we know that (atleast on a subatomic level) we can > speak ONLY in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. The > mind is more of a quantum mechanics while rupa is more towards > classical mechanics. What is impossible for rupa, may be possible > towards mind (since the mind is not resisting unlike some rupa). K: Again, don't see selection implied there. Don't see how your conclusion are supported by the text excerpt with some modern interpretation. What part of the mind, or maybe khanda are you talking about? > A: Now what, monks, is old karma? The eye is to be seen as old karma, > fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear ... The nose ... > The tongue ... The body ... The intellect is to be seen as old karma, > fabricated & WILLED, capable of being felt. This is called old karma. > SN35.145 > --- > WILLED!!! K: Willed by past citta = kamma or new citta? > A: "Everything is due to past causes (cittas, cetasikas, etc) > > Would also mean that Devadatta caused schism not due to his willful > volition, but merely due to cittas & cetasikas rising and falling... > > And that Buddha was merely automaton without any real compassion. He > was simply acting the way not due to volition&vijja but simply due to > past causes - which of course is BULL!!! > > Buddha had a choice (see his deliberations to teach or not), and so > did Devadatta. K: hmm why cant Devadatta be a creature of habit and reprising his role as the great antagonist? Can't fulfilling paramis for long time with compassion give rise to real compassion or it's fake w/o willful volition? > A: Also remember that while mind may not have direct control over past > causes from DO, mind does have a choice re: Vedana. To act or to re- > act? To act with craving, aversion & delusion or with Sati- sampajanna- > Vijja etc? When mind is self-reflexive (sati), it can hold > unwholesome qualities in check. K: how is the mind being controlled to have sati or to make choices? >A: person would not be even able to hit back the 70-100 mph tennis ball > flying at him. The reaction time needs to be trained, as the ball > will reach the other side of the court in under 1 second. K: Every arahat will beat Roger Federer then? > A: When you meditate you are training MENTAL reaction time. If meditator > practicing letting go (Anatta put into action) manages to bring > reaction time totally to a real present 0ms (no lag) - then it is > Cessation of Perception and Feelings. K: So if instant reaction = no preception and feelings? Then what is the mind reacting to? Nothing anymore? > A: For those who aren't mental pro athletes yet, there are lower Jhanas > which require less reaction time. K: Is there reaction while being absorbed in jhana? > A: Luckily the Buddha has shown us a place which Mara cannot touch. > It is called 1st Jhana, 2nd Jhana, 3rd Jhana, 4th Jhana, and all the > arupa's + Cessation + 3 meditations. K: Where does he say this? Especially since Devadatta had complete mastery of the jhanas and abinnas. Ashin Anuruddha with mastery of divine eye while still unable to tell defilements in the mind. - Kel #79323 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---------- > > > H: > When the thinking is underway, that is what is happening and is what should be noticed. > > KH: I would be wary of any idea of selecting. The idea of selecting an object for right minfulness is a an idea of control over dhammas. > Howard: I said nothing of selecting. Please reread the sentence of mine you quoted above. ----------- As I see it, it says when thinking is under way thinking should be selected as the object to be noticed. I realise you to are referring to a conventional practice and not to the actual practice of satipatthana. Even so, you are suggesting there is a link between those two entirely different practices. Therefore, you must be suggesting that selection plays a role in satipatthana. But it doesn't. According to the Dhamma, the world contains only the one, presently arisen, object of consciousness. Selection cannot possibly play a role. ------------ <. . .> KH: > > None of the above is mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka, is it? > > Howard: > Ken, there is also no instruction on how to eat, breathe, walk, and talk. ------------ Of course there isn't. The Buddha described a world of presently arisen paramattha dhammas. Formal meditation practices and other concepts (such as eating and breathing) do not enter into it. ----------- H: > What do you think fine attention reveals? Do thoughts not arise, peak, and cease? ------------ No, except in an illusory way. Ultimately, thoughts do not exist. Mindfulness of ultimately non-existent objects cannot possibly be the Way. -------------------------- H: > Listen, Ken, I will not attempt to persuade anyone who refuses to directly see what is involved anything about meditating. It is as pointless as attempting to describe taste of food to a person who from birth has taken no sustenance except through tranfusion. You seem to believe that all that you need is in a book. Okay, but if you are consistent in that I'd like to know who it is who is keeping you alive. For man cannot live by words alone. --------------------------- You seem to be thinking there are two worlds - the paramattha and the conventional. But that is a misconception. References in the Dhamma to the conventional world are for the purposes of communication only. Really, there are only dhammas. Knowing this does not make us any less (or more) able to eat and breathe. Ken H #79324 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. sarahprocter... Hi Alex (Howard & Elaine), Hope you're getting well now, Alex. I agreed with all your comments - I personally avoid alcohol-based medicines completely if I can. In Australia recently, I bought some drops in a health shop which turned out to be ethanol based. I took them back and was told this is common for natural remedies. I exhanged for some pills all the same. My Chinese dr always recommends boiling 5 fresh ginger slices & 3 (unpeeled) lemon slices for 10 mins, then adding a little honey. --- Alex wrote: > I live in a Cold Freezer called "Canada". > Is that low temperature 31F? I just checked the weather forecast and > it is said indeed... -5F soon... The good news it is not -40F which > may happen.... ... S: Brrr...wish all you Canadians could visit us here at the best time of year in Hong Kong. Canada is very well represented these days here with lots of eloquent writers..... whereabouts do you live? If it goes down to -40F, I guess it must be the Eastern side, right? Metta, Sarah p.s Briefly, Nanavira's article you quoted is full of holes, starting with the first comment about sotapannas. See 'Suicide' in 'Useful Posts' for more. No wonder so many people today think they are sotapannas with comments like these suggesting that even sotapannas break all the precepts around..... I was also curious about your comments (to Scott) about anatta, jhanas and nirodha samapatti:-/ For a start, only anagamis and arhants can ever attain nirodha samapatti and then only those who have vasis (mastery) in all jhanas. Again, see 'U.P.' under 'nirodha samapatti', or discuss further:-). ====== #79325 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:17 am Subject: Re: Doing Asubha to combat lust philofillet Hi ALex, Tep and all (pos to Sarah) > As I understand it, if one REALLY develops Asubha well - then one can > see foulness even on a live body. Actually same is with > anapanasati/metta. In some suttas Buddha speaks about the ability to > see "foul in what is not foul" (and all variations of this). > > I am afraid is that this sort of achievement may require a VERY > strong retreat. Maybe even up to 20 HRs a day for many days... Thanks for this fellows. I bow to the commentarial note BB provides somewhere or other (not a "neo-commentary" as Scott rightly puts it) that asubha is only effective at the jhanas level, so not suitable for me, not at this time. But it's good to have looked at it, and I will on occasion study the very detailed instructions to asubha meditation that are provided in Vism as an education in how people with conditions for deep meditation are taught to go about it. (As always, when looking at those instructions, I have to wonder how on earth anyone could believe the ancient texts don't teach meditation!!!!) So I carry on with my various lust-busters, mostly sutta passages that have great conditioning power on the way my mind does or doesn't wander too far off the path of decency... :) Metta, Phil p.s Sarah, thanks for your note on the kamma tahnna (sp?) question. Clear now. #79326 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:50 am Subject: Re: Doing Asubha to combat lust .. Vangisa Bhikkhu .. philofillet Hi Antony! I missed this one. Nice to see you here again. Actually, the other day I was wondering how you were. Sorry I haven't stopped by Buddhaviharas recently. Finding so little time for discussion! Please say hi to Sharon. Sounds like a great way to do dana, but I must say I can't understand how it reduces lust. I mean, if it works for you, that means it's effective, of course - I don't doubt that. But for me reducing lust is all about dropping it again and again and again and again...all those hundreds, or thousands, of little battles that are won or lost a day, moment by moment by moment...(this applies to hatred/aversion as well,of course) whatever it is that conditions the dropping of it, the "don't go there" mental decision, that's what reduces lust. For me it is usually reflection on the teaching in Suttas. One very helpful one is reflecting that by abstaining from lust, I am giving the gift of freedom from fear to the other person. I also reflect on how fortunate and rare it is to be born a human, and on what a wasteful form of behaviour it is to lust when one considers that! Stuff like that...but kudos on the dana to the rape relief center. Metta, Phil #79327 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:55 am Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate Vs Conventional Vedantist add onto Buddhis... philofillet Hi Tep Just to thank you for the post on the control issue...I think I'm burned out on reading about this topic for now, though lots of great stuff has been written. So I'll drop it...but I've bookmarked your post and perhaps will come back to it later. Thanks again! Metta, Phil #79328 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for the reply: E: "I don't understand Conditions..." Scott: I'd be happy to discuss these questions with, since it is study for me, but first a clarification. You write: "I think 'condition' is another word for 'fate'. I cannot believe our Buddha taught 'Fatalism with a twist by using the word Condition'. I don't think I can ever accept your views on Conditions. Our past kamma cannot be changed but our present kamma is in our own hands." Scott: Before I work on the questions, does the above represent your stand, relegating the questions to the realm of the rhetorical? Sincerely, Scott. #79329 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/26/2007 4:43:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ---------- > > > H: > When the thinking is underway, that is what is happening and is what should be noticed. > > KH: I would be wary of any idea of selecting. The idea of selecting an object for right minfulness is a an idea of control over dhammas. > Howard: I said nothing of selecting. Please reread the sentence of mine you quoted above. ----------- As I see it, it says when thinking is under way thinking should be selected as the object to be noticed. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, Ken, there is no conscious selecting of what to notice. The only choice, and that choice can't be made without considerable cultivation, is to be attentive and not get lost, or not to be attentive. Whatever is arising at the moment - in this case, thought - is the only possible recipient of heightened attention. There is a menu with only one item on it - whatever is placed on the table. It can be consumed or not. -------------------------------------------------- I realise you to are referring to a conventional practice and not to the actual practice of satipatthana. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: No. ---------------------------------------------- Even so, you are suggesting there is a link between those two entirely different practices. Therefore, you must be suggesting that selection plays a role in satipatthana. But it doesn't. According to the Dhamma, the world contains only the one, presently arisen, object of consciousness. Selection cannot possibly play a role. ------------ <. . .> KH: > > None of the above is mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka, is it? > > Howard: > Ken, there is also no instruction on how to eat, breathe, walk, and talk. ------------ Of course there isn't. The Buddha described a world of presently arisen paramattha dhammas. Formal meditation practices and other concepts (such as eating and breathing) do not enter into it. ----------- H: > What do you think fine attention reveals? Do thoughts not arise, peak, and cease? ------------ No, except in an illusory way. Ultimately, thoughts do not exist. Mindfulness of ultimately non-existent objects cannot possibly be the Way. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps I should have said thinking instead of thoughts. We can be aware of thinking, and we can be aware, for example, of an emotion about to to arise, and if you meditated you would know that. This I why this is a pointless conversation. ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- H: > Listen, Ken, I will not attempt to persuade anyone who refuses to directly see what is involved anything about meditating. It is as pointless as attempting to describe taste of food to a person who from birth has taken no sustenance except through tranfusion. You seem to believe that all that you need is in a book. Okay, but if you are consistent in that I'd like to know who it is who is keeping you alive. For man cannot live by words alone. --------------------------- You seem to be thinking there are two worlds - the paramattha and the conventional. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I am not so thinking at all. In fact, my point in the foregoing is exactly that you rely on concept instead of direct experience of reality. There are not two realities. ------------------------------------------------------ But that is a misconception. References in the Dhamma to the conventional world are for the purposes of communication only. Really, there are only dhammas. Knowing this does not make us any less (or more) able to eat and breathe. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Reality is reality, whatever we may think we know. ------------------------------------------------------ Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard #79330 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:13 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Hi Alex and Elaine, I will write more later: good conclusions and good digging. Sotapanna (Steam Enter) posses the eye of dharma – like most on this board, they know the teachings, believe in them, and TRY to live by them. This is what makes them a Sotapanna, Not their abilities. Charles DaCosta _____ #79331 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:24 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Dear Ken O In order to talk about any thing in English, English dictionaries become a must, especially if what we are talking about has been translated from another language. After all, the Buddha Never used the words like self, I, me, mine, ., nor not me, not I and not myself. Those are English words. They did not exist in the Buddha's language. So, be careful, you might be learning from a poor translation. Based on what you said, ". Self in definition by Buddha is different from the dictionary. The dictionary is about a personality, a totality. In Buddhism, self is an illusion, it is greed with ditthi or mano that we conceive that this self is real." There is a real problem when talking to people in English, the definitions of Self are different. And who are we to tell the English speaking world that their definition of Self is wrong? Charles DaCosta _____ #79332 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:35 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Hi DC, Always feel welcome to BUTT-IN, please, that is why we are here! Your statement presents a problem, if 'by traveling the Buddhist path--the Noble Eightfold Path' is the only way to prove there is no such thing as a self, then all other paths must point to a self. This would make the idea of no-self non-universal and even more relative than the idea of a self. Charles DaCosta _____ #79333 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Homework Paper to be Graded ..Perplexing ... jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: >> Jon: >> Another translation would be 'conventional truth' or 'commonly >> accepted truth'. An rather mundane example of this might be >> the statement, "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west". >> >> This is contrasted with 'paramattha sacca' a truth that is true >> in the ultimate sense > > T: What would be a supramundane example of sammuti sacca ? > I must apologise for my confusing wording here. I meant 'mundane' in the sense of 'ordinary', 'every-day', rather than in the Dhamma sense of mundane (lokiya) as opposed to supermundane (lokuttara). > Further, you say that paramattha sacca is a truth "that is true in the > ultimate sense". That sounds perplexing to me; isn't it true in the > conventional sense as well? > How about the statement "Birth is suffering" (part of the first of the 4NT)? I think this would be an example of a truth that is true in the ultimate sense, but not in the conventional sense (although as a truth it can be partly explained using conventional language). Other examples might be: - Ignorance conditions formations (the first link of DO) - Seeing is not-self These statements are not really meaningful in terms of conventional speech. Jon #79334 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kin~ncana scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the reply: Larry: "I'm not sure what a deliverance of mind is. Maybe a path moment??? The unshakable deliverance of mind results in arahantship..." Scott: Is this 'ceto-vimutti'? Is the text talking about absorption? It seems, as you say, to be discussing the arising of the Path, but the context seems to be the aruupa jhaanas. Sammohavinodanii (p. 88): "...The deliverance of mind in one who is delivered from ill will is cetovimutti ('mind deliverance'). And here, by the first three, amity that has reached access (upacaara) and that has reached full absorption (appanaa) is expounded; by the last, only that which has reached full absorption." Scott: And here the context seems to be a discussion of 'deliverance from ill will'. I don't know if this accords with the content and context of the sutta or not. And look, later (p. 334): "1251. Hence the Blessed One said: 'There is the sign of resentment, bhikkhus. Unwise bringing to mind therein is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill-will, or for the growth and increase of arisen ill-will' (S. v 103). "1252. But its abandoning comes about through wise bringing to mind in regard to the mind deliverance of amity. Herein, when 'amity' is stated, both absorption and access are applicable; but when 'mind deliverance' is [stated], absorption only. Wise bringing to mind has the aforesaid characteristics. Because of employing it much in regard to that [object], ill-will comes to be abandoned." Scott: Later (in Vol. II, p. 212), regarding 'Tathaagata Powers': "2309. In the description of the tenth power, cetovimutti.m ('mind deliverance') is fruition concentration. Pa~n~naavimutti.m ('understanding deliverance') is fruition knowledge..." Scott: The above seems to point in the direction you were suggesting. Sincerely, Scott. #79335 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... buddhistmedi... Hi Larry, - Now just two more clarifications are needed. > Tep: "But control is one thing and the upadana that 'this is mine' is > another. So, on what reason can you equate control to Self?" > > Larry: The Buddha's argument is that if there is no control over a > dhamma the dhamma cannot be self. Therefore the wrong view is that there _is_ control over a dhamma when that dhamma is taken to be self. Self is > sometimes defined as me or mine. In this case "mine" makes more sense. > Also we often think what is mine is who and what I am. > T: My proposed change is in capital letters. 1. Shouldn't it rather be : "The Buddha's argument is that if there is no COMPLETE control over a dhamma the dhamma cannot be self." ? 2. Shouldn't it rather be : "Therefore the wrong view is that there _is_ control over a dhamma when that dhamma is taken to be NOT self." ? Thanks. Tep ==== #79336 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Homework Paper to be Graded ..Perplexing ... buddhistmedi... Hi Jon, - Good morning ! > > T: What would be a supramundane example of sammuti sacca ? > > > > I must apologise for my confusing wording here. I meant 'mundane' in > the sense of 'ordinary', 'every-day', rather than in the Dhamma sense of mundane (lokiya) as opposed to supermundane (lokuttara). > T: No apology is necessary, considering the many emails that are flowing each day ! I appreciate the clarification, Jon. Thank you very much. .......................................... > > Further, you say that paramattha sacca is a truth "that is true in the > > ultimate sense". That sounds perplexing to me; isn't it true in the > > conventional sense as well? > > > > How about the statement "Birth is suffering" (part of the first of the > 4NT)? I think this would be an example of a truth that is true in the > ultimate sense, but not in the conventional sense (although as a truth > it can be partly explained using conventional language). > > Other examples might be: > - Ignorance conditions formations (the first link of DO) > - Seeing is not-self > > These statements are not really meaningful in terms of conventional speech. > T: 'Birth is suffering' to me is true in the real- world sense. I do not know about the ultimate world where there is no birth of beings. Yes, the other two examples "are not really meaningful in terms of conventional speech". Thanks. Tep ==== #79337 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:13 am Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Ultimate .. Self Demons ... buddhistmedi... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Tep > > Just to thank you for the post on the control issue...I think I'm > burned out on reading about this topic for now, though lots of great > stuff has been written. So I'll drop it...but I've bookmarked your > post and perhaps will come back to it later. Thanks again! > > Metta, > > Phil > T: You are welcome, Phil. Thank you very much for keeping a memory of the un-answered post (through bookmarking) for a rainy day. It is easy to get burned out in this environment of rapid flow of contradicting opinions where confusion is high, wisdom gain is low, and the self demons are everywhere. Tep ==== #79338 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Regarding: "Dear Alex, You are a true Dhamma friend (kalyanamitta). Thank you!! (((HUGS))) :-))May we get a glimpse of Nibbana in this very life." Scott: Have you ever had the experience of being shushed in a library? I think that Alex is simply the current leader of the necessary crew of resondents who subtly and not so subtly have to oppose and run counter to the stated goals of the list. No need to get all caught up in it, in my curmudgeonly opinion. Its good for the discussion (you know, different views to consider and all) but I hope that the emotional excess isn't contagious. I find it detracts from a calm consideration of Dhamma Sincerely, Scott. #79339 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:08 am Subject: Perfections Corner (40) 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. ------------------------------ The king went to the park, saluted the recluse, and sitting respectfully on one side, he spoke the first Stanza in the form of a question: 'Great brahmin, I heard it said, the recluse Haarita leads a sinful life. I take it that this is not the truth and you are pure of conduct?' The recluse thought: 'If I say that I did not indulge in sin, the king would believe me, but in this world there is no surer foundation than truthful speech. Someone who forsakes the truth cannot attain Buddhahood, even if he sits in the sacred enclosure of the Bodhi Tree. Hence I should only speak the truth. In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given to him, commit adultery, drink strong liquor, but he may not tell a lie, speech that violates the truth.' Therefore, speaking only the truth he uttered the second Stanza: 'The rumours, great King, you have heard are true. Infatuated by the objects of delusion, I have done wrong.' Hearing this the king spoke the third Stanza: 'Keen pa~n~naa is intent on what is beneficial. It can abandon lust that has arisen within you. For what benefit do you have pa~n~naa, if you cannot dispel sinful thoughts.' " Sick people generally depend on medicine. Evenso, keen pa~n~naa is like a medicine, it is intent on what is beneficial and it can cure us from lust that has arisen. We read: "Then the recluse Haarita pointed out the power of defilements to the king and spoke the fourth Stanza: 'Four defilements in the world, great King, are coarse and have great strength, They are: lust, hate, ignorance and intoxication. When they overmaster beings, pa~n~naa cannot develop, It is as if they fall into a great river.' The king on hearing this spoke the fifth Stanza: 'You deserve praise Haarita, you are a saint, Perfect in siila, of pure conduct, You are wise, with true pa~n~naa.' Then Haarita spoke the sixth Stanza: 'Evil thoughts, great king, cause clinging to an image, Taking it for beautiful, and they are accompanied by excitement. They are bound to harm even a person with pa~n~naa, who is inclined to the excellence of recluseship.' " These words can remind us of the danger of defilements. Someone may believe that he is out of danger because he has developed a certain degree of pa~n~naa, but he should not be neglectful. Akusala can even harm a person with pa~n~naa, who has a keen interest in the Dhamma and enjoys its benefit. We read: "The king, encouraging the recluse Haarita to make an effort to abandon his defilements, spoke the seventh Stanza: 'Lust arises in your body, and destroys your beauty {*} Abandon lustful excitement, And you will prosper, You will be praised by many for your wisdom.' " {*} Va.n.na, appearance or quality. When the Bodhisatta heard this, he could regain his awareness and consider the danger in sense pleasures. Thereupon he spoke the eighth Stanza: "Sense pleasures are blinding, they cause much suffering. They injure gravely. I shall look for the root of sensuousness, I shall cut down lust with its bonds." ===to be continued, connie #79340 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... nilovg Hi Tep, Ah now I missed your poem ;-)) Just back from a few days away and more than 250 posts in my inbox. I have to delay answering your other post. I have to skip many mails and now your poem is lost. Nina. Op 25-nov-2007, om 0:51 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > I wasn't really serious in the previous post-- just only mimicking > Nina's Abhidhammic interpretation for a little laugh. #79341 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:09 am Subject: Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will truth_aerator Dear Kelvin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > K: Look at any Sutta with definition of control and controllability > of khandas. >>>> Tell me please, is there a volition/choice between doing kusala or akusala ? > > A: 1. Mind precedes all [mental] states. Mind is their chief; they > are > > all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts > > suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the > ox. > > > > 2. Mind precedes all [mental] states. Mind is their chief; they are > > all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts > > happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. > > > > Clearly first 2 lines of Dhp show that THERE IS A CHOICE between > > impure and pure actions. Buddha wouldn't teach ethics if it was all > > due to past cittas over which we have no control. > > K: It's unclear to me how those lines show what you claim. It just > states two possibilities and kammic law. It's clear that past cittas > = kamma but the question is how does the present citta arise. >>>> What I tried to show was that there IS a choice for the mind, to do good or do evil. What some people say is more of a JAIN view than Buddhist view. MN 101: Devadaha Sutta — To Devadaha {M ii 214} [Thanissaro]. The Buddha refutes a Jain theory of kamma, which claims that one's present experience is determined solely by one's actions in past lives, and that the only way to undo the effects of past unskillful actions is to "burn them away" through severe practices of austerity. The Buddha here outlines one of his most important teachings on kamma: that it is both the results of past deeds and present actions that shape one's experience of the present. It is precisely this interaction of present and past that opens up the very possibility of Awakening. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html > > > A: Now what, monks, is old karma? The eye is to be seen as old > karma, > > fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear ... The > nose ... > > The tongue ... The body ... The intellect is to be seen as old > karma, > > fabricated & WILLED, capable of being felt. This is called old > karma. > > SN35.145 > > --- > > WILLED!!! > > K: Willed by past citta = kamma or new citta? > Willed by past volition (kamma). >>> > K: how is the mind being controlled to have sati or to make choices? >>>> By being selective about where attention stays. Sati helps to make sure that if any hindrances arise, they are dealt with before they grow into big problems. > >A: person would not be even able to hit back the 70-100 mph tennis > ball > > flying at him. The reaction time needs to be trained, as the ball > > will reach the other side of the court in under 1 second. > > K: Every arahat will beat Roger Federer then? >>>> hahahhaha. They'll telepathically make Roger Federer hit ball in the net or out of court. Tennis also requires certain physical characteristics (long legs and arms) rather than simply reaction time. This is why Chinease dominate table tennis as opposed to ordinary tennis. You'll notice that tennis players are TALL (and have longer arms&legs). Furthermore Arahats will have no desire to play in the first place! So they'll not lose. > > A: When you meditate you are training MENTAL reaction time. If > meditator > > practicing letting go (Anatta put into action) manages to bring > > reaction time totally to a real present 0ms (no lag) - > then it is > > Cessation of Perception and Feelings. > > K: So if instant reaction = no preception and feelings? Then what is the mind reacting to? Nothing anymore? Instant reaction WITH WISDOM. It instantly reacts to Avijja & Co. trying to knock it out from the peaceful stillness. > > > A: For those who aren't mental pro athletes yet, there are lower > Jhanas which require less reaction time. > > K: Is there reaction while being absorbed in jhana? >>>> Absolutely there is volition WHILE IN JHANA up to base of nothingness. When mind stops, CofP&F occurs and when the mind is restarted, "And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended." - mn26 and many other suttas. Arahatship. > > A: Luckily the Buddha has shown us a place which Mara cannot touch. > > It is called 1st Jhana, 2nd Jhana, 3rd Jhana, 4th Jhana, and all > the > > arupa's + Cessation + 3 meditations. > > K: Where does he say this? >>> In the suttas. MN26 for example (it talkes about 8 Jhanas + Cessation): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html >>>>>> Especially since Devadatta had complete mastery of the jhanas and abinnas. Ashin Anuruddha with mastery of divine eye while still unable to tell defilements in the mind. > > - Kel >>>>>>>> Jhana's have to be used as part of N8P! They have been heavily (mis)used also by Parama-ditthadhamma- nibbanavadins to no enlightening success. Thus the 8 Jhanas are MUNDANE. In MN106 - Ananda asked Buddha re: why some (who achieve Jhana) gain enlightment and some don't. Jhanas are NOT some mystical states that automatically make one enlightened. They have to be properly used as a tool for DETACHMENT. It seems that there are two most frequent path toward Awakening: a) reaching and mastering 4th Jhana. Intentionally gaining triple knowledge. b) Reaching CofP&F and emergine with wisdom which sees the destruction of cankers. I don't think that Devadatta did one of the above two. Lots of Metta, Alex #79342 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:07 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 4 14. Ti.msanipaato 1. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 377. "Aha.m tava vasaanugo siya.m, yadi viharemase kaananantare; na hi matthi tayaa piyattaro, paa.no kinnarimandalocane. 378. "Yadi me vacana.m karissasi, sukhitaa ehi agaaramaavasa; paasaadanivaatavaasinii, parikamma.m te karontu naariyo. 379. "Kaasikasukhumaani dhaaraya, abhiropehi ca maalava.n.naka.m; ka~ncanama.nimuttaka.m bahu.m, vividha.m aabhara.na.m karomi te. 380. "Sudhotarajapacchada.m subha.m, gonakatuulikasanthata.m nava.m; abhiruha sayana.m mahaaraha.m, candanama.n.ditasaaragandhika.m. 381. "Uppala.m cudakaa samuggata.m, yathaa ta.m amanussasevita.m; eva.m tva.m brahmacaarinii, sakesa"ngesu jara.m gamissasi. 375. I should be at your beck and call if we were to dwell in the grove, for there is no creature dearer to me than you, O kinnarii with pleasant eyes. 376. If you will do my bidding, being made happy, come, live in a house. [You will] dwell in the calm of a palace. Let women do attendance upon you. 377. Wear garments of fine muslin. Put on garlands and unguents. I shall make many varied adornment[s] of gold, jewels, and pearls for you. 378. Climb on to a bed with a canopy well washed of dirt, beautiful, spread with a comforter and a woollen quilt, new, very costly, decorated with sandalwood, having an excellent smell. 379. A [blue] lotus that rises up from the water - just as it is untouched by men, so too are you who live the holy life. You will go to old age with your own limbs [untouched]. RD: I would live but to serve thee, an thou would'st abide in the woodland. Dearer and sweeter to me than art thou in the world is no creature, Thou with the languid and slow-moving eyes of an elf of the forest. (375) If thou wilt list to me, come where the joys of the sheltered life *391 wait thee: Dwell in a house of verandas and terraces, handmaidens serving thee. (376) Robe thyself in delicate gear of Benares, don garlands, use unguents. Ornaments many and divers I give to thee, fashioned with precious stones, Gold work and pearls. And thou shalt mount on a couch fair and sumptuous, (377) Carve'd in sandalwood, fragrant with essences, spread with new pillows, Coverlets fleecy and soft, and decked with immaculate canopies. (378) Like to a lotus upborne on the bosom of sprite-haunted water, Thou, O chaste anchorite, farest to old age, thy beauty unmated.' (379) *391 Lit., 'Come, dwell in a house.' 382. "Ki.m te idha saarasammata.m, ku.napapuuramhi susaanava.d.dhane; bhedanadhamme ka.levare, ya.m disvaa vimano udikkhasi. 383. "Akkhiini ca tuuriyaariva, kinnariyaariva pabbatantare; tava me nayanaani dakkhiya, bhiyyo kaamaratii pava.d.dhati. 384. "Uppalasikharopamaani te, vimale haa.takasannibhe mukhe; tava me nayanaani dakkhiya, bhiyyo kaamagu.no pava.d.dhati. 385. "Api duuragataa saramhase, aayatapamhe visuddhadassane; na hi matthi tayaa piyattaro, nayanaa kinnarimandalocane. [Subhaa Jivakambavanikaa:] 380. What is it that you approve of as essential here in the body, which is full of corpses, filling the cemetery, destined to break up? What is it that you have seen when you look at me, being out of your mind? [The rogue:] 381. Your eyes are indeed like those of a doe, like those of a kinnarii inside a mountain. Seeing your eyes, my delight in sensual pleasures increases all the more. 382. Seeing your eyes in your face, [to be] compared with the bud of a [blue] lotus, spotless, like gold, my sensual pleasure increases all the more. 383. Even though you have gone far away, I shall remember [you] - you with the long eyelashes, you with the pure gaze. For no eyes are dearer to me than your, you kinnarii with pleasant eyes. RD: 'What now to thee, in this carrion-filled, grave-filling carcass so fragile Seen by thee, seemeth to warrant the doctrine thou speakest, infatuate?' (380) 'Eyes hast thou like the gazelle's, like an elf's in the heart of the mountains - 'Tis those eyes of thee, sight of which feedeth the depth of my passion. (381) Shrined in thy dazzling, immaculate face as in calyx of lotus, 'Tis those eyes of thee, sight of which feedeth the strength of my passion. (382) Though thou be far from me, how could I ever forget thee, O maiden, Thee of the long-drawn eyelashes, thee of the eyes so miraculous? Dearer to me than those orbs is naught, O thou witching-eyed fairy!' (383) ===to be continued, connie #79343 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:21 am Subject: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Elaine) - Scott, are you part of the library management? And is it your opinion that Alex doesn't have a valid library card? As for Elaine's exuberance, is your specific position at the library that of Emotion Policeman or Enthusiastic-Speech Security Guard? I can hardly imagine a post more chilling of free discussion than this post of yours, Scott. Your question to Elaine "Have you ever had the experience of being shushed in a library?" is something I find shocking. It seems to me that you and a few others here who consider yourselves the "chosen cadre" view others here as interlopers who you wish would just leave, or at least would, as was expected of children in bygone days and is still expected in some dysfunctional families of today, be seen but not heard. As I see it, that is not at all the perspective of the list owners nor of that kindly servant of the Dhamma, Nina. It is a saving grace on your part, however, that you recognize your being curmudgeonly at the moment. :-)Let me be clear, Scott: I am not angry at you, my friend. In fact I am fond of you, and I respect your keen intelligence and amazingly fast grasp of the Dhamma - really astounding. But I see you as attempting something that you don't even believe in - control. If one is to attempt to exert control, wouldn't it be best to restrict the attempt at control to oneself rather than to try to control others? With metta, Howard #79344 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable nidive Hi Ken O, > because as I said panna and self are exclusive. Yes, panna and "self" are exclusive. "Self" is a mental defilement. But is "self" the same as volition? Or are they separate things? Or do they arise together all the time, every time? Does volition not have the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta? Does the "self" mental defilement not have the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta? When this volition exhibits the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta, can I say that this volition is mine, myself, what I am? When this "self" mental defilement exhibits the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta, how would it be possible that I could point out anything that is mine, myself, what I am with regard to the six sense bases, with regard to the five aggregates? Swee Boon #79345 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? ... Observe the Hardness ... buddhistmedi... Dear Nina, - I am gald that you are back. The 250 posts may easily take you 2500 minutes (5 days of 8 hours per day) to reply them all, spending 10 minutes per email. N: > Ah now I missed your poem ;-)) > Just back from a few days away and more than 250 posts in my inbox. I > have to delay answering your other post. > I have to skip many mails and now your poem is lost. T: You meant themessage # 79225 ? I hope you like that little poem ! Tep ==== #79346 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:55 am Subject: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control truth_aerator To ScottD, RobertK, Ken, and other Abhidhamikas Is there a choice between commiting rape vs abstaining? yes or no? Is there a choice between commiting 1st degree murder vs abstaining? yes or no? Is there a choice between commiting burglary vs abstaining? yes or no? Is there a choice between commiting taking intoxicants vs abstaining? yes or no? Is there a choice between being compassionate vs cruelty? yes or no? Is there a choice between causing a schism vs promoting harmony? yes or no? Lots of Metta, Alex #79347 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:03 am Subject: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will nidive Hi Howard, > It is a saving grace on your part, however, that you recognize > your being curmudgeonly at the moment. How is it a saving grace? It's something like "I know it's wrong to kill, but I want to kill you anyway." and the sword cuts through your throat. Swee Boon #79348 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:14 am Subject: Re: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control buddhistmedi... Hi Alex, - Now I am going to put on the DSG Abhidhammika's hat and answer your easy questions (see below). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > To ScottD, RobertK, Ken, and other Abhidhamikas > > Is there a choice between commiting rape vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between commiting 1st degree murder vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between commiting burglary vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between commiting taking intoxicants vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between being compassionate vs cruelty? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between causing a schism vs promoting harmony? > yes or no? > T : There is no choice because citta is a conditioned dhamma that is not controllable. Besides, there is no person acting as the decision maker either. If akusala citta arises, then there is abstaining, compassion, harmony, etc. Otherwise, the hell breaks loose ! Sad, isn't it? It sounds like a new 21st Century religious philosophy to me. Tep ==== #79349 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:34 am Subject: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will buddhistmedi... Hi Howard and Scott, - >Howard (to Scott): > But I see you as attempting something that you don't even believe in - > control. If one is to attempt to exert control, wouldn't it be best to restrict > the attempt at control to oneself rather than to try to control others? > T: But , Howard, don't you remember that there is no Scott? How could there be a control without a Self? It was only an uncontrollable akusala citta (belonging to nobody) that conditioned the unkind speech. Sad, isn't it? Tep ==== #79350 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:40 am Subject: Re: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 11/26/2007 11:03:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nidive@... writes: Hi Howard, > It is a saving grace on your part, however, that you recognize > your being curmudgeonly at the moment. How is it a saving grace? It's something like "I know it's wrong to kill, but I want to kill you anyway." and the sword cuts through your throat. Swee Boon =============================== Knowing oneself, both good points and bad, is an essential beginning, and one that is not so easy to achieve. To put it simply: Knowing is good but hard to achieve, and ignorance is bad but easy. Guarding the senses is impossible without introspection, and introspection that is completely confused is hardly better than no introspection at all. I think that Scott is to be commended for knowing the state of his mind and for admitting to an akusala element that he is aware of. Do you think it would have been better for me to have been solely negative? Facts are facts, and I don't applaud imbalanced perspectives. With metta, Howard #79351 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:41 am Subject: Re: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control .. A typo .. buddhistmedi... Hi Alex (and others), - Sorry. An error escaped me ! I wrote: >If akusala citta arises, then there is abstaining, > compassion, harmony, etc. Obviously, the word 'akusala' above must be changed to 'a kusala'. Thanks. Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Alex, - > > Now I am going to put on the DSG Abhidhammika's hat and answer > your easy questions (see below). > #79352 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:50 am Subject: was Re: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. truth_aerator Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex (Howard & Elaine), > > Hope you're getting well now, Alex. I agreed with all your comments - I > personally avoid alcohol-based medicines completely if I can. In Australia > recently, I bought some drops in a health shop which turned out to be > ethanol based. I took them back and was told this is common for natural > remedies. I exhanged for some pills all the same. > > My Chinese dr always recommends boiling 5 fresh ginger slices & 3 > (unpeeled) lemon slices for 10 mins, then adding a little honey. >>>> Since I took some medicine (cat's claw) I guess I broke the 5th precept... :( > > writers..... whereabouts do you live? If it goes down to -40F, I guess it > must be the Eastern side, right? >>>> Western Canada. Alberta. It is currently 3F. Next week may fall to - 4F. > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Briefly, Nanavira's article you quoted is full of holes, starting with the first comment about sotapannas. See 'Suicide' in 'Useful Posts' for >>>> more. I'll have to check. However even Arahants could commit suicide, so I would not be surprised for sotapannas. There was a person (Channa an Arya) who either achieved Arahatship before or during suicide (using a knife). SN 35.87 (4) Channa. pg 1164 He was in great pain, in those times there was not good medicine and he used the knife blamelessly. > I was also curious about your comments (to Scott) about anatta, jhanas and nirodha samapatti:-/ For a start, only anagamis and arhants can ever attain nirodha samapatti and then only those who have vasis (mastery) in all jhanas. Again, see 'U.P.' under 'nirodha samapatti', or discuss further:-). > ====== >>> I am curious about Anagamiship+ requirment for Nirodha Samapati. Is there a sutta which says so? I've just checked, it is not in SN. I remember frequently Buddha mentioning that achieving Nirodha Samapatti (CofP&F) if seen with wisdom leads to Arahatship. Ven. Sariputta in MN111 started out as a sotapanna and reached CofP&F in 14 days after which he was an Arahant. Same with MahaMogallana, but 7 days. I suppose that one could become Anagamin on the way towards CofP&F. In many instances where CofP&f was mentioned, the practicioner was called a "bhikkhu" and not an arya. Certain teacher claims that if Pujjhana experiences CofP&F, then depending on the power of observation, that person would become sotopanna or higher. The typical phrase when a person enters the stream is saying "What is of the nature to arise, that is of the nature to cease" may imply a split second CofP&F. Why? That phrase suggests seeing DO. Part of dependent origination is "avijja -> sankhara -> vinnana". One who wisely experiences even very brief cessation of those three will grow disenchanted with soul- belief, rites and rituals, and will abandon all the doubt in the teaching of the Buddha. And if that isn't totally require (even for a second), then atleast 4th Jhana for a short duration - to become a sotapanna or higher. Lots of Metta, Alex #79353 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Alex) - In a message dated 11/26/2007 11:14:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Alex, - Now I am going to put on the DSG Abhidhammika's hat and answer your easy questions (see below). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > To ScottD, RobertK, Ken, and other Abhidhamikas > > Is there a choice between commiting rape vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between commiting 1st degree murder vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between commiting burglary vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between commiting taking intoxicants vs abstaining? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between being compassionate vs cruelty? > yes or no? > > Is there a choice between causing a schism vs promoting harmony? > yes or no? > T : There is no choice because citta is a conditioned dhamma that is not controllable. Besides, there is no person acting as the decision maker either. If akusala citta arises, then there is abstaining, compassion, harmony, etc. Otherwise, the hell breaks loose ! Sad, isn't it? It sounds like a new 21st Century religious philosophy to me. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't view what you wrote as "the Abhidhamma position", but more of a straw man. There *is* choosing, but, except in a manner of speaking, no choice-maker. Deliberation, desire, inclination, energy, and will all come together to constitute "choosing". When wholesome mind states arise, they do so as the result of prior impersonal conditions, do they not? Is there a real agent doing something that creates these states? Would that not be a self? Is what I wrote here "Abhidhamma", or is it just Dhamma? If it is not Dhamma, in what way is it contrary to the Dhamma? ------------------------------------------------ Tep ========================== With metta, Howard #79354 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Elaine, > > Thanks for the reply: > > E: "I don't understand Conditions..." > > Scott: I'd be happy to discuss these questions with, since it is > study for me, but first a clarification. You write: > > "I think 'condition' is another word for 'fate'. I cannot believe our > Buddha taught 'Fatalism with a twist by using the word Condition'. > I don't think I can ever accept your views on Conditions. Our past > kamma cannot be changed but our present kamma is in our own hands." > > Scott: Before I work on the questions, does the above represent your > stand, relegating the questions to the realm of the rhetorical? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Is is a valid question, Scott. Without eel-wriggling please answer in a clear, unambiguous way: What is the difference between past conditions and fate? Is there a choice to abstain from Rape or not? Lots of Metta, Alex #79355 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. moellerdieter Hi Tep ( Ven. Dhammanando and others), thanks for your comment supporting my position.....though not all.. ;-) you wrote: However, I disagree with you when you agreed with Dhammanando Bhikkhu as follows. Dieter: "I agree, it is a strange statement : 'the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering':" T: My reason to disagree is the TB's statement above is not strange, but it has to be read carefully as follows: The Buddha taught anatta as a main truth for gaining release from suffering, not as a metaphysical assertion. In order to gain release one must devise a proper questioning approach as a strategy for contemplation and penetration of the anatta characteristic in all sankhara dhamma. ..................... D: probably Ven. Dhammanando would not agree either .. ;-) I used the word 'strange ' for one reason that I haven't read before an interpretation of the Anatta doctrine solely serving as a strategy for gaining release , though , at a closer look, it is indeed . Without (anicca and ) dukkha nobody would care for anatta. It is the point of gaining release from suffering , in which the realisation of anatta presents the key.. I think that is in line what you said above.. The other reason was to leave room for discussion in respect to an assumed different Abhidhammic point of view : (quoting from Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction of Abhammatha Sangaha ): 'The great Buddhist commentator, Acariya Buddhaghosa, explains the word "Abhidhamma" as meaning "that which exceeds and is distinguished from the Dhamma" (dhammatireka-dhammavisesa), the prefix abhi having the sense of preponderance and distinction, and dhamma here signifying the teaching of the Sutta Pitaka. When the Abhidhamma is said to surpass the teaching of the Suttas, this is not intended to suggest that the Suttanta teaching is defective in any degree or that the Abhidhamma proclaims some new revelation of esoteric doctrine unknown to the Suttas. Both the Suttas and the Abhidhamma are grounded upon the Buddha's unique doctrine of the Four Noble Truths, and all the principles essential to the attainment of enlightenment are already expounded in the Sutta Pitaka. The difference between the two in no way concerns fundamentals but is, rather, partly a matter of scope and partly a matter of method. ' and .. ' It is the dhammas alone that pocess ultimate reality..' So , trying to take the Abhidhammic chair, as ( 'All dhammas are not-self' - When one sees with discernment And grows disenchanted with stress, This is the path to purity. (Dhp 279) an interpretation of anatta as a strategy , not as a 'metaphysical assertion' (i.e. ultimate reality) will be rejected ... at least so I suppose ...... What I am thinking is that both aspects may apply and no exclusivity either to one of them to be claimed... Further discussion and clarification of Ven. Thanissaro's essay , in particular the context of provided sutta sources, seems to me benefitial ..... if we find interest .... ;-) with Metta Dieter #79356 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:05 am Subject: Re: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 11/26/2007 11:34:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard and Scott, - >Howard (to Scott): > But I see you as attempting something that you don't even believe in - > control. If one is to attempt to exert control, wouldn't it be best to restrict > the attempt at control to oneself rather than to try to control others? > T: But , Howard, don't you remember that there is no Scott? How could there be a control without a Self? It was only an uncontrollable akusala citta (belonging to nobody) that conditioned the unkind speech. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Tep, in reality, what is there besides conditions, empty though they are? If you presume something else, can you say what it might be? What did the Buddha say was "the all"? -------------------------------------------------- Sad, isn't it? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: It is a mistake to use anatta as an excuse for wrong action. (I call that "Buddhist antinomianism.) But it is no mistake, IMO, to adhere to the anatta teaching that so clearly distinguishes the Buddha's Dhamma from all other teachings. ----------------------------------------------- Tep ========================= With metta, Howard #79357 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:24 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? nichiconn Q: Is there a choice to abstain from Rape or not? A: On whose part? #79358 From: "mattroke" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:31 am Subject: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... mattroke Dear Tep (Larry, RobertK, Swee and all), TEP: I am pleased that you have pointed out that "control is a major element of Vinaya, proper deportment, and the cultivation of tranquility", This is an important part of Buddhism that have surprisingly been rejected by some smart members of the DSG Abhidhammika Gang. MATT: Just because there is the thought "I will do this" and then we do it, does not mean that there is control. The Buddha clearly understood conditions. He knew that when he set the Wheel of Truth rolling, that that would be the condition for people to hear the teaching. And when he laid down the Vinaya, that was a condition for monks to head the rules of the monkhood. If the Buddha had not taught Dhamma, we would not be discussing it now. Had the Vinaya not been laid down, there would not be the conditions for monks to keep precepts. Whatever the Buddha said will condition us to act in a certain way. How we act, will depend on our accumulations to understand what he said. In the time of the Buddha there were many with great accumulations and they only had to hear a few words from the Buddha to become enlightened. We have to be careful not to misinterpret those words, which were clear to them, but do not enlighten us. The Buddha hesitated to teach, not because he only needed to tell us what to do and then we follow, but because there was a deeper more profound message that required wisdom to comprehend. If someone chooses to reply to this post, is it because that person chooses to write or is it conditioned by this post, or the post that I am replying to, or because of the DSG forum or because the Buddha spoke dhamma? There are many conditions, but is there any self in control? Matt #79359 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:32 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? truth_aerator Hi L G Sage, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > > Q: Is there a choice to abstain from Rape or not? > A: On whose part? I didn't ask "on whose part". I phrased the questions without reference to atta belief. Please carefully reread the original post. Please don't use red herring. Lots of Metta, Alex #79360 From: "mattroke" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:56 am Subject: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... mattroke Dear Larry (and all), LARRY: The Buddha's argument is that if there is no control over a dhamma the dhamma cannot be self. Therefore the wrong view is that there_is_ control over a dhamma when that dhamma is taken to be self. Self is sometimes defined as me or mine. In this case "mine" makes more sense. Also we often think what is mine is who and what I am. MATT: Excuse me for butting in. I agree that there is no control over dhammas, however, I do not think that people take dhammas for self. People have concepts about dhammas, but they do not experience dhammas. If there were any insight into dhammas then there would be a clearer understanding that there are only dhammas, there would be greater appreciation of the fleeting nature of dhammas and there would be no taking of dhammas to be self. It is because there is no insight into dhammas that people take concepts to be real. And it is concepts that give the delusion that there is "me" and "mine" and that there can be control over dhammas Matt #79361 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:57 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... truth_aerator Hi Matt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mattroke" wrote: > If the Buddha had not taught Dhamma, we would not be discussing it > now. Had the Vinaya not been laid down, there would not be the > conditions for monks to keep precepts. >>> Is that a necessary or sufficient condition? Very big, key difference . > In the time of the Buddha there were many with great accumulations > and they only had to hear a few words from the Buddha to become > enlightened. We have to be careful not to misinterpret those words, > which were clear to them, but do not enlighten us. >>>> Please. What sort of Wisdom Accumulation did Angulimala had? How much demerit did he earn before seeing Buddha? Would someone who murdered 999 people be endowed with wisdom far above us, who haven't murdered even 1 person? > The Buddha hesitated to teach, not because he only needed to tell us > what to do and then we follow, but because there was a deeper more > profound message that required wisdom to comprehend. >>> > If someone chooses to reply to this post, is it because that person > chooses to write or is it conditioned by this post, or the post that > I am replying to, or because of the DSG forum or because the Buddha spoke dhamma? There are many conditions, but is there any self in control? > > Matt > There is a choice between reading and not replying, vs reading and replying, vs reading and wanting to reply but abstaining. Is this post a necessary or sufficient condition for someone to reply to this post? Lots of Metta, Alex #79362 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:20 am Subject: Re: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - This is an old issue, no longer an exciting debate. >Howard: > I don't view what you wrote as "the Abhidhamma position", but more of a straw man. T: Ah, you say "strawman' rather than "the Abhidhamma position"? That's fine with me. > >Tep: If a kusala citta arises, then there is abstaining, compassion, harmony, etc. Otherwise, the hell breaks loose ! Sad, isn't it? It sounds like a new 21st Century religious philosophy to me. >Howard: There *is* choosing, but, except in a manner of speaking, no choice-maker. Deliberation, desire, inclination, energy, and will all come together to constitute "choosing". When wholesome mind states arise, they do so as the result of prior impersonal conditions, do they not? Is there a real agent doing something that creates these states? Would that not be a self? Is what I wrote here "Abhidhamma", or is it just Dhamma? If it is not Dhamma, in what way is it contrary to the Dhamma? ------------------------------------------------ T: I agree that deliberation, desire and so on condition/constitute choosing. But choosing is neither 100% impersonal nor 100% uncontrollable in a non-ariyan where lots of choosing occur!! A wholesome mind in a worldling is not pure because of tanha and avijja that associate with self views(attanuditthi and mana). So the 'Self' is always there, knowingly or not. Ariyan Howard, Sir, pure dhamma in the ultimate sense, such as anatta, is supramundane, What you wrote is true in the ultimate sense and that is very compatible with an ariyan. Worldling Tep === ======== #79363 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:31 am Subject: Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? nichiconn Dear Alex, > Q: Is there a choice to abstain from Rape or not? > A: On whose part? Alex: I didn't ask "on whose part". I phrased the questions without reference to atta belief. Please carefully reread the original post. Please don't use red herring. Connie: I asked "on whose part". Q = Question, A = Answer. Q: What is "choice"? I don't know much about fish. Rape, maybe. Not fish. As long as we've moral and other guardians we're in good hands - safe if not sound, even? peace, connie #79364 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 11/26/2007 1:20:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard, - This is an old issue, no longer an exciting debate. >Howard: > I don't view what you wrote as "the Abhidhamma position", but more of a straw man. T: Ah, you say "strawman' rather than "the Abhidhamma position"? That's fine with me. > >Tep: If a kusala citta arises, then there is abstaining, compassion, harmony, etc. Otherwise, the hell breaks loose ! Sad, isn't it? It sounds like a new 21st Century religious philosophy to me. >Howard: There *is* choosing, but, except in a manner of speaking, no choice-maker. Deliberation, desire, inclination, energy, and will all come together to constitute "choosing". When wholesome mind states arise, they do so as the result of prior impersonal conditions, do they not? Is there a real agent doing something that creates these states? Would that not be a self? Is what I wrote here "Abhidhamma", or is it just Dhamma? If it is not Dhamma, in what way is it contrary to the Dhamma? ------------------------------------------------ T: I agree that deliberation, desire and so on condition/constitute choosing. But choosing is neither 100% impersonal nor 100% uncontrollable in a non-ariyan where lots of choosing occur!! ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Even in a non-ariyan, choosing is 100% impersonal in that there is no self that chooses. What is true, however, is that the choosing *seems* personal. ------------------------------------------------------ A wholesome mind in a worldling is not pure because of tanha and avijja that associate with self views(attanuditthi and mana). So the 'Self' is always there, knowingly or not. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: A *sense* of self is there, and a *belief* in self, albeit possibly weak, is there, but no actual self is there. -------------------------------------------------------- Ariyan Howard, Sir, pure dhamma in the ultimate sense, such as anatta, is supramundane, What you wrote is true in the ultimate sense and that is very compatible with an ariyan. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Huh? (Oh! LOLOL!) ----------------------------------------------------- Worldling Tep ========================= With metta, Howard #79365 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" moellerdieter Good evening Colette, you wrote : Yes, I agree with the thought: ( D: I say the 4 Noble Truths are the universal law ( proclaimed by the Buddhas of all times) of which the 8fold Noble Path is the strategy , ) The 4 Noble Truths have Svabhava, self-existance in this case, are universal themes, axioms. The 8 Fold Noble Path is one strategy or path (MEANS) toward the END which is the 4 Noble Truths. D: always nice nowadays to learn about agreement .. ;-) C: Your subject line speaks of "heresy" D: actually it was not my subject line.. I just commented between C: and well, you Germans have experience with that through that wild and crazy guy named Martin Luther and his attack on a church door with his dagger and a list of heresies he saw in and from Vatican City. D: we ( Northern ) Germans love our Martin Luther who orginally had nothing else in mind than to correct / reform the extreme abuses in practise by the (Catholic ) Church at his time.. it is him who made clear to the laity that the religion is too important as to leave it to the clergy alone.. C: snip .. The heresy which you speak of seems to be the ability an individual has, possesses, to deviate, or change course, from the path, the prescribed order, of succession of thoughts. This speaks of my continual habit of suggesting that Western organized religion simply manufactures robots on an assembly line and applies their maliable diety which they claim as a creator god, Creationist Theory, which they use and abuse to further their own personal self-gratification. ... D: I did not speak of ´heresy' and am not fond with the term .. humans are indeed some kind of robots in their habits to follow the delusion of self since such long time : that I am , that is mine ...binding us in samsara subject to suffering .. The guideline of the Dhamma (8fN.P.) offering the necessary change to get out . Is that close to what you mean? with Metta Dieter #79366 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dcwijeratna Hi Charles, >Charles: Always feel welcome to BUTT-IN, please, that is why we are here! DC: Thanks. >Charles: Your statement presents a problem, if 'by traveling the Buddhist path--the Noble Eightfold Path' is the only way to prove there is no such thing as a self, then all other paths must point to a self. DC: What do you mean exactly by "all other paths"? In Dhamma, The Fourth Noble Truth is the only path. No other path. You can't prove it. You must experience it. Some people call it verification. But that does not accord with the Dhamma. In the Dhamma it is a "voyage of discovery" 'All other paths must point to self--Yes no argument, if you mean practices in other religions. But you need not practice any path to experience self. I do and I am sure you do. >Charles: This would make the idea of no-self non-universal and even more relative than the idea of a self. DC: Yes, Idea of no-self is unique to the Buddha's teaching. It can exist only as a mere idea in anybodys mind. Just as some sort of negation of atta (na + atta). That is why we keep arguing about it. Atta in dhamma is really the sense of I. And we don't quarrel about it. You have a sense of I (I presume). I have sense of I. And almost everybody has it. More importantly, we think that is a permanent feature; it is there from the day we can remember. The Dhamma-argument is. We suffer from delusion. Now what is delusion. We perceive the world through our mind (really the mind-body; mind and body are not separate in Dhamma). Now you and I know that in general terms our mind changes so fast everything we really know about the world is changing or dyanamic or impermanent. Yet we take "I" to be permanent. That is the delusion. We extend this to other human beings as well. When you travel the Noble-Eightfold-Path, you develop your mind to be able to see this change-really, physically. You develop your mind by looking at your own mind. I hope I have been able to make myself clearer. If not please respond, I will then try again. This is the understanding we have got of dhamma which we inherited as part of our lineage. Really what our teachers, simple monks, have told us. Not the so called 'abhidhammikas.' We think of them as people who make nice catalogs, tables and matrices. Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #79367 From: Elaine Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am Subject: Re: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will shennieca Dear Howard, Thank you for your e-m. :-)) With mettaa & respect, Elaine P/S: Scott, I see a self-demon in that e-m of yours. :-(( ------------------------------- #79368 From: Elaine Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How much do you Meditate? How do you meditate? shennieca Hi Connie, I think Alex asked a very simple and straight-forward question. And you, being very lawyer-like is twisting his question making the question difficult to comprehend. Another question is, "Do you have a choice for Not getting raped?" This is a tougher question to answer. I think, if in the past the kamma is bad, then in this life the vipaka will strike back. But we can always take precautions. We should not set the conditions for it to occur. So, I think we have a choice, e.g. don't walk alone in dark alleys at night, etc. etc. Right? With metta, Elaine ------------------------------------ #79369 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not-self strategy .. Comprehending the Burden .. buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter (Swee, Larry, RobertK, Elaine), - I like to carefully comment on an important statement you made regarding the relative importance of anatta to anicca and dukkha : >Dieter: "Without (anicca and ) dukkha nobody would care for anatta". T: That is not just a coincidence with what good friend Swee and I talked about in message # 79285. > >Swee: The phrase "let this form be thus, let it not be otherwise" is often quoted (and misunderstood in my opinion) by RobertK as evidence of absolute no control. For me, it merely says that if form is the self, then we can control this form to be permanent (be thus) and not otherwise (not be thus). "Be thus / not be thus" in my opinion translates as "be permanent /not be impermanent". >T: That phrase is absolutely critical for us to answer RobertK's belief of absolute uncontrollabily of the khandhas. Yes, Swee, 'be thus/not be thus' centers upon the 'anicca' characteristic rather than 'anatta', which is the consequence of aniica --> dukkha and dukkha --> anatta in that order. T: So, Dieter, you and Swee and I are talking about the same thing. Isn't that a good enough evidence that we see some truth that is not yet seen by our "unshakable" DSG Abhidhammika friends (despite their apparently high IQs)? .................................... >Dieter: What I am thinking is that both aspects may apply and no exclusivity either to one of them to be claimed... T: You talked about a "room for discussion" based on Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Abhidhammic point of view" that ' It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality..'. And you seemed to say that such property of the dhammas AND the strategic approach of Ven. TB should not be considered as mutually exclusive. Am I understanding you correctly? .................................... >Dieter: Further discussion and clarification of Ven. Thanissaro's essay , in particular the context of provided sutta sources, seems to me benefitial ..... if we find interest .... ;-) T: Sure, further discussion of TB's article(s) as well as the "context of provided sutta sources" is always beneficial and interesting, at least to me. Tep === > thanks for your comment supporting my position.....though not all.. ;-) #79370 From: "Peter Bowen" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:38 am Subject: A Brief Introduction bowen.peter Thanks for the welcome, Sarah. Yes, that was my first posting to the group, though I have been a member for some time. About 90% of the threads are of no interest to me, but occasionally one comes along that grabs my interest. I am especially interested in Classical Theravada, so anything written by the Ven. Dhammanando is of interest to me. He seems to be a no-nonsense proponent of the Classical approach, and I will admit that I enjoy reading what he has to say. His posts (both here and on E-Sangha) are an enlightening, entertaining, and erudite guide to the Classical Theravada world. Unfortunately, much of what he has to say I just can't understand. Perhaps one day .... With metta, Peter Bowen #79371 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:06 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Aaaa, Dear Sarah, It is always nice to hear Your voice - even thought it is in My head! I hope You and Jonathan Are Doing well, and Life (existence) is good for You two. 1) I am beginning to understand why you like using the pali, OK -- I will have to start remembering it! 2) For you my argument is not limited to the idea of Self, it covers (as you) the usage of terms: Conventional as apposed to Absolute (I think I remember this being bases on Your view). Why is it that Relative Truth must be considered not true? And only Absolute Truth true? Personally, I this 99% of the Buddha's teaching is about Relative Truth. After all if there is no-You and no-Me, however we choose to describe these entities, something must be carrying out this dialog. After all, isn't the voice I was talking about uniquely yours, uniquely generated from the components of your-Being as apposed to someone-else's being? I would agree that it is a good idea to know that you do not have complete control over that voice (you can train for perfect pitch but it may never come), nor is your voice an uncompounded entity (it is a mixture of sounds), an eternal entity (it arises, fades, and dies due to causes), and it can be a source of suffering (e.g., when it is used in anger or when the attachment to it turns into obsession). I try to enjoy the wisdom of knowing that You and I exist and that existence is not eternal (i.e., it is conditioned). After all, not-Self is a great strategy in this Relative world, would You say so? Charles DaCosta _____ #79372 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:07 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (15) ksheri3 Good Morning Tep, Nobody is saying to stick your neck out, although you've already done it when you recognized the original incogruencies between the Abhidhamikas in the group and the Madhyamika, your neck is stretched thin. <...> Come'on Tep be inventive. You will find that in Never-Never Land physical laws really do not hold up under the scrutiny of observation, and therefore, are seen as FALSE. toodles, colette #79373 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:22 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy dacostacharles Sarah, I forgot to mention that: It is impossible 'to obtain enlightenment' without the development of understanding of present dhammas. And that part of the development of this understanding is the realization that these dhammas are anatta (not the self or essence of a being). They are mere elements arising and falling away. Seeing consciousness is a mere dhamma which arises, experiences visible object and then falls away. It is not the eternal essence of a being nor is the self of being. It is just a component whose existence, like the whole, is relative. I would also agree that there has to be a clear understanding of namas and rupas (and their distinction) from the outset. This body, this self, all that we find so important are just components of, as well as, namas and rupas. It is a good idea to make the most of the opportunity and really study the texts, such as 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas'. I almost make made it back to HK for the summer of 2008 by my wife wants me to take the family to St. Thomas instead. Oh well, may be HK in 2009. Charles DaCosta _____ #79374 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:34 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy (Ken 'thoughts) dacostacharles Hi all, In reality, the Buddha was so cleaver that he played both sides and declared a middle way between these extremes. It this relative world, the 3 views exist as both strategy and Truth. Charles DaCosta _____ #79375 From: mlnease Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... m_nease Hi Matt (and Larry), Please excuse ME for butting in too: mattroke wrote: > LARRY: The Buddha's argument is that if there is no control over a > dhamma the dhamma cannot be self. Therefore the wrong view is that > there_is_ control over a dhamma when that dhamma is taken to be self. > Self is sometimes defined as me or mine. In this case "mine" makes > more sense. Also we often think what is mine is who and what I am. > > MATT: Excuse me for butting in. I agree that there is no control over > dhammas, however, I do not think that people take dhammas for self. > > People have concepts about dhammas, but they do not experience > dhammas. If there were any insight into dhammas then there would be a > clearer understanding that there are only dhammas, there would be > greater appreciation of the fleeting nature of dhammas and there > would be no taking of dhammas to be self. > > It is because there is no insight into dhammas that people take > concepts to be real. And it is concepts that give the delusion that > there is "me" and "mine" and that there can be control over dhammas I think this is correct--this is why perversion of perception is far more prevalent than wrong view--that is, taking 'me' for self rather than e.g. 'temperature' for self. mike #79376 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The not-self strategy ksheri3 Good Morning Charles and DC, Did somebody make a "booty-call" my butt seems to always be "in" and that has always made me ponder, for instance, why is it in and not our, etc. Can I INTERPRET your post Charles since others had problems with "dictionaries" used to create a standard upon which words can be determined, translated, defined, etc.? "Traveling the path" is a way, it is a single way that is known but who are we to throw up walls of OBSCURATION or walls of enclosure if we say that it is "the only way" or "the only path"? Once might even want to try to translate those last two dictates, actually one dictate: "the only...", into another language and culture. Lets start from square one: We Know the 8 Fold Path works, we know that both Nama and Rupa do not make up "the self" or "a self" since they are both dependent concepts, but we are searching for Universality here (statements that hold their shape under any other different condition of application; the same statement maintains its definitions under different circumstances), why would or why do "all OTHER paths have to point to a self"? All Other paths may just be constructed improperly and point to a self or to the path of delusion based on hallucination i.e. "Mission Accomplished", but does that mean that ALL OTHER PATHS that have been currently found and will be found in the future, will point or have to point to a self? I think not. I think that other paths are more easily DEFILED into the DELUSION OF A SELF, AN ATMAN, BUT they certainly possess the capability of point to the path on no-self, no-atman. It's like the ole Warner Bros. cartoons where the Coyote changes the road signs and makes a "detour", sure we can go back and discover the perverts perversion but we could not have seen it as a perversion or defilement when it was first encountered or first happened, it is after we have begun traveling the path of the "detour" or de-lay" that we become conscious to the fact that the signs deluded us which requires cleaning out the alaya-vijnana of EVERYTHING that the mind acquired or encountered during the belief of survival on the path of the De- lay or De-Tour from Toms or from Uncle Toms. Tom De-Lays are common to American middle-class high schools under the terminology of Debutantes or Debbies doing Dallas i.e. "Duh". The concept of no-self is strictly, IMO, applied to remove a person's tendencies toward "CLINGING" and "CRAVING" and "DESIRE" and, ... the fundamental principle's that Buddhism is built upon and built through. It seems like an "objective" strategy, a "goal oriented" strategy. A strategy can be a "standard operating procedure" or a process of achieving a goal, et al. toodles, colette #79377 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:47 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Regarding Khandas, anatta & Control. dacostacharles Hi Alex I would agree, every thing else is just philosophy! Charles DaCosta _____ #79378 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:31 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Alchohol as a medicine for cold throat, & 5th Precept. dacostacharles Hi Alex, There are a few sutras that have the Buddha telling the monks to not be attached to following the vows/precepts under curtain situations. I wish I could remember a specific reference to give you but I can't remember . I trust you can find them your self! Charles DaCosta _____ #79379 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:05 am Subject: RE: [dsg] "Higher" Philosophies, Dukkha and actual practice... dacostacharles Yes Alex, Billions of Dharma arising, fading/passing, and cease in that moment - Now let us have a cup of tea and just taste and smell for a moment. Be wary of attachments and distractions/lack of focus. "All is vanity and vexation ." Proverbs Charles DaCosta PS: When your focus/concentration is so strong that the fires have nothing to cling to, then and only then, is your training complete - there - there is no pain, no you, no me, . The fires still burn and consume but you, yes you, are unmoved - e.g., the many monks during a protest of extreeme .. The aggeget of form is set ablaze untill . Thisis behond you and me, but fornow I am glad - I enjoy attachement to my daughter, my wife, my life. Yet when the time is come I pray we are ready, so that longing for more of this and longing for that will not arise; like ingnorance, gread and hate will cease tooooo :-). _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 0:35 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] "Higher" Philosophies, Dukkha and actual practice... Thus have I thought... Some say there are 75 dhammas. Some say there are 100 dharmas. Some say we directly see dhammas. Some say that we see mental representations of dharmas. Some say that in each second 75 dharmas pass by. Some say that in each second billions of dhammas pass by... Some say there is a store house consiousness (alaya vinnana)... Some proclaim Emptiness from self... Some proclaim Emptiness from another... Some proclaim sunyata-sunyata... How does all this effects the practice such as anapanasati or even N8P? <...> #79380 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:32 am Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... ksheri3 Hi Matt, Ah, Aggregates make their debut appearance on our stage, huh? Surely you see Larry's comments in "minutia", this is an outstanding characteristic of every robot that pursues the path of enlightenment by means of Organized Education or Process Manufacturing. Take Larry's comments and now remove the individual from the definition leaving only an aggregate of "sentient beings" or human beings. With so many pixels or trees, one cannot possibly see the forest or the actual picture. Larry's comment may just be about the aggregate where D.O. is applied. But lets view Larry's comment now, after we have been contaminated by the virus called "aggregates" since we attempt to see a big picture at first through the aggregate and now want to see the same picture through the individual pixels or the trees. The Buddha was speaking to many more sentient beings than a single sentient being or a single pixel or a single tree, wasn't he? Larry's statements fit nicely since if we start off at the larger picture we can see that the dhamma is not me or is not that larger picture, afterall aren't we taught the buddhisatva values in the Theravadan doctrine? ;) The individual is shamefully subject to the disease of delusions and more likely delusions of granduer and so becasuse they have visualised the dhamma incorrectly, OBTAINING WRONG VIEW, they then proceed to manifest this WRONG VIEW through their own microscopic self-centeredness, much like Organized Religion in Europe did during the Dark Ages when they INTENTIONALLY REJECTED Capurnicus and Gallileo and Newton et al. Larry's thoughts do work. Individuals have problems with the dhamma BECAUSE OF (see D.O., also Cause & Effect/Cause & Conditions) the lack of foundational material and the interference of daily life with the ability to form a proper foundation, hence we get "buddhism for the masses" or "buddhism for dummies" or we can call it Theravadan Buddhism WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT BUDDHISM IS NOT A MAGIK BULLET "it will take many lifetimes to achieve enlightenment" but the individual has to make the effort to start crawling before the individual can walk, start practicing the dhamma before enlightenment can occur. sorry gots ta go, times up. sorry for the incomplete thoughts. toodles, colette #79381 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:46 am Subject: The Anti-EGO Tool! bhikkhu0 Friends: In order to eradicate any internal conceit leading to => external EGOism, In order to reach the bliss of selfless egolessness by not assuming any identity For the safety of the 'individual beings' & the common society as well in the present in the future, uprooting egoism is a crucial must… PAST, FUTURE and PRESENT: At Savatthi the Exalted Buddha once said this: Bhikkhus and Friends: The Body & any Form is now, always was, & always will be Impermanent! The Body & any Form is now, always was, & always will be Painful! The Body & any Form is now, always was, & always will be without any Self, Me, or Mine! It was so both in the past, will be so in the future, not to speak of the present. So clearly seeing, friends, the well-trained Noble friend is not concerned with the past (young) body that was before, is not longing for any future (better) body or external form, and is disgusted by any present body and external form, seeks detachment from any present body & all external forms, seeks ceasing of the present body & all external forms... Any Feeling is now, always was, & always will be Transient! Any Feeling is now, always was, & always will be ultimately Disappointing! Any Feeling is now, always was, & always will be without any Self, Me, or Mine! It was so both in the past, will be so in the future, not to speak of the present. So clearly seeing, friends, the well-trained Noble friend is not concerned with any past, now gone, feeling that was before, is not longing for any future kind of feeling whatsoever, and is disgusted by all kinds of present feeling, seeks detachment from the present feeling, seeks ceasing of the present feeling... Any Experience is now, always was, & always will be Evanescent! Any Experience is now, always was, & always will be Disturbing Distress! Any Experience is now, always was, & always will be without any Self, Me, or Mine! It was so both in the past, will be so in the future, not to speak of the present. So clearly seeing, friends, the well-trained Noble friend is not concerned with any past experience or memory that was before, is not longing for any future experience or perception, and is disgusted by any present experience, seeks release from the present experience, seeks ceasing of the actual experience... Any Mental Construction is now, always was, & always will be Momentary! Any Mental Construction is now, always was, & always will be Frustrating Futile Folly! Any Mental Construction is now, always was, & always will be without any Self, Me, or Mine! It was so both in the past, will be so in the future, not to speak of the present. So clearly seeing, friends, the well-trained Noble friend is not concerned with any past mental construction that was before, is not longing for any future kind of mental construction, thought or intention, and is disgusted by any and all present kinds of mental construction, seeks detachment from all present mental construction, seeks ceasing of the present mental construction... Any kind of Consciousness is now, always was, & always will be Vanishing! Any kind of Consciousness is now, always was, & always will be Dukkha! Any kind of Consciousness is now, always was, & always will be without any Self, Me, or Mine! It was so both in the past, will be so in the future, not to speak of the present. So clearly seeing, friends, the well-trained Noble friend is not concerned with any past kind of consciousness that was before, is not longing for any future mode of consciousness, and is disgusted by all present moments of consciousness, seeks detachment from any present sort of consciousness, seeks stilling & ceasing of any present consciousness... Comments: Radical Revolution IMHO: Going unburdened without an EGO on your back; one goes VERY light as elated above the ground! Any pride, arrogance, and subtle defensiveness is all evaporated, since who is there to defend? Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <....> #79382 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:48 am Subject: RE: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" dacostacharles Hi Alex, Your post Tuesday, November 20, 2007 20:23, seems pretty accurate to me. I only have a problem with the part about "A mind moment has to last more than 0 seconds." I think you forgot that there is such thing as a 10th or even millionth of a second. Charles DaCosta _____ #79383 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:21 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" dacostacharles Hi all, Elaine, when the arisen conditions result in articulations about the “ultimate” then often something else seems missing. The Ultimate and the Relative are One. They are like the two sides of a coin. The one consist of the two. Without the two, the one doesn’t exist (not even a delusion). This is the problem, often people who believe in Ultimate realities forget that the world of existence is Relative and compounded. The other thing they for get is that it is OK, it is this very Relativeness is what the Dharma is trying to help us overcome. In this case Relativeness referes to the connections created by desire. I am a little tired so if it sounds like I am “out-there-in-left-field” it may be true. Tiredness is conditioning what (that makes communication …). So yes even thought is conditioned. Charles DaCosta _____ #79384 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:29 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" dacostacharles Deaar ken O There is a problem with your 1st paragraph: ("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.") It mental state, karma, volition, . are conditioned by complexes (the 5 aggregates for example). Also they arise in something, this something is a compounded entity that suffers and spreads suffering; therefore .. Charles DaCosta _____ #79385 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:49 am Subject: Mirage = ?, falsehood?, brothel in Nevada?, jet fighter from France?, ? ksheri3 "ya know you can't go on Gettin' your own way. 'Cause if ya doooooooo, It's gonna get you some day" Eric Clapton Good Morning Group, I was hoping to expand significantly, on a post I replied to from Charles, this morning, now, but since it hasn't been posted I'm <...> Spirit comes into play through the actual cognition that "...it is to express such an attitude so gracefully and without internal conflict that doing so has become second nature." Meaning, in my interpretation, that this behavior has to be programmed so deeply in the un-conscious, sub-conscious, or Alaya-Vijnana, that it must be as though it was a small executable file which has been compiled into a larger executable file, such would be the case when considering the DOS command at the Dot Prompt "*.exe", I'm dating myself here since I learned computers in 1989-90 using the MSDOS system and PCWrite, etc., good for programmers to work at Computer Inovations but not so good for learning administrative personel like myself at that time in that context. While the Western psychological and philosophical communities lack aspects of the Confucian imperative(s) we also see a dual lack of aspects in Confucian imperative(s) to the Western psychological and philosophical communities. This duality can only be transcended by and through dictionaries which manifest a "common denominator". <.....> I have not been fooled by the "De-Tour" sign with Wille E.Coyote or was it Yosemite Sam standing their giving me the friendly finger and pointing in the direction that he wanted me to go. I had not choice but to go with the drivers of the automobile that didn't listen to my advice on my website during the months of Novemember and December 2001 but I know we as an entirety, a whole, are nowhere near where it is we want to be, where it is we should be, where it is we have to get to, etc, and I have the road map, sortofspeak, through the 4 Noble Truths, etc, that give me the objective or destination and so, well, we only have a few more months of suffering through the torture inflicted upon us by self-centered greedy individuals which cannot allow any other life to exist without the dependence on their mirage, hallucination, drug dealing skills, etc. Did I help make anything more clear or have I just disturbed the muck on the bottom of the river bed. I enjoy the Buddha's concept: "A man can only step in the same river once" since I've said similar things for decades now and am glad to find some of my contemporaries and colleagues. toodles, colette #79386 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:27 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... buddhistmedi... Hi Matt, - Ah, here comes another DSG Abhidhammika fully charged with energy to preach. He is ready with programmed instructions on controllability vs. uncontrollability, self vs no self, paramattha dhammas vs concepts, accumulations and paramis vs practicing the Dhamma here & now for a realization of the Four Noble Truths. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mattroke" wrote: > > Dear Tep (Larry, RobertK, Swee and all), > > TEP: I am pleased that you have pointed out that "control is a major > element of Vinaya, proper deportment, and the cultivation of > tranquility", This is an important part of Buddhism that have > surprisingly been rejected by some smart members of the DSG > Abhidhammika Gang. > > MATT: Just because there is the thought "I will do this" and then we > do it, does not mean that there is control. > T: A programmable robot is controlled to move by a computer that sends electrical currents to motors at the arm joints. In humans a thought and intention trigger actions, e.g. body motion and speech. We do not move or speak randomly with no control. Our speeches can be manipulated to be pleasant or unpleasant. We do have choices. ......................................... > M: > The Buddha clearly understood conditions. He knew that when he set > the Wheel of Truth rolling, that that would be the condition for > people to hear the teaching. And when he laid down the Vinaya, that > was a condition for monks to head the rules of the monkhood. > T: In the same token we can say that the monks control their behaviors over time to be more and more virtuous, according to the Vinaya training rules. That is somewhat similar to programmed instructions control robot movements up or down, fast or slow, straight or circular, etc. ................................... >M: > If the Buddha had not taught Dhamma, we would not be discussing it > now. Had the Vinaya not been laid down, there would not be the > conditions for monks to keep precepts. > T: Yes. If I stopped breathing for longer than five minutes, I would be dead. If I ate too much and did not exercise, soon I would be a fat old man. .................................. >M: > Whatever the Buddha said will condition us to act in a certain way. > How we act, will depend on our accumulations to understand what he > said. > T: So your accumulations must be useless, since there is no way you can hear the Buddha's words. It is pitiful that there is zero chance for you to become enlightened. .............................. >M: > In the time of the Buddha there were many with great accumulations > and they only had to hear a few words from the Buddha to become > enlightened. We have to be careful not to misinterpret those words, > which were clear to them, but do not enlighten us. > The Buddha hesitated to teach, not because he only needed to tell > us what to do and then we follow, but because there was a deeper > more profound message that required wisdom to comprehend. > T: Give me one reason why I should believe all this. How do you know what the Buddha thought ? Did He say that or was it just your imagination? ............................. >M: > If someone chooses to reply to this post, is it because that person > chooses to write or is it conditioned by this post, or the post that > I am replying to, or because of the DSG forum or because the Buddha spoke dhamma? There are many conditions, but is there any self in .control? > T: All of the above and more. My self demon is running wild right now. ;-)) Tep ==== #79387 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:55 pm Subject: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will kelvin_lwin Hi Howard (Scott), >S: I think that Alex is simply the current leader of the necessary crew > of resondents who subtly and not so subtly have to oppose and run > counter to the stated goals of the list. No need to get all caught up > in it, in my curmudgeonly opinion. >H: and amazingly fast grasp of the Dhamma - really astounding. But I see you as > attempting something that you don't even believe in - control. I actually couldn't agree more with Scott. If people understands the basic tenent of the group then we can cut through a lot of discussion. - Kel #79388 From: mlnease Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:10 pm Subject: Re: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will m_nease Hi Kel (and Scott), kelvin_lwin wrote: > I actually couldn't agree more with Scott. If people understands > the basic tenent of the group then we can cut through a lot of > discussion. Hear, hear--and thanks again to you both. mike #79389 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:11 pm Subject: Controlling Others Re: [dsg] Re: The Not-self strategy ... Freedom of Will buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - It is always fun to have a conversation with you. > >T: But , Howard, don't you remember that there is no Scott? How could there be a control without a Self? It was only an uncontrollable akusala citta (belonging to nobody) that conditioned the unkind speech. > Howard: > Tep, in reality, what is there besides conditions, empty though they are? If you presume something else, can you say what it might be? What did the Buddha say was "the all"? > -------------------------------------------------- T: You answered questions with more questions !! That was tricky (like a smoke screen) and wouldn't take us anywhere. Howard. If we were in a court of law, the judge would have said : "Howard, just answer Tep's questions" ! ................................... > >T: Sad, isn't it? > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is a mistake to use anatta as an excuse for wrong action. (I call > that "Buddhist antinomianism.) But it is no mistake, IMO, to adhere to the anatta teaching that so clearly distinguishes the Buddha's Dhamma from all other teachings. > ----------------------------------------------- T: Perhaps you meant antinominalism? Adherence or attachment to anything (even the Teachings) does not lead to freedom from dukkha, Howard. "Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." Tep ==== #79390 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] heresy of instanteneous changing "mind moments" truth_aerator Hi Charles, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > Your post Tuesday, November 20, 2007 20:23, seems pretty accurate to me. I > only have a problem with the part about "A mind moment has to last more than > 0 seconds." I think you forgot that there is such thing as a 10th or even > millionth of a second. > Charles DaCosta > By >0 seconds I meant ALL numbers. Even if it is tiny like 10^(any natural number). 10th or even a millionth part of a second is NOT the smallest, indivisible or "ultimate unit of time" 1 billionth of a second is even quicker. But ANY number > 0 (even if it is 10^-100000000 seconds) is divisible! Lots of Metta, Alex #79391 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: Self View & Verbal misunderstandings truth_aerator To Dear Abhidhammikas at DSG, Is the wrong view due to the fact that we think in terms of "I am", "I exist", "You exist" ?? Yes or No? Thanks, Lots of Metta, Alex #79392 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question to Abhidhammikas re:Control buddhistmedi... Hi again Howard, - So, let the band play on. > > >T: I agree that deliberation, desire and so on condition/constitute > >choosing. But choosing is neither 100% impersonal nor 100% > >uncontrollable in a non-ariyan where lots of choosing occur!! > Howard: > Even in a non-ariyan, choosing is 100% impersonal in that there is > no self that chooses. What is true, however, is that the choosing > *seems* personal. > T: If a thought is not personal, then why are you the only person who knows the thought that's going on in your mind? And why only I know the thought I have, but not what is in your mind right now? Every morning you have a choice to eat a soup, or something else. That choice is yours, it does not *seem* to be yours. ------------------------------------------------------ > T: A wholesome mind in a worldling is not pure because of tanha and > avijja that associate with self views(attanuditthi and mana). > So the 'Self' is always there, knowingly or not. > > Howard: > A *sense* of self is there, and a *belief* in self, albeit possibly > weak, is there, but no actual self is there. T: Okay. If you insist on nit-picking. > -------------------------------------------------------- > T: > Ariyan Howard, Sir, pure dhamma in the ultimate sense, such as anatta, is supramundane, What you wrote is true in the ultimate sense and that is very compatible with an ariyan. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Huh? (Oh! LOLOL!) > ----------------------------------------------------- T: No ariyan laughs out so loud ! ;-)) Tep ==== #79393 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (15) buddhistmedi... Hi Colette, - Ah, you are soooo persistent ! :-)) > Colette: > Nobody is saying to stick your neck out, although you've already done > it when you recognized the original incogruencies between the > Abhidhamikas in the group and the Madhyamika, your neck is stretched > thin. <...> > Come'on > Tep be inventive. You will find that in Never-Never Land physical > laws really do not hold up under the scrutiny of observation, and > therefore, are seen as FALSE. > T: You gotta teach me the basics first. So, describe the Abhidhamika and the Madhyamika as you know them. BTW With my neck so strrrretched out and soooo THIN like that, chances are I might NOT LAST very long. Tep ==== #79394 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Regarding Khandas, anatta & Control. sukinderpal Hi Alex, I have been debating about how to respond to your other post. For sure I can't discuss Suttas with you because I don't have the ability to interpret them like others can. In fact I don't usually make a point of reading them since generally I am not fond of reading. The Suttas you have cited in your last post, I have not looked into any one of those. One of the reasons is because many Suttas have been brought up by opponents of the Abhidhamma here in the past, and they have been responded to, to my satisfaction and I could refer you to those discussions. Another reason is that I don't have more than just a small percentage of your stamina, and can't keep up with you. (At one point when you first joined DSG, I even had the thought about not wanting to face you in debate for this very reason.) ;-) Most importantly however, as I expressed in my first post in this thread, I'm interested in getting into the meaning in ultimate terms rather than rest satisfied with vague conventional ideas about Dhamma and other related concepts, hence my question to you about the meaning of "meditation". I wasn't asking for explanations, as you have given so far, in terms of yet other conventional ideas, but to actually know about how certain mental realities function and which of these you refer to when you speak of Meditation, Jhana and Vipassana. Of course I ask because I sense that you are mistaken and therefore hope to be able to correct you. There is nothing wrong with using conventional designations and to speak in terms of I, me, we and you etc. However you and most meditators when it comes to actual experience, and the need most crucially to apply the understanding, seem to be unable / unwilling to distinguish between reality and concept. You are not inclined to knowing about the characteristic, function, manifestation and cause of dhammas involved but instead to happily go by vague concepts unquestioned. This was apparent in the other post, "How do you meditate?" and is apparent here in this post. It is for this reason that I've decided to respond to this instead of the other one, which as you know has gone well beyond that which I originally wanted to discuss about. Hope this is alright with you. ================ Alex: Ultimately out of all of this discussion, regardless of the answer, the only thing that matters is: WHAT TO DO? Do you sit on the coach watching TV or develop N8P? Sukin: See, you have taken the N8FP to be associated with certain conventional activity, which I presume is "meditation". Were you to understand as I do, that the N8FP is a reference to a moment of consciousness accompanied by 5, 6 or 8 specific mental factors and that this like any other conditioned reality is not dependent on concepts of time, place and posture, you will not make the kind of statement you have made. The N8FP being Satipatthana / Vipassana / Magga (but leaving out this for the moment), has conditioned realities as object, it arises mostly because of development of the same in the past. Having realities as object, any reality at any time, being equally fleeting, can by `natural decisive support condition' condition this to arise. It is purely because of misunderstanding of the Path (Wrong View), that one thinks that time, place, posture and the need to choose an object is necessary. The latter can ever be a "concept" only, since it starts as one and is continually being fed by the same process of "thinking". Certainly this is *not* the right cause for "realities" to somehow be known down the road, is it? But of course `self view' can make us believe *anything*! Therefore as far as I'm concerned, the N8FP can arise while discussing, watching TV or being in the middle of any conventional activity, as long as the understanding is there, that in fact there are only fleeting dhammas arising and falling away. The question of choosing "WHAT TO DO?" therefore has no place and would be a wrong question. =============== Alex: Do you find excuses or solutions?? Sukin: And in thinking in terms of `solutions' and `strategies' are YOU making an excuse not to study *this* very moment or even to face it?! If you are so interested in making an "effort" to know directly the nature of reality, why no effort NOW?! One reason is; that you are lost in wrong ideas about "practice". =============== Alex: It is also not a matter of how many times you fall down, what matter is how many times do you get up! Sukin: It is not a matter of how many times you fall down nor is it a matter of how many times you get up. This is just plain delusion, a story centered on the non-existent "self". It is a matter of understanding and hence acceptance of the fact that there are only "conditioned realities", and any struggle against this fact is increasing more delusion. Metta, Sukin. #79395 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... philofillet Hi Tep Tep, you have really got to calm down on the dualities, dude. I read no further than the following before I abandoned it as the words of a fellow who is fuelled with his own fervours. > Ah, here comes another DSG Abhidhammika fully charged with energy > to preach. He is ready with programmed instructions on controllability > vs. uncontrollability, self vs no self, paramattha dhammas vs concepts, > accumulations and paramis vs practicing the Dhamma here & now for > a realization of the Four Noble Truths. This is not a skillful way to broach a dicussion, amigo. Metta, Phil #79396 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:26 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (40) philofillet Hi Nina Thanks for this > 'Keen pa~n~naa is intent on what is beneficial. > It can abandon lust that has arisen within you. > For what benefit do you have pa~n~naa, > if you cannot dispel sinful thoughts.' " > Sick people generally depend on medicine. Evenso, keen pa~n~naa is like a medicine, it is intent on what is beneficial and it can cure us from lust that has arisen. I am appreciating these days how many levels (degrees) there are of panna, and not stressing about the need to sort out the levels. Nobody will take away my confidence in very mundane levels of panna that are akin to common sense, and at the same time I can share to some degree in the confidence/interest of others in deeper degrees. It's neat! A question - When "abandon" is used, what is the Pali? Does it not usually refer to something permanent, or is there an appreciation of momentary/provisional little abandonments, if you will. In this quotation it seems like the latter. Metta, Phil #79397 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:32 pm Subject: Re: Regarding Khandas, anatta & Control. truth_aerator Dear Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Most importantly however, as I expressed in my first post in this > thread, I'm interested in getting into the meaning in ultimate terms > rather than rest satisfied with vague conventional ideas about Dhamma > and other related concepts, hence my question to you about the meaning >>> How are "Ultimate terms" anything other than simply pompous conventions? Since everything is impermanent, there can't be ultimacy found anywhere. Ultimate reality needs to have an ultimate observer for it to be Ultimate Reality. Reality can't simply be somewhere without being felt, perceived, or cognized in any way. "Reality, What a concept!" - forgot who said this. > of "meditation". I wasn't asking for explanations, as you have given > so far, in terms of yet other conventional ideas, but to actually know > about how certain mental realities function and which of these you > refer to when you speak of Meditation, Jhana and Vipassana. >>> Have you percieved "certain mental realities" ? yes/no ? > Of course I ask because I sense that you are mistaken and therefore > hope to be able to correct you. There is nothing wrong with using > conventional designations and to speak in terms of I, me, we and you > etc. However you and most meditators when it comes to actual > experience, >>> When actual experience comes, I try not to think about it while it is happening. and the need most crucially to apply the understanding, > seem to be unable / unwilling to distinguish between reality and > concept. >>> How is reality more than a certain concept? Name me even ONE WORD that isn't a concept. > ================ > Alex: > Ultimately out of all of this discussion, regardless of the answer, the > only thing that matters is: > > WHAT TO DO? Do you sit on the coach watching TV or develop N8P? > > Sukin: See, you have taken the N8FP to be associated with certain > conventional activity, >>>> A wonderful, smart, educated, well thought excuse not to follow the N8P. Do you think the Buddha was being figurative when he was teaching this crucial path? >>> which I presume is "meditation". Were you to > understand as I do, that the N8FP is a reference to a moment of > consciousness accompanied by 5, 6 or 8 specific mental factors and > that this like any other conditioned reality is not dependent on > concepts of time, place and posture, you will not make the kind of > statement you have made. >>>>> See above. Another smart, logical, educated, "beated on anvil of logic", explanation not to follow Sila-Samadhi-Panna. >>>>>>> > The N8FP being Satipatthana / Vipassana / Magga (but leaving out this > for the moment), has conditioned realities as object, <>>>>> All reality is CONDITIONED. It has to be FELT (or percieved, or cognized) in order to be Real. Otherwise we could say that giant green goblins are a reality that exist on this earth, but we just don't see them. >>>>>>>> it arises > mostly because of development of the same in the past. Having > realities as object, any reality at any time, being equally fleeting, > can by `natural decisive support condition' condition this to arise. > It is purely because of misunderstanding of the Path (Wrong View), > that one thinks that time, place, posture >>> There is nothing magical about time, place, posture - except that some of them are more helpful and some are less. >>>>>>>>> and the need to choose an > object is necessary. The latter can ever be a "concept" only, >>>>>> Tell me one thing that ain't a concept! For worldlings even Nibbana is a concept. > Therefore as far as I'm concerned, the N8FP can arise while > discussing, watching TV or being in the middle of any conventional > activity, as long as the understanding is there, that in fact there > are only fleeting dhammas arising and falling away. The question of > choosing "WHAT TO DO?" therefore has no place and would be a wrong > question. >>>>>> So one doesn't have to observe ethics, do the hard work in the trenches (meditation). This is nice! > =============== > Alex: > Do you find excuses or solutions?? > > Sukin: And in thinking in terms of `solutions' and `strategies' are > YOU making an excuse not to study *this* very moment or even to face > it?! >>>>>>> Ajahn Chah (a GREAT MONK!!!! ) said to study one's heart, not the books. Considering that he was in Thai forest tradition, it meant mindfulness & samadhi. >>>>>>>> If you are so interested in making an "effort" to know directly > the nature of reality, why no effort NOW?! One reason is; that you are lost in wrong ideas about "practice". >>>> Read about 4 right efforts? They are part of Samadhi. Lots of Metta, Alex #79398 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:43 pm Subject: Re: My Typical Characteristic, no? philofillet Hi Colette > No problems, if, somehow, you feel that there is a problem with not > responding or communicating with me. No problems with you Colette. Just problems with time. The Dhamma content of your posts has to be discovered in amoung a lot of other content, so with so little time....you know. I'm used to solitary confinement > since 1981 as a result of an opinion formulated and issued to me and > a few of my friends, at that time, from the L.A. Archdiocese -- I had > just discovered manuscripts on sex magik and wanted to try them out > to see if they worked. Ph: See above! :) > > > > I don't get this, Colette. What does the hypocrisy of society > with > > respect to evil (which I don't dispute) have to do with the > > individual's ability to "place intense reliability" on the concept? > > > colette: WHAT? ARE YOU BLIND AS WELL? Didn't you see the blatant > contradiction I stated that society dictates that evil is to be > avoided, hated, etc, but then when everybody has decided to rely on > this "value" they call "good" then the status quo turns around and > uses, employs, that which they dictated everybody else NOT USE, NOT > EMPLOY. Total Hypocracy and in line with Austin Osman Spare's > manuscript Cermon of the Hypocrit, which can be found in Chaos Magik > or the ChaosMatrix. Ph: These days my wife is reading a book by a young social rebel in Japan (few and far between) that lays out very clearly the evil of the way corporations are using contract laborers, part-time workers, giving them the hours/responsibilities/pressure of fully- beneifted workers without any of the benefits. This is leading to even more death from overwork, work-related suicide than ever.It really is evil, there is no doubt about it. But I have trouble joining the discussion with her. (She works for amnesy international a couple of days a week as well, so there are more issues there.) I think my failure to be passionate about social issues is a shortcoming, but for me the only evil that is relevant is that which I do or don't do...minding one's own cittas, you know...I don't own society's kamma, I own my own.. ..but interesting to reflect on the idea of owning one's society's kamma...not true, but interesting and maybe a motivator to becoming more active on issues. I don't know if that has anything to do with your point, Colette, but just touching bases. :) Metta, Phil #79399 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas are uncontrollable ... Partial Controllability ... buddhistmedi... Hi Phil, - Will you be kind enough to elaborate a bit what you meant by dualities, fervours, and not skillful discussion? In particular, what's wrong with my post? Be more clear. I am not going to be easily upset. ;-)) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Tep > > Tep, you have really got to calm down on the dualities, dude. I > read no further than the following before I abandoned it as the > words of a fellow who is fuelled with his own fervours. > > > Ah, here comes another DSG Abhidhammika fully charged with energy > > to preach. He is ready with programmed instructions on > controllability > > vs. uncontrollability, self vs no self, paramattha dhammas vs > concepts, > > accumulations and paramis vs practicing the Dhamma here & now for > > a realization of the Four Noble Truths. > > This is not a skillful way to broach a dicussion, amigo. > > Metta, > > Phil > ................. Frankly, I have no clue why you got so upset. Tep ===