#81400 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 4, no 3. dcwijeratna Hello Andrew, I am back from my vacation. I didn't see any messages from you during the last couple of weeks. Are you also on holiday? Still? Kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #81401 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:14 am Subject: Re: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 2. dhammanusara Hi, Nina (Alex, Scott and others), - I have a comment that might be useful as a right feedback. > >Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. But when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish, if equipped with the proper means..." >Nina: (1) "Each kusala citta is accompanied by the cetasika of effort or viriya, and this cetasika is also kusala. Thus, at such a moment there is no indolence. When kusala citta with right understanding arises there is right effort already, because of the appropriate conditions, and there is no need to think of effort or control." >Nina: (2) "Citta merely cognizes an object, and the akusala cetasikas that accompany citta cause it to be impure. Gradually, understanding can be developed of citta as the dhamma that knows an object, and later on paññå can understand the characteristics of lobha and dosa more precisely as nåma, conditioned dhammas. When we doubt whether the citta that arises is kusala citta or akusala citta and when we worry about it, understanding is not being developed at that moment. Tep: You say in (1) that "kusala citta with right understanding" always arises with right effort, and I agree with it since right effort and right mindfulness both support the development of right view [One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view". MN 117]. Then you add: "When kusala citta with right understanding arises there is right effort already, because of the appropriate conditions, and there is no need to think of effort or control." This statement is not necessary : if there is right effort already with right understanding, then why do you have to mention effort or control? Just like a nice dessert that is perfectly sweet, I wonder why should anyone with the right frame of mind ever think about adding sugar to make it sweeter? In (2) I agree that paññå has the quality to "understand the characteristics of lobha and dosa more precisely as nåma, conditioned dhammas". It is obvious that doubts do not arise with paññå (in an ariyan); thus, it straightforwardly follows that anyone who still doubts "whether the citta that arises is kusala citta or akusala citta" has not yet developed paññå at that moment. Therefore, it is redundant to say "and when we worry about it, understanding is not being developed at that moment". Both (1) and (2) seem to miss the important point made by the venerable Bodhi, "But when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish." Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > We read in the suttas that the Buddha spoke about energy or effort > > which should be exerted in order to understand the four noble > Truths. We may wonder whether we should make an effort to develop > right understanding. > >>> > > As you all well know (I hope) there is a difference between Tanha, > and (samma-vayamo). > > > "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates > desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds, & exerts his > intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities > that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, > unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising > of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the > maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & > culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called > right effort. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html > #81402 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. nilovg Hi Howard, I do not know where to find it. Shall we ask Rob K? Nina. Op 16-jan-2008, om 20:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Hi Howard and James, > Rob K quoted a text that it is forbidden for monks to speak about > attainments such as jhana. > I think that laypeople would become partial and would only want to > give to those bhikkhus or prefer to give to them. > Nina. > Op 16-jan-2008, om 12:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende > geschreven: > > > As a matter of fact, is it not among the sangha rules > > > not to speak of such? > > =============================== > I did think there was something along such lines. Is it in a sutta > or in > the Vinaya Pitaka? #81403 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > I do not know where to find it. Shall we ask Rob K? > Nina. > Op 16-jan-2008, om 20:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > Hi Howard and James, > > Rob K quoted a text that it is forbidden for monks to speak about > > attainments such as jhana. > > I think that laypeople would become partial and would only want to > > give to those bhikkhus or prefer to give to them. > > Nina. > > Op 16-jan-2008, om 12:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende > > geschreven: > > > > > As a matter of fact, is it not among the sangha rules > > > > not to speak of such? > > > > =============================== > > I did think there was something along such lines. Is it in a sutta > > or in > > the Vinaya Pitaka? > "A bhikkhu who boasts of ['superior human states."] which he has not in fact attained, commits [an offence of Defeat.]" (Paar. 4; Nv p.5) "Deliberately lying to another person that one has attained a superior human state is [an offence of Defeat.]" (Summary Paar. 4; BMC p.86) The Commentary classes 'superior human states' (uttarimanussadhamma) as either: meditative absorption (jhaana), and certain psychic powers (abhiññaa) 112 or the path and fruit leading up to Nibbaana. "To tell an unordained person of one's actual superior human attainments is [an offence of Confession.]" (Rule Summary, Paac. 8; BMC p.288) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#rob bery Thus false statement about achievements = defeat (Paar. 4) True statement to lay person = offence of confession (Paac.8) lots of Metta, Alex #81404 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina & RobK - In a message dated 1/19/2008 3:20:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I do not know where to find it. Shall we ask Rob K? Nina. ================================== Sure, that would be great! I suppose it's in the Vinaya Pitaka somewhere. (Also, possibly Ven P knows about this.) With metta, Howard #81405 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. sarahprocter... Hi Nina, Howard< James, Alex (& Rob K), --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Rob K quoted a text that it is forbidden for monks to speak about > > attainments such as jhana. .... S: You may be thinking of the following message Rob K wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/54191 R: >Dear Group, We sometimes speak about how there were many wise ones in the ancient days who could understand deeply, and now how few there are. Those wise ones of old- even they were genuine attainers of insight- such as a layman who attained anagami and who was praised by the Buddha. The layman asked that the Buddha not reveal this to other laydisciples. Or the monks when they took on dhutanga: "That Elder, it seems, was a sitter, but no one knew it. Then one night the other saw him by the light of a flash of lightning sitting up on his bed. He asked, "Are you a sitter, venerable sir?". Out of fewness of wishes that his ascetic practice should get known, the Elder lay down. Afterwards he undertook the practice anew"(Pm. 77). The other was his twin brother who knew him all his life. He did not want the brother(or anyone) to think highly of him because he had taken on the sitting practice. Different now- someone has a strange experience and next they want to proclaim they have had vipassana insight or even jhana (or even many jhanas!). Monks, of course, are forbidden by the vinaya to even hint at any attainment(see postscript)to laypeople, but we laybuddhists of today sometimes play a game of conceit and delusion to see who trumps the other. Funny, but also a sign of how little real understanding there is. Sutta Nipata "Whoever boasts to others, unasked, of his practices, precepts, is, say the skilled, ignoble by nature -- he who speaks of himself of his own accord." Robertk Postscript: VINAYA "Should any bhikkhu report (his own) factual superior human state to an unordained person, it is to be confessed. The factors for the full offense here are three: 1) Object: an unordained person, i.e., anyone -- human or not -- who is not a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni. 2) Effort: One reports one's actual attainment of a superior human state to such a person. 3) Result: The person immediately understands. Only two of these factors -- effort and result -- require explanation. Effort. The meaning of superior human state is discussed at length under Parajika 4. In brief, it covers (a) jhana, (b) the cognitive powers that can arise as its result, and (c) the transcendent states. Factual is not explained in the texts, but probably means factual from the bhikkhu's own point of view. In other words, whether or not he has actually attained a superior human state, if he thinks he has and reports it to an unordained person, he commits an offense all the same. To report, says the Vibhanga, means to speak directly of one's own attainments. To speak indirectly of one's own attainments -- e.g., "The bhikkhu who lives in this dwelling enters jhana at will" - - entails a dukkata. According to the Commentary, gestures fall under this rule as well. Thus, if a lay person asks a bhikkhu who has attained Stream-entry if he has reached any of the noble attainments, and the bhikkhu nods, his nod would fulfill the factor of effort here."""< ***** S: An interesting topic. Metta, Sarah ========= #81406 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Nina) - In a message dated 1/19/2008 3:31:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: To tell an unordained person of one's actual superior human attainments is [an offence of Confession.]" (Rule Summary, Paac. 8; BMC p.288) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#rob bery Thus false statement about achievements = defeat (Paar. 4) True statement to lay person = offence of confession (Paac.8) ================================== Excellent, Alex! Thanks. :-) With metta, Howard #81407 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Different now- someone has a strange experience and next they want > to proclaim they have had vipassana insight or even jhana (or even > many jhanas!). Monks, of course, are forbidden by the vinaya to even > hint at any attainment(see postscript)to laypeople, but we > laybuddhists of today sometimes play a game of conceit and delusion > to see who trumps the other. Funny, but also a sign of how little > real understanding there is. >>> Another POV. Proclaiming one's own achievement to another can be beneficial in some cases: a) To motivate another person to strive harder. b) To exchange experiences. c) To show that Buddha's teaching works. d) If your attainement is false, and other people know and say it, this can be a great ego-buster for the one who declared it. e) To discuss (with more experienced ppl) it. etc Lots of Metta, Alex #81408 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of the Purification of View V.2 lbidd2 Hi Kel, Kel: [regarding why rupa but no 5-door consciousness as object in jhana insight] "As you know, all objects including rupa can make contact through mind-door." Larry: Good point. It also seems that it is dealing with just the bare fact of the body as support for jhana. Larry #81409 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.1 lbidd2 Hi Nina, Nina: "Larry, you mention book knowledge of the abhidhamma, but actually, we learn and at the same time consider realities such as seeing, hearing, etc. We learn from books but, at the same time, we already verify and consider the dhammas occurring in our life. I would say, this can be right from the beginning when learning from books. There is a combination, always. That is why I would not use the expression 'book knowledge of the abhidhamma', or use the word technical in relation to the abhidhamma." Larry: I agree. Is "verifying" insight? Larry #81410 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.1 scottduncan2 Dear Nina and Larry, Regarding: Nina: "...We learn from books but, at the same time, we already verify and consider the dhammas occurring in our life. I would say, this can be right from the beginning when learning from books. There is a combination, always..." Larry: "I agree. Is "verifying" insight?" Scott: You seem to be describing an interaction between learning Dhamma from books and learning about dhammas in daily life. I wonder whether the learning is condition for the arising of pa~n~naa, that is, something other than aviija must arise in order to consider the dhammas occuring in daily life. Ignorance has the function of not considering these dhammas. Sincerely, Scott. #81411 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "Proclaiming one's own achievement to another can be beneficial in some cases..." Scott: An achievement, an achievement. My kingdom for an achievement. Sincerely, Scott. #81412 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.3 lbidd2 Hi Nina, Larry: "Regarding "kinds of consciousness", rebirth linking, bhavanga, and death are functions of one kind of consciousness that also functions as investigation and registration. It seems unlikely that anyone will discern rebirth linking, bhavanga, or death consciousness, but one might discern investigation or registration." --------- N: "Santiira.na is an ahetuka vipaakacitta that can function as rebirth-consciousness in the human plane only in the case of being handicapped from the first moment of life. Registration does not function as rebirth-consciousness. In the human plane there are eight mahaavipaakacittas that can function as rebirth-consciousness." Larry: Thanks for this correction. I was going by the chart at the back of the book. What does it mean then to discern all 81 kinds of consciousness? Surely rebirth linking, bhavanga, and death consciousness are not included. Larry: "there is a summing up and review of "all this". There is a bringing together of all this knowledge into one understanding: _all_this_ is mentality and materiality." ------ N: "I think so too. It depends on the individual what kinds appear to sati and pa~n`naa" Larry: I think this chapter is saying it depends on the individual what method of analysis is employed, whether beginning with jhana factors, or analyzing in terms of elements, bases or aggregates. But once one undertakes such an analysis Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa seems to be recommending that it take a certain form. However, that is not to guarantee that anything will arise on cue. Larry #81413 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:30 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Ven. Pannabahula, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > My dear Dhamma friends, > > Everything arises because of conditions. Right?.got it. So that > every thought is the product of conditioned cittas. And the wholesome > or unwholesome cittas that arise depend also on `accumulations' which > are also one aspect of conditions as such. You are an excellent writer. You present your ideas in a very clear a lucid style. I really liked this piece that you wrote. It is very ironic. Somehow, I don't get the feeling that you are being serious. You are just presenting the K. Sujin philosophy in it's full, and absurd, glory. And what I find even funnier is Nina's response which says, to paraphrase, "Yeah, that's true, but don't think about it!" LOL! Venerable, you should have sense enough to know that the Buddha's teaching is not determinism. The Noble Eightfold Path contains many intentional actions (mental and physical) designed to purify the mind: Right Effort, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, etc. You have just summarized a faulty view of the Dhamma based on an immature understanding of anatta. In that view, anatta means no individual being; no individual being means no possible action; no possible actions means no control; no control means determinism; determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the best. That is not the "higher truth" taught by the Buddha. Metta, James #81414 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? Buddha's stance on "Dhamma" teachers truth_aerator Dear James and everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ven. Pannabahula, > You are just presenting the K. Sujin philosophy in it's full, and > absurd, glory. > > And what I find even funnier is Nina's response which says, to > paraphrase, "Yeah, that's true, but don't think about it!" LOL! > You have just summarized a faulty view of the Dhamma based on an > immature understanding of anatta. In that view, anatta means no > individual being; no individual being means no possible action; no > possible actions means no control; no control means determinism; > determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the best. > > That is not the "higher truth" taught by the Buddha. > > Metta, > James > I'd like to add this: DN#12 ""Lohicca, there are these three sorts of teacher who are worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes these sorts of teachers, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy. Which three? "There is the case where a certain teacher has not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, 'This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.' His disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis. They practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. He should be criticized, saying, 'You, venerable sir, have not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, "This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness." Your disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. It's just as if a man were to pursue [a woman] who pulls away, or to embrace one who turns her back. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?' This is the first teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy. "Then there is the case where a certain teacher has not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, 'This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.' His disciples listen, lend ear, put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way not deviating from the teacher's instructions. He should be criticized, saying, 'You, venerable sir, have not attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Not having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, "This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness." Your disciples listen, lend ear, put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way not deviating from the teacher's instructions. It's just as if a man, neglecting his own field, were to imagine that another's field should be weeded. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?' This is the second teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy. "Then there is the case where a certain teacher has attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. He, having attained that goal of the contemplative life, teaches his disciples, 'This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.' His disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis. They practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. He should be criticized, saying, 'You, venerable sir, have attained the goal of the contemplative life for which one goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having attained that goal of the contemplative life, you teach your disciples, "This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness." Your disciples don't listen, don't lend ear, don't put forth an intent for gnosis, and practice in a way deviating from the teacher's instructions. It's just as if, having cut through an old bond, one were to make another new bond. I say that such a thing is an evil, greedy deed, for what can one person do for another?' This is the third teacher who is worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes this sort of teacher, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.12.0.than.html Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher' — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html#t-7 Lots of Metta & Karuna, Alex #81415 From: "shennieca" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:12 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? shennieca Dear Bhante, I think the Buddha said believing in Fatalism is wrong-view. Wrong views / Wrong understanding of kamma such as: a. Pubbekata hetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous karma (Past-action determinism) b. Issaranimmana hetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism) c. Ahetu-apaccayavada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism) - are wrong views / wrong understanding. "Bhikkhus, adhering to previously done kamma as the essence, there are neither motivation nor effort with what should be done and what should not be done. Not upholding ardently what should be done, nor abandoning what should be abandoned, those ascetics and Brahmins are as if deluded, lacking a control, incapable of having any true teaching". /end I think we play an active role in determining our destiny. We are fully responsible for whatever we do, say and think in this present moment, and these actions will affect our future kamma & vipaka. Although our past kamma play a part in telling our present life- story, it does not dictate everything. Imo, believing in No-freewill is very pessimistic and wrong, but that's just my opinion. Only the Buddha knows whether there is freewill or not. With mettaa & respect, Elaine #81416 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:13 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti vs patipatti - take 3,853 kenhowardau Hi Phil, ------------ Ph: > I suppose I should type out a few of these passages. I don't suppose it will make any difference, but it might. in VIII,188: "Herein, the clansman who is a beginner should first give attention to this meditation subject by counting. And when counting , he should not stop short of five or go beyond ten or make any break in the series." Yes, I suppose not-stopping-short-of-five can arise due to conditions, hmm? ------------- I don't know the significance of counting, do you? Counting what? Anyway, that is not the important part. The counting must be done with kusala consciousness, mustn't it? If I was to count with greed or annoyance, or ignorance, would that do me any good? If it did do me any good then wouldn't that prove the efficacy of religious rite and ritual? ---------------------- Ph: > There is a very neat thing in the section on kasinas. I'm not particularly interested in kasinas but I like the way it designates different approaches for those who have practiced before, who have "merit" and those who don't. For example, the fire kasina: "Herein, when someone with merit, having had previous practice, is apprehending the sign, it arises in him in any sort of fire, not made up, as he lookes at the fiery combustion in a lamp's flame or in a furnace or in a place for baking bowls or in a forest conflagration, as in the Elder Cittagutta's case." So here, clearly, we have the rising-due-to-conditions thing, not methodic instruction. And here come the methodic instructions: "Anyone else should make one up. Here are the directions for making it up, except for Ken H, who should not follow them because they do not apply to him. He (not Ken H) should split up some damp heartwood, dry it, and break it up into short lengths. He should go to a suitable tree root or to a shed and there make a pile in the way done for baking bowls, and have it lit. He (not you Ken H!) should make a hole a span and four fingers wide in a rush mat.." and so on. You get the idea. As I have said recently, there is ample reason to point out the impediments to jhana that are taught in Vism, and to debate the suitability of formal meditation to this day and age but to deny that the ancient texts contain methodic meditation instruction is nutty. ------------------------ Have you done any of those things, Phil? If not, why not? Is it because you have no respect, or you are disobedient etc? Not interested in mental development? No, it isn't any of those things. It is because you are sensible enough to know that those methods are not meant for you. They are for people who have accumulated the inclinations for jhana development. For such people, the methods are not rites or rituals, they are their natural inclinations. Having heard the methods from their teacher, they naturally follow them to the best of their ability (just as naturally as you or I might pick up a book). But their methods are not for ordinary folk. If you look again, you might see the warning DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. :-) --------------------- Ph: > Nothing more to say on this. I have done my duty by posting this. -------------------- I understand you are busy with other things, so don't bother replying to this. I, on the other hand, have plenty of time for responding to any challenges to the 'no-control' understanding of the Dhamma - any time you like. Ken H #81417 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Just to clarify, the following was written by Rob K, not myself: : > > Different now- someone has a strange experience and next they want > > to proclaim they have had vipassana insight or even jhana (or even > > many jhanas!). Monks, of course, are forbidden by the vinaya to even > > hint at any attainment(see postscript)to laypeople, but we > > laybuddhists of today sometimes play a game of conceit and delusion > > to see who trumps the other. Funny, but also a sign of how little > > real understanding there is. ... S: Thanks for adding your POV and joining the discussion. I was just re-producing a past post which Nina and Howard were looking for:). Metta, Sarah ========= #81418 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not speaking about attainments. Attention Rob K. nilovg Dear Alex, thank you very much. Nina. Op 19-jan-2008, om 21:30 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Thus false statement about achievements = defeat (Paar. 4) > True statement to lay person = offence of confession (Paac.8) #81419 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.3 nilovg Hi Larry, Op 20-jan-2008, om 3:14 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Larry: Thanks for this correction. I was going by the chart at the > back > of the book. What does it mean then to discern all 81 kinds of > consciousness? Surely rebirth linking, bhavanga, and death > consciousness > are not included. ------- N: These three denote functions of citta, not the types of citta. We should distinguish these. For example, nineteen types can perform the function of rebirth, etc. They can also perform other functions, such as registration, except the ruupaavacaara and aruupaavacaara vipaakacittas, which can only perform the functions of rebirth, bhavanga and dying. --------- > > Larry: "there is a summing up and review of "all this". There is > a bringing together of all this knowledge into one understanding: > _all_this_ is mentality and materiality." > ------ > N: "I think so too. It depends on the individual what kinds appear to > sati and pa~n`naa" ------- > > Larry: I think this chapter is saying it depends on the individual > what > method of analysis is employed, whether beginning with jhana > factors, or > analyzing in terms of elements, bases or aggregates. But once one > undertakes such an analysis Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa seems to be > recommending that it take a certain form. However, that is not to > guarantee that anything will arise on cue. ------ N: Buddhaghosa is complete in giving all possibilities, but as to the development of insight there is not a certain pattern. BTW it is helpful if you indicate which paras you are referring to, so that we can look up texts. Nina. #81420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.1 nilovg Hi Larry (Scott), Op 20-jan-2008, om 2:48 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > That is why I would not use the expression 'book > knowledge of the abhidhamma', or use the word technical in relation to > the abhidhamma." > > Larry: I agree. Is "verifying" insight? ------- N: It begins at the pariyatti level, we have to learn about dhammas appearing now. Thus, there is a beginning of verifying. As Scott says, When stages of insight arise, then what was learnt before appears more clearly. Thus there are degrees of verifying. By all means, it has to begin now, otherwise study is fruitless. Nina. #81421 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kamma and vipaka. was: TYPO FIX nilovg Hi Howard, Op 16-jan-2008, om 18:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > > I do know that the vayo I spoke of arises with cetana as condition. > -------- > N: Conditioned by citta and cetasikas including cetana. This does not > mean that it is result produced by cetana or kamma. Perhaps here is > our misunderstanding. ------------- N: More on kamma and vipaaka (mental result) and kamma and its physical result. You looked at Nyanatiloka, ruupa that is originated by kamma, kammasamutthaana. At rebirth of humans, kamma (we do not know which deed in a past life) produces ruupa, namely three decads: one with bodysense, one with sex, one with the heartbase. thus, these three ruupas arise in a group of ten. These three are produced solely by past kamma, not by citta, temperature or nutrition. Throughout life kamma keeps on producing these, and also the other sensebases that develop later on. Also citta produces rupas of the body. There are the rupas of bodily intimation (gestures) and verbal intimation, produced when we want to convey something to someone else. An example: akusala citta orders by gestures to kill. Then akusala citta has the intensity of akusala kamma through the body. The ruupa which is bodily intimation is than the doorway (or means) of akusala kamma committed at that moment. We cannot say that this intimation rupa is the result produced by akusala kamma. Intimation is a rupa solely produced by citta. It is produced by akusala citta, it is originated in citta, citta samutthaana. The akusala kamma of killing will produce an unhappy result later on by way of an unhappy rebirth or an unpleasant experience through the senses. We do not know when it will produce rupas originated by kamma such as the sense-bases, etc. You give as an example citta (accompanied by volition, nobody denies that) which motivates moving a hand, saying that this is kamma producing motion as result. Here you think of volition as kamma and the motion as an effect of it. In this way misunderstandings can arise. Not every volition is a course of action. Motion is not result produced by kamma. Here are your words again: H: I didn't say here that the motion is "produced" by kamma in the sense of the kamma being the sole condition, but only that kamma/ cetana was "a" condition for for the motion. There is an impulse to move, and the movement follows. Obviously other conditions were also requisite, but the cetana was a major condition. ------- N: Instead of the expression kamma/cetana we could say: citta. Otherwise it seems to the reader that there is kamma as course of action that conditions motion. You may find this nitpicking or attachment to terms, but I feel that if we are not precise there can be misunderstandings. When we speak of rupa produced by kamma, we have to refer to the particular rupas as mentioned above. When we speak of kamma/cetana, we have to be precise: which citta is akusala citta or kusala citta motivating a good or evil action and which do not motivate an action through body, speech or mind. Kamma can be used in the sense of volition, and also in the sense of a good or bad deed motivated by intention or volition. Nina. #81422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 2. nilovg HI Tep, Op 19-jan-2008, om 20:14 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Tep: You say in (1) that "kusala citta with right understanding" > always arises with right effort, and I agree with it since right > effort and right mindfulness both support the development of right > view -------- N: I like to turn this around: right effort always accompanies kusala citta with right understanding. -------- > Tep: Then you add: "When kusala citta with right understanding arises > there is right effort already, because of the appropriate conditions, > and there is no need to think of effort or control." This statement > is not necessary : if there is right effort already with right > understanding, then why do you have to mention effort or control? > Just like a nice dessert that is perfectly sweet, I wonder why should > anyone with the right frame of mind ever think about adding sugar to > make it sweeter? ------ N: As a reminder for myself and others. We need such reminders. -------- > > In (2) I agree that paññå has the quality to "understand the > characteristics of lobha and dosa more precisely as nåma, conditioned > dhammas". It is obvious that doubts do not arise with paññå (in an > ariyan); thus, it straightforwardly follows that anyone who still > doubts "whether the citta that arises is kusala citta or akusala > citta" has not yet developed paññå at that moment. Therefore, it is > redundant to say "and when we worry about it, understanding is not > being developed at that moment". ------- N: Again to show that worry and doubt are bound to arise, but that they are not helpful. -------- Nina. #81423 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:47 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet Hi James and Ven. Pannabahulo and all > Venerable, you should have sense enough to know that the Buddha's > teaching is not determinism. The Noble Eightfold Path contains many > intentional actions (mental and physical) designed to purify the mind: > Right Effort, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, > etc. We do agree, don't we, that all these intentional activities are conditioned? Let's not throw out the deep aspects of the Buddha's teaching just because we think people are abusing it or whatever. Technically speaking, there is no "free will." What are we, creator gods? Whatever intention arises is conditioned by past intentions, surely no would deny that. Fortunately being open to the Buddha's teaching will inevitably condition a lot of wise intentions. I don't know exactly what determinism means - I guess it means that the principle of kamma doesn't exist, that everything is decided, that wise intentions (which arise due to conditions, of course) fail to bring results. No one is saying that, surely. "Everything is conditioned" is true, and nothing to feel discouraged or disempowered by. It doesn't mean that we are not able to make wise intentions and carry them out. And thankfully we are open to the greatest source of wholesome conditions, the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Phil #81424 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ascetical practices. was: Lessons in Detachment, nilovg Dear Scott, Op 19-jan-2008, om 16:19 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > N: "It was not the striving of the Middle Way. So it led to a dead > end. > There are the four right efforts of the Middle way. These go together > with right understanding. Without right understanding of nama and rupa > there could not be the four right efforts, striving would not be > balanced." > > Scott: So this was not samma-padhaana. Is 'striving' a function of > 'energy' (viriyaa cetasika)? Is it a synonym? ------- N: Yes, it is the function of energy. -------- > Do you think the > Buddha's decision to strive is to be understood as being his conscious > decision to willfully direct his effort? ------- N: Here there are the functions of citta and cetasikas (cetana, adhimokkha and others) described in a conventional way. -------- > S: Or was it a case of wrong > striving arising and leading to the behaviour described? ------- N: We do not know the ways of thinking of the Bodhisatta, this is different from the way we think. I do not know the answer. I read somewhere that the way he suffered from the ascetical practices was a result of past kamma. I read in the (Ch XXVI, p. 411): Nina. #81425 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:54 am Subject: my parody and the reasons pannabahulo Dear Dhamma friends, Yes, as James has pointed out in his reply, the e-mail titled "Full bodied determinism" was a parody of what I understand as the consensus DSG view. However, although it was written tongue in cheek, its purpose was to check out the `blind alley' where my discussions with many of you seem to be leading. There are many paths to enlightenment, and we are told there are several paths to Buddhahood. Siddhattha Gotama became a Buddha by means of wisdom. All that he went through to attain the level of wisdom necessary for enlightenment shows clearly that he didn't accept that wisdom is just a set of conditions that we cannot intentionally develop. In fact his last words to his disciples were: "Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your salvation with diligence!" I also think we have to be very careful when we rely so heavily upon the texts. The Lord Buddha warned us against this in the `Kalama Sutta.' There are many things I cannot accept even though they are recorded in the Tipitaka. One trivial example of this is the story of the Buddha taking walking steps, just after his birth, from the footprints of which lotus flowers sprang up. If this were true, then the Buddha would have been some kind of supernatural being and his Dhammic message of no value to me as a human being. But a far more challenging story is that of Angulimala; one moment a mass murderer, the next an arahant. And I see from this website that this causes problems for other DSG members. But we must be particularly careful when it comes to Abhidhamma texts. We know that these texts were not recited at The First Council. Using the test of what to accept being based on direct experience, most of the suttas I have studied talk directly to a meditator. But sole study of the Abhidhamma is not open to verification in the same way. For example, it is not possible for us to count - and label - how many cittas or cetasikas there are; and there is no way that any of us can prove, or disprove, the existence of bhavanga-citta. These must always remain theoretical entities and, as such, are the reason for the main thrust of my pariyatti vs patipatti discussions. However, Howard raises a very important clarifying issue with his comparison between the physicist's scientific view of a table and their daily use of one. Paramatha dhammas are one level of reality; but our daily lives must be lived in conventional reality. And we must use conventional realities to understand and approach ultimate reality. And this amounts to an "I" that studies, practices, intends, exerts effort and so on. Not one of us would be happy if, buying an airplane ticket we are told that the day and time the plane will fly will be according to `conditions.' The late Ven Buddhadasa distinguished between everyday language (Phasa khon) and the language of Dhamma (Phasa Tham). And the philosopher Wittgenstein also stressed the problems that can be caused when words are taken from one `language game' and used in another. One remark of his that clearly shows how confusion can arise is: "When we think of the eye of God, do we think of eyebrows?" No, I certainly don't believe that the Lord Buddha had a deterministic view of reality. But the DSG consensus view dangerously points that way. I really do thank all of you who reminded me to keep on going with developing the N8FP. And for all the letters of encouragement you send. I see now see that using paramatha language alongside conventional usage may be the cause for a lot of misunderstandings. Perhaps my letter has helped to clarify things somewhat. May any merit I have made be extended to you all. With metta, Pannabahulo #81426 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: my parody and the reasons philofillet Dear Ven. Pannabahulo. >Not one of us would be happy if, buying an airplane > ticket we are told that the day and time the plane will fly will be > according to `conditions.' Well, Bhante, we don't expect people to tell us things in the light of the Dhamma, so it would certainly be surprising. And because things happen according to conditions, they would proceed to tell us the flight time, because that's how conditions work out in the air travel business. I guess I am missing something in your and others' protests on this point, because I don't see how on earth anything could happen without being conditioned by something that happened before. The decision that set the flight time was conditioned by so many other intentions. This is the truth. Metta, Phil #81427 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: my parody and the reasons truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > Dear Ven. Pannabahulo. > I guess I am missing something in your and others' protests on > this point, because I don't see how on earth anything could happen > without being conditioned by something that happened before. The > decision that set the flight time was conditioned by so many other > intentions. This is the truth. > > Metta, > > Phil > Regarding conditions: When you and others keep talking about how everything is conditioned: Does it give you energy (viriya) to proceed on N8P? Does it empower you to keep your precepts? Does it help you to develop sila, samadhi, pannna? Or does it give you a convinient excuse not to strain yourself too hard? Some food for thought... Lots of Metta, Alex #81428 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:43 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana and "Bare Observation" myth dhammanusara Hello Alex and others, - I have a comment at the bottom of the page. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello all, > > it appears to me (hopefully I am wrong here) that some claim that > Buddha has taught "choiceless" or "bare" observation at whatever > arises. > > However this is patently false and we need to go no further than the > MN2,10,2 . > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of > itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of > knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by > (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains > focused on the body in & of itself. > > same with feelings, mind, dhamma > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html > --- > > Note that there is a choice and it is not simply "bare" observation, you are instructed to focus on one of the 4 satipatthanas in and of itself. This means that you shouldn't thinkg of other satipatthana while doing a chosen one. > > Furthermore -> > > ---- 5 ways to deal with thoughts ------ > "Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the > drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought- fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and � through the right penetration of conceit � has made an end of suffering and stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html > --- > > To remove all fermentations > > �by seeing, (4NT, ideas that lead do dropping of sensuality, > becoming, ignorance ) > > �by restraining, (the 6 sense-faculties) > > �by using, (using the robe, the alms food, lodging, medicinal > requisites ... appropriately) > > �by tolerating, (cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, > mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & > bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, > piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. ) > �by avoiding, (wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer ) > > �by destroying, (thought of sensuality, ill will, cruelty, evil, > unskillful mental qualities) > > �by developing. (mindfulness, analysis of qualities, persistence, > rapture, serenity, concentration [Jhana], equanimity) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > > There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not > tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys > it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. > > Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of > ill will... > > Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of > cruelty... > > Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, > unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying. - mn2 > > ------ > These and other quotes should dispell any illusion of "bare" > observation which while it is useful at times but isn't the whole > picture. > > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > ................... T: As I understand it, bare attention is not the whole Teachings (so you should not expect a whole lot from it); it is just a tool to train mindfulness/awareness in daily life. I also understand that bare attention is for beginners before they move onto developing the four foundations of mindfulness. Tep === #81429 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:10 am Subject: Re: my parody and the reasons philofillet Hi Alex > > Regarding conditions: When you and others keep talking about how > everything is conditioned: > > Does it give you energy (viriya) to proceed on N8P? > Does it empower you to keep your precepts? > Does it help you to develop sila, samadhi, pannna? In my case yes, I think, because I realize that the Buddha's teaching is, the suttas are, powerful conditions for prompting action on my part. Seeing all the daily reminders of aging, illness,death and separation from loved ones are powerful conditions. Words from Dhamma friends are powerful conditions. (especially when they are not SHOUTED ..haha just teasing) All of these things are powerful conditions. In my opinion where some folks go wrong is *not* because they say "everything is conditioned, everything happens due to conditions" - that is true - it's because they get tied up in knots about sakkaya ditthi. So for whatever reasons they get blocked to some of the straightforward conditioning power of the Dhamma because this desire to eradicate sakkaya ditthi too soon gets in the way, something like that, I don't know. > > Or does it give you a convinient excuse not to strain yourself too > hard? > > Some food for thought... It's not because people are too lazy to meditate, it's because they doubt that it represents correct practice, because of this fear of sakkayaditthi blockage. I guess. You can see how dedicated and diligent nina and sarah, for example, are about Dhamma. The stuff they do here is not just farting around, they are pushing themselves hard. They'd be able and willing to meditate just as hard as you if there were conditions for them to tune in to the Buddha's message on it - but there aren't. Metta, Phil #81430 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:10 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 18 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 520. "Bhagavati ko.naagamane, sa"nghaaraamamhi navanivesamhi; sakhiyo tisso janiyo, vihaaradaana.m adaasimha. 521. "Dasakkhattu.m satakkhattu.m, dasasatakkhattu.m sataani ca satakkhattu.m; devesu upapajjimha, ko pana vaado manussesu. 522. "Devesu mahiddhikaa ahumha, maanusakamhi ko pana vaado; sattaratanassa mahesii, itthiratana.m aha.m aasi.m. 523. "So hetu so pabhavo, ta.m muula.m saava saasane khantii; ta.m pa.thamasamodhaana.m, ta.m dhammarataaya nibbaana.m. 524. "Eva.m karonti ye saddahanti, vacana.m anomapa~n~nassa; nibbindanti bhavagate, nibbinditvaa virajjantii"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. 518. "At the time of the Blessed One Ko.naagamana, in the Order's park, in a new residence, we three friends, women, gave a gift of a residence. 519. "Ten times, a hundred times, ten hundred times, a hundred hundred times, we were born among the devas. But what to say [of the number of times] among men! 520. "We were of great power among the devas. But what to say [of our power] among men! I was the woman jewel, the chief queen [of a king possessing] seven jewels. 521. "Thas was the cause, that was the origin, that was the root, that very delight in the teaching, that first meeting, that was quenching for one delighting in the Doctrine." 522. They act in this way, those who have faith in the utterance of the One Who Has Perfect Wisdom. They are disgusted with existence. Being disgusted with it, they are disinterested [in it]. RD: 'When *446 Ko.naagamana was Buddha here, And in a new abode, the Order's Park, Took up his dwelling, two o' my friends, *447 and I Built a Vihaara for the Master's use. (518) And many scores and centuries of lives We lived among the gods, let alone men. (519) Mighty our glory and our power among The gods, nor need I speak of fame on earth. Was I not consort of an Emperor, The Treasure-Woman 'mongst the Treasures Seven? *448 (520) Endurance *449 in the Truth the Master taught - This was the cause, the source, the root, This the First Link in the long Causal Line, This is Nibbana if we love the Norm. (521) Thus acting, *450 they who put their trust in Him, Wisdom Supreme, *451 lose every wish and hope Of coming back to be - and thus released They from all passion's stain are purified. *452 (522) *446 This narrative repeated in from the Apadaana. *447 The two friends are said to have been Khemaa (Ps. lii.) and Dhana~njaanii, a brahminee convert (Sa.m. Nik., i. 160). *448 For these, see Buddhist Suttas (S.B.E., xi.), pp. 251 ff. *449 Khanti. See Diigha Nik. ii. 49. *450 Another reading is, 'Thus telling.' *451 Lit., 'Who has immeasurable wisdom.' *452 This line expands the Pali word virajjati, according to the commentary, which supplements 'purified' by 'set free.' On the metre of the whole Psalm, see Introduction. .. to be continued, connie #81439 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: my parody and the reasons scottduncan2 Dear Howard, I was caught by this: H: "...When told, with regard to a matter of concern, that things will be as they will be according to conditions, the appropriate response should be 'Well, how about that! How remarkably unhelpful!..." Scott: The concerned person in question is looking to be soothed by outside forces. This person wouldn't be aware that a matter of concern might be a matter of vipaaka, for instance, and simply running its course. The response, upon hearing, will be what it will be; no 'should' about it. The 'concern' in question would be so due to a particular series of particularly constellated moments of consciousness arising due to conditions. The failure of calm to arise, for example, in response to a statement of Truth, and the arising of dosa instead, would also be due to conditions, one of which might be the conascent presence of aviijaa. Some listeners to the Buddha were not able to accept the message, due to conditions of course. Sincerely, Scott. #81440 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:48 am Subject: Re: my parody and the reasons philofillet Hi Howard, Ven. Pannabahulo and all > I took what Bhante was saying there not as a denial of conditionality, > but as a commentary on what one does with the knowledge of conditionality. > When told, with regard to a matter of concern, that things will be as they will > be according to conditions, the appropriate response should be "Well, how > about that! How remarkable unhelpful!" > When an aspirant would go to the Buddha to inquire as to the means to > realize nibbana, the buddha wouldn't merely say that awakening will arise or > not according to conditions. He taught in detail over a period of 35 years the > answer to such a query. > OK, I see what you mean. Thanks, and apologies to the Bhante for having misunderstood. Metta, Phil #81441 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:56 am Subject: Re: was my parody and the reasons - conditions & meditation (samadhi) philofillet Hi Alex > > Question: > What does prefix SA means? > What does Kaya means? > What are all translations of ditthi? Ph: I like these kind of questions, thanks. Hopefully I will look into the answer! (snip) > > > If I may ask, what difficulties they experience in Samma-Samadhi? > Personally I have lots of difficulties and falls but I make sure to > practice every day? I think we'll be discussing this together at some point, because I have some things to talk about re the Ajahn Lee "Method 2" which has more recently been taught by Thannisaro Bhikkhu. I have been finding it very helpful in conditioning a kind of ....something....in daily life, but the way I'm using it definitely feels new agey. I don't know their difficulties with samma-samadhi, but I'll tell you more about mine at some point. In the meantime, I will continue meditating in this way, because I personally believe wrong meditation is better than no meditation at all because it brings benefits with respect to patience/resilience/calm in daily life... For now, I'll drop out. Thanks for the response, Alex. Metta, Phil #81442 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.3 lbidd2 Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Larry, > Op 20-jan-2008, om 3:14 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > > > Larry: Thanks for this correction. I was going by the chart at the > > back > > of the book. What does it mean then to discern all 81 kinds of > > consciousness? Surely rebirth linking, bhavanga, and death > > consciousness > > are not included. > ------- > N: These three denote functions of citta, not the types of citta. We > should distinguish these. For example, nineteen types can perform the > function of rebirth, etc. They can also perform other functions, such > as registration, except the ruupaavacaara and aruupaavacaara > vipaakacittas, which can only perform the functions of rebirth, > bhavanga and dying. > --------- Larry: Thanks for the clarification. I had the general idea but didn't get the detail right. > > > > Larry: "there is a summing up and review of "all this". There is > > a bringing together of all this knowledge into one understanding: > > _all_this_ is mentality and materiality." > > ------ > > N: "I think so too. It depends on the individual what kinds appear to > > sati and pa~n`naa" > ------- > > > > Larry: I think this chapter is saying it depends on the individual > > what > > method of analysis is employed, whether beginning with jhana > > factors, or > > analyzing in terms of elements, bases or aggregates. But once one > > undertakes such an analysis Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa seems to be > > recommending that it take a certain form. However, that is not to > > guarantee that anything will arise on cue. > ------ > N: Buddhaghosa is complete in giving all possibilities, but as to the > development of insight there is not a certain pattern. > BTW it is helpful if you indicate which paras you are referring to, > so that we can look up texts. Larry: Regarding patterns or "orchestration", I can't say from experience so I'll leave it at that. As to the paragraphs, I'm going in order except where noted, but I will also note what I am covering in the future. Larry #81443 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? dcwijeratna Dear Elaine, "attaahi attano naatho kohi naatho parosiyaa" "Yaava jiiva.mp ce baalo pa.nditaa payirupaasati na so dhamma.m vijaanaati dabbbii suupa ras.m yathaa" (Dhammapada) D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #81444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] was my parody and the reasons - conditions & meditation (samadhi) nilovg Dear Alex, Op 20-jan-2008, om 15:57 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: (Alex to Phil ): > If I may ask, what difficulties they [Sarah and Nina] experience in > Samma-Samadhi? ------ N: I can answer only for myself. No difficulties. Samma-samaadhi is a Path factor that develops together with sammaa-di.t.thi. Also the other Path factors develop together with sammaa-di.t.thi. We should not say: I develop the eightfold Path, but, the eightfold Path develops. Nina. #81445 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: my parody and the reasons nilovg Dear Alex, Op 20-jan-2008, om 17:34 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Here is someone else's quotes. I pressume that atta here is > translated as Soul --- > > "The Soul is Charioteer" ------- N: Soul is not such a good translation. Of course in conventional sense we can use self and oneself, and we know what the Buddha meant when using conventional language. I do not see what the problem is. A: Is "No I", "No I that develops" a skilful way for a person to start Buddhist training? ------- N: It is good to begin to think in the right way. As a worldling one has not abandoned the belief in a self, but it is good to know what is right thinking and what is wrong thinking. shouldn't we begin that way? Nina. #81446 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:32 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 2. nilovg Hi Tep, Op 20-jan-2008, om 15:14 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > But how does right understanding(samma-ditthi) arise without the > support of right effort and right mindfulness (at the mundane level)? ------- N: Perhaps you think of a higher level of right understanding when you ask this. Listening and considering what one hears conditions a beginning understanding and then there is also sati and kusala viriya. As understanding develops it is always accompanied by sati and kusala viriya and many other cetasikas that assist it. As I see it, understanding is the leader from the beginning to the end. --------- Nina. #81447 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: my parody and the reasons truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 20-jan-2008, om 17:34 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > Here is someone else's quotes. I pressume that atta here is > > translated as Soul --- > > > > "The Soul is Charioteer" > ------- > N: Soul is not such a good translation. Of course in conventional > sense we can use self and oneself, and we know what the Buddha meant > when using conventional language. I do not see what the problem is. >>> What? Whenever someone here uses "I", "You", "self", "develop" that person gets immediately criticized & rebuked for saying such forbidden words. But when the Buddha himself used these words, everyone doesn't mind... One of the chapters of Dhp is even called: XII. Attavagga: The Self I did a search for how many times atta is mentioned in suttapitaka atta: 5510 anatta: 262 Search term 'atta' found in 5510 pages in: canon sutta Search term 'anatta' found in 262 pages in: canon sutta http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/pali_advanced.php > A: Is "No I", "No I that develops" a skilful way for a person to start > Buddhist training? > ------- > N: It is good to begin to think in the right way. >>>> Is it truly a good begining? Buddha certainly didn't begin it this way. Sometimes trying to build a 10th floor before finishing the 1st one can cause a collapse... Or stagnation in this case. --------------- As a worldling one has not abandoned the belief in a self, but it is good to know what is right thinking and what is wrong thinking. shouldn't we begin that > way? > > Nina. ><>>> In MN#2 Buddha tells us what is right vs what is wrong thinking: ---The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing. "[1] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — 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. "And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends 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 attends to. "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not 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 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 not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase. "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of- the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. "The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention. "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. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html ----------- Lots of Metta, Alex #81448 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:33 am Subject: Developing Abilities! bhikkhu0 Friends: How are the 5 Mental Abilities (indriya) being developed? There are these 5 mental Abilities: The ability (faculty) of faith , The ability of energy , The ability of awareness , The ability of concentration , The ability of understanding . The five abilities are being developed in 10 aspects: When a Noble Friend is leaving sceptical doubt behind, this is development of the faith ability. When a Noble Friend is developing the faith ability, then this mist-trust non-faith is left behind. When a Noble Friend is leaving laziness behind, this is development of the energy ability. When a Noble Friend is developing the energy ability, this indolent idleness is left behind. When a Noble Friend is leaving negligence behind, this is development of the awareness ability. When a Noble Friend is developing the awareness ability, this lax inattentiveness is left behind. When a Noble Friend is leaving distraction behind, this is development of the concentration ability. When a Noble Friend is developing the concentration ability, this mental scatter is left behind. When a Noble Friend is leaving ignorance behind, this is development of the understanding ability. When a Noble Friend is developing the understanding ability, this blind not knowing is left behind. The five abilities are being developed in these 10 aspects. The five abilities have been thus developed, thus fully developed in 10 aspects: Because sceptical doubt has been fully left, the faith ability has been fully developed. Because the faith ability has been fully developed, non-faith has been fully left. Because laziness has been fully left, the energy ability has been fully developed. Because the energy ability has been fully developed, idleness has been fully left. Because negligence has been fully left, the awareness ability has been fully developed. Because the awareness ability has been fully developed, non-attention has been fully left. Because distraction has been fully left, the concentration ability has been fully developed. Because the concentration ability has been fully developed, mental scatter has been fully left. Because ignorance has been fully left, the understanding ability has been fully developed. Because the understanding ability has been fully developed, ignorance has been fully left. The five abilities have been developed, quite fully developed in these 10 aspects. The five abilities have fully tranquillized in four aspects: At the path-moment of stream-entry, the five abilities are being developed. At the fruition-moment of stream-entry, they have been fully developed, & fully tranquillized. At the path-moment once-return, the five abilities are being developed. At the fruition-moment of non-return, they have been fully developed, & fully tranquillized. At the path-moment once-return, the five abilities are being developed. At the fruition-moment of non-return, they have been fully developed, & fully tranquillized. At the path-moment Arahatship, the five abilities are being developed. At the fruition-moment of Arahatship, they have been fully developed, & fully tranquillized. So there are four purifications in the paths, four purifications in the fruitions, four purifications in the cuttings off, and four purifications in the tranquillizations. The five abilities have been fully developed & also fully tranquillized, these 4 aspects. There is development of the abilities in 8 kinds of persons: In what eight kind of persons is there development of the abilities? In the 7 initiators & in the Magnanimous Ordinary Man, is there development of the abilities. In what three kinds of persons have the abilities been completely developed? In a Perfect One’s disciple (a hearer) with the mental fermentations all eliminated, who has been enlightened as a disciple by hearing it from a Teacher, have the abilities been completely developed. In One who has reached enlightenment without declaring it, (Solitary Buddha) in the sense of being self-enlightened, without a teacher, have the abilities been completely developed. In a Perfect One, accomplished & fully enlightened, in the sense of being immeasurable, infinite, have the abilities been completely developed. There is development of the abilities in these 8 kind of persons. The 5 mental abilities have been completely developed in these three kinds of persons… Source: Sariputta in: The Path of Discrimination: Patidasambhidamagga: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=133494 For further Study of the 5 Mental Abilities which become the 5 Powers: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Five_Abilities_Summary.htm Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #81449 From: "shennieca" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? shennieca Dear DC, Thank you for the Pali Verses. Attahi attano natho, ko hi natho paro siya. The self is its own refuge, for who else could be refuge? ---- Yaava-jiiva.m pi ce baalo pa.nditam payirupaasati Na so dhamma.m vijaanaati dabbii suupa-rasa.m yathaa (Dhp 64) Muhuttam api ce vinnu pa.nditam payirupaasati Khippa.m dhamma.m vijaanaati jivha suupa-rasa.m yatha (Dhp 65) [Is the Pali correct?] Even if for a lifetime the fool stays with the wise, he knows nothing of the Dhamma as the ladle, the taste of the soup. Even if for a moment, the perceptive person stays with the wise, he immediately knows the Dhamma as the tongue, the taste of the soup. ------- The problem is, everyone thinks they are the 'tongue' and not the 'spoon'. In reality, we can only make do with whatever we were born with. If there is a choice, all the dumb people wants to be smart too, but they can't will themselves to be smart. Being a fool is not really a choice anyone would want to make for themselves. Imo, it is Not because they "don't" want to understand, it is because they "can't" understand it yet. Maybe it's because the time and place (the causes and the conditions) are not right yet. Life is full of sufferings. With mettaa & respect, Elaine #81450 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:13 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 2. dhammanusara Hi Nina, - You are right about the important role of understanding from the very beginning to the mundane level, and further on the path to arahantship. But this understanding is also undergoing improvement that is mutually influenced by other kusala cetasikas of the path. >Nina: As I see it, understanding is the leader from the beginning to the end. T: The word "leader" implies (to me) that understanding develops other dhammas on the path like parents nurture kids. However, understanding is also undergoing development from the beginning to the end, with proper supports from the other kusala dhammas. The end result is not the same understanding at the beginning. >N: Listening and considering what one hears conditions a beginning understanding and then there is also sati and kusala viriya. T: At the beginning, yes. >N: As understanding develops it is always accompanied by sati and kusala viriya and many other cetasikas that assist it. T: Agreed. Another point I tried to make earlier is that sati and viriya become samma-sati and samma-viriya as a wrong view is replaced by samma-ditthi (right view or right understanding). MN 117: One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view". .............. T: The "run and circle around right view" indicates a complex, non- linear process of maturity of the right view development. This may be what Bhikkhu Bodhi was referring to in your quote: "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. But when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish, if equipped with the proper means..." Thank you very much. I do not have any more question. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Tep, > Op 20-jan-2008, om 15:14 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > But how does right understanding(samma-ditthi) arise without the > > support of right effort and right mindfulness (at the mundane level)? > ------- #81451 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:38 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. Soup Spoon .. dhammanusara Hello Elaine and DC, - I appreciate your Dhamma discussion and the 'Soup Ladle' verse. It is one of my favorite similes. "Even if for a lifetime the fool stays with the wise, he knows nothing of the Dhamma as the ladle, the taste of the soup". [Dhp 64] >E: Being a fool is not really a choice anyone would want to make for themselves. Imo, it is Not because they "don't" want to understand, it is because they "can't" understand it yet. Maybe it's because the time and place (the causes and the conditions) are not right yet. >Life is full of sufferings. T: Thank you for the wise comment. It is true that even a "fool" can change if he starts to listen (with the intention to learn). Right understanding can be gradually developed when "the causes and the conditions" are right. With appreciation from a fool, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "shennieca" wrote: > > Dear DC, > > Thank you for the Pali Verses. > > Attahi attano natho, ko hi natho paro siya. > The self is its own refuge, for who else could be refuge? > > ---- > Yaava-jiiva.m pi ce baalo > pa.nditam payirupaasati > Na so dhamma.m vijaanaati > dabbii suupa-rasa.m yathaa (Dhp 64) > > Muhuttam api ce vinnu > pa.nditam payirupaasati > Khippa.m dhamma.m vijaanaati > jivha suupa-rasa.m yatha (Dhp 65) [Is the Pali correct?] > > Even if for a lifetime > the fool stays with the wise, > he knows nothing of the Dhamma > as the ladle, the taste of the soup. > > Even if for a moment, > the perceptive person stays with the wise, > he immediately knows the Dhamma > as the tongue, the taste of the soup. > ------- #81452 From: "shennieca" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? shennieca Hi DC, I want to add a bit more to my last post. I do not believe in No- Freewill nor in Absolute-Freewill. I believe there is a middle-path. Our destiny is determined by many factors, i.e. our will & past kamma. There are some things we can control and some things which we can't. Imo, Dhamma-understanding is in the 'uncontrollable' category. In your opinion, what is the correct Buddhist view on this? With mettaa, Elaine #81453 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:29 am Subject: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine (and DC) - In a message dated 1/20/2008 5:12:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi DC, I want to add a bit more to my last post. I do not believe in No- Freewill nor in Absolute-Freewill. I believe there is a middle-path. Our destiny is determined by many factors, i.e. our will & past kamma. There are some things we can control and some things which we can't. Imo, Dhamma-understanding is in the 'uncontrollable' category. In your opinion, what is the correct Buddhist view on this? With mettaa, Elaine =================================== It's never quite clear to me what folks mean by "free will". What *can* that mean? A willing that occurs without condition, arising randomly? Would that not make such willing an asankhata dhamma different from nibbana, the supposedly unique asankhata dhamma? Also, is the willing of something that arises due to desire "free"? Is not the desire a condition for the willing? And does not the desire arise due to causes & conditions? Finally, if in fact "free" will is truly unconditioned, random, and based on nothing (including desire), what is it that would make such a will desirable? Why should we care for it? What is clear to me is that choosing among alternatives occurs, it most often does so on the basis of desire, though sometimes on the basis of both desire and reasoning. So, choosing among alternatives for a course of action is real but dependent on conditions. Whether such will is called "free" or not is in the eye (or, better, the mind) of the beholder. With metta, Howard #81454 From: han tun Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:01 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (77) hantun1 Dear All, This is the presentation in installment of The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket; and translated by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - Chapter 6: The Perfection of Patience (continuation) We should have patience and endurance in our manners and behaviour. For example, when people travel together there are bound to be difficulties as regards seats and sleeping places, the means of transportation and appointments. When a person does not complain and does not criticize, when he has sympathetic understanding and assists others, his fellowmen will approve of him and praise him. When akusala dhammas, including lobha and dosa, arise, patience is lacking, whereas when kusala citta arises we can endure difficult situations. A person can have patience because his sobhana cetasikas (wholesome qualities accompanying kusala citta) have been developed. There is no person, being or self who is patient. We can have patience even with regard to our speech. Before we are going to speak we should consider whether what we want to say is beneficial or not. If it is useless speech we should have patience and refrain from that speech. Sati-sampajañña performs its function in such situations and we should investigate whether it has further developed. We read in the Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct” (Miscellaneous Sayings): “The perfection of patience should be considered next: Patience is the unimpeded weapon of the good in the development of noble qualities, for it dispels anger, the opposite of all such qualities, without residue. It is the adornment of those capable of vanquishing the foe; the strength of recluses and brahmins; a stream of water extinguishing the fire of anger; the basis for acquiring a good reputation; a mantra for quelling the poisonous speech of evil people; the supreme source of constancy in those established in restraint. Patience is an ocean on account of its depth; a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door to the plane of misery; a staircase ascending to the worlds of the gods and Brahmas; the ground for the habitation of all noble qualities; the supreme purification of body, speech and mind.” As we read, patience is “the unimpeded weapon of the good”: akusala can be destroyed when one is righteous. When patience arises we have no disturbance, because khanti, patience, cannot harm righteous people. “Patience is the unimpeded weapon of the good in the development of noble qualities, for it dispels anger, the opposite of all such qualities, without residue”. --- to be continued. Han #81455 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > Hi James and Ven. Pannabahulo and all > We do agree, don't we, that all these intentional activities are > conditioned? James: Yes, of course. All of samsara is conditioned. Let's not throw out the deep aspects of the Buddha's > teaching just because we think people are abusing it or whatever. James: I am not throwing anything out, don't worry. > Technically speaking, there is no "free will." What are we, creator > gods? James: In the simple sense, there is free will. We can choose certain actions or not; we can even choose certain ways of thinking. We are not powerless. However, we don't have absolute power: "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.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html Whatever intention arises is conditioned by past intentions, > surely no would deny that. James: Yes, but I don't think that one should think too much about that. The only thing that is important is that we were born human- which is the best opportunity to learn and practice the Dhamma. Metta, James #81456 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:23 pm Subject: Re: my parody and the reasons kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma friends, > > Yes, as James has pointed out in his reply, the e-mail titled "Full > bodied determinism" was a parody of what I understand as the > consensus DSG view. > However, although it was written tongue in cheek, its purpose was to > check out the `blind alley' where my discussions with many of you > seem to be leading. <. . .> Dear Venerable Pannabahulo, Thank you for the amusing parody. As you will have noticed there is no shortage of criticism against the so-called "consensus DSG view." Just recently we have seen the words "hypocrisy" and "double standards" bandied about - along with other words I won't even dignify with a mention. So there has been criticism of every sort.:-) As I see it, no one is being asked to believe anything they don't want to believe. But, may I ask you: what is the teaching that has been recorded in the ancient Theravada texts? That is the question we should be trying to answer at DSG. When we have identified that teaching we can take a vote to see who agrees it is the genuine Buddhadhamma. Just out of interest! Such a vote could never prove anything, of course. There will always be agreements and disagreements no matter what the subject. With respect, Ken H #81457 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:48 pm Subject: Outline of Purification of View V.4 lbidd2 Hi all, Paragraphs 9 - 13 describe different ways of classifying the same dhammas as described in the previous section, either as 18 elements, 12 ayatanas, or 5 khandhas. That is: all concretely produced materiality, 81 kinds of consciousness minus the jhana cittas that haven't been attained, and 7 universal cetasikas. 14: Another discerns 'materiality' in his person briefly thus: 'Any kind of materiality whatever all consists of the four primary elements and the materiality derived from the four primary elements' (M.i,222), and he likewise discerns the mind base and a part of the mental data base as 'mentality'. Then he defines mentality-materiality in brief thus: 'This mentality and this materiality are called "mentality-materiality" '. Larry: Mental data base (dhammayatana) consists of subtle matter (sexuality, heart base, life, and nutriment) and the cetasikas. Thus it is part mentality and part materiality. [I believe in some contexts it consists of all mental objects but that would entail an unnecessary repetition of dhammas in this context.] Also notice in this "brief" definition we have shifted from defining "all" kinds of nama and rupa to defining "any" nama and rupa. Larry #81458 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:46 pm Subject: Minor Correction Re: [dsg] Re: my parody and the reasons upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and all) - In a message dated 1/20/2008 11:16:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: When an aspirant would go to the Buddha to inquire as to the means to realize nibbana, the buddha wouldn't merely say that awakening will arise or not according to conditions. He taught in detail over a period of 35 years the answer to such a query. ============================== That should be "period of 45 years," but, hey, what's a decade among friends! ;-)) With metta, Howard #81459 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 4, no 3. kenhowardau Hi DC, I rang Andrew at work today and passed on your message. He asked me to tell you that he moved house a week ago and has not yet got a phone line at his new place. Hence no internet access for the time being. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > > I am back from my vacation. I didn't see any messages from you during the last couple of weeks. Are you also on holiday? Still? #81460 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:12 pm Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. sukinderpal Dear Ven. Pannabahulo, Before I go on to comment on the post itself, I would like to expand on what I wrote in the last one. This will be Part 1 and the other will be in Part 2. At any given moment there are only dhammas each conditioned by several other dhammas performing their individual functions. Some of these give rise to the idea of there being people, things, situations and actions done and to be done. But because we don't know this, often these are taken for `real' instead. Though this does not mean that were any sati and panna to arise to know the fact, conventional actions will not follow. Nothing can stop the thinking process from arising to judge the `situation' and any actions through speech and body which follows. And there is nothing wrong in any of this, only with some understanding, kusala is seen as worthy of encouragement and akusala is never so. One of these akusala dhammas however is miccha ditthi, the one as stated above, which takes `seriously' the existence of people, situations and the actions which follow from this. To those striving for `goodness', this dhamma often manifests as the idea of `control' / determining good and trying to rid of the bad. And peculiar to Buddhists, added is the idea of needing to `sit down to meditate' and develop awareness. Only panna which sees to any degree, the conditioned nature of dhammas, can correct this tendency. And until this happens, I don't believe that one can actually be said to be following the Buddha's Way. When akusala citta has arisen and no understanding has followed to know this, this dhamma can bee seen to have been taken for `self' if there is any idea about needing to immediately `guard the senses' etc. The concern after all seems to go to moments which have not yet arisen, i.e. the future. On the other hand, if sati and panna did arise, not only the `sense door' have been guarded already, but also there is the understanding that the particular dhamma has arisen by conditions and already fallen away, and with this comes a degree of detachment! So it is not about `leaving it all to conditions', but rather to come to *understand them* and also in the process, better recognizing the different ways in which one reacts with `self concern' to the Dhamma ideas, ending up doing the wrong things and taking the wrong path. And doesn't recognizing the "wrong" imply the appreciation of the "right" and does not this increase the probability of the latter arising at any given moment? Why ask for more? It seems to me that to do so must be due to attachment to self and the idea of hastening the development of kusala and awareness. And from one perspective it appears like a resistance to the way things are! The Middle Way *is* to know the way things are. And this manifests as non-resistance to whatever arises at any given moment. Of course there must be a change in outlook compared to when before one has come to have the understanding. However this being about the study of Dhamma / dhammas, it should not bring about any change in terms of one's daily activities, provided of course, that one is not engaged in any kind of livelihood involving killing, stealing, lying etc. But then to outsiders, this is interpreted in any number of ways depending on their own ideas about what should and not be done. Some will say that this is being lazy, but I ask, how many people do they know, who are so dedicated to Dhamma as some people of this group. The fact that we don't meditate is because we see the very idea as being rooted in `wrong understanding', period. Some think that we are making an excuse to live the household life and continue to indulge in sensual pleasures. I don't think any of us particularly identifies with being `householder' to begin with, and when it comes to akusala, how many people do you know who have pointed out the very subtle ways in which these manifests in daily life as Nina for example, has? In any case, should one be expecting putthujanas to be other than what they are, namely "attached" to sensual objects? Some say it is a `fatalistic' outlook, but this is because they fail to see their own attachment to the idea of `control' which is the position from which they make their observation. Some see it as reliance on "luck", but that's because they fail to acknowledge how much they believe in their own power to bring about desired effects. The thing is that while some of us see the Middle Path as being manifested, depending on accumulations and other conditions, either as Pariyatti, Patipatti or Pativedha and acknowledging that in our case it is mostly Pariyatti, others seem to have their own `conventional ideas' of what the Middle Path is. They never seem to take into account "dhammas", let alone their own accumulations as manifested in the moment. They have an idea about Sila, Samadhi and Panna in terms of `things to be done' and project that on to others. All one has to do to "agree", is to raise one's hand and say that "I practice Dana, Sila and I meditate regularly". And the enquiry stops there. These practices can be so very different that in some ways they even disagree, but this does not matter. Its almost like one is willing to close one's eyes to the fact as long as each agree to not question the other's methods. What does this say about sincerity and interest to determining the Truth? Not much imo…! This one, I'll end here. With respect, Sukin. #81461 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:12 pm Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 2. sukinderpal Dear Ven. Pannabahulo (*and Howard), Now I'd like to go into this present post of yours. > There are many paths to enlightenment, and we are told there are > several paths to Buddhahood. Siddhattha Gotama became a Buddha by > means of wisdom. We will discuss this when we meet next month. But the impression I get as of now, is that this is a wrong statement to make. True, each individual is different and how anyone arrives at the Dhamma and proceeds from there, the `stories' will be different and all equally interesting. However, when it comes to what indeed the `practice' is, namely Satipatthana, then I think we should loudly proclaim this to be the "One and Only Way to Enlightenment". With this in mind, we should always try to bring the attention back to this particular fact. ================ > All that he went through to attain the level of > wisdom necessary for enlightenment shows clearly that he didn't > accept that wisdom is just a set of conditions that we cannot > intentionally develop. In fact his last words to his disciples > were: "Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your > salvation with diligence!" Firstly, Samma Ditthi arose only at the point of enlightenment, being what is meant by having `discovered' the N8FP, not before that. Secondly, that one speaks against wrong effort, does not imply the encouragement of *no* effort. The `no control' perspective does not imply `no effort'. Effort arises with all javana cittas. Only these are "conditioned" and not particularly caused by any "intention to do" preceding it. Besides `intention' is not one of the factors of the 8FP and those that are the factors, these arise by accumulations and Natural Decisive Support Condition, certainly not Kamma condition! ================ > But we must be particularly careful when it comes to Abhidhamma > texts. We know that these texts were not recited at The First > Council. Using the test of what to accept being based on direct > experience, most of the suttas I have studied talk directly to a > meditator. But sole study of the Abhidhamma is not open to > verification in the same way. For example, it is not possible for us > to count - and label - how many cittas or cetasikas there are; and > there is no way that any of us can prove, or disprove, the existence > of bhavanga-citta. These must always remain theoretical entities and, > as such, are the reason for the main thrust of my pariyatti vs > patipatti discussions. This part I'll leave for when we meet. :-) ================= > However, Howard raises a very important clarifying issue with his > comparison > between the physicist's scientific view of a table and their daily > use of one. Paramatha dhammas are one level of reality; but our daily > lives must be lived in conventional reality. And we must use > conventional realities to understand and approach ultimate reality. > And this amounts to an "I" that studies, practices, intends, exerts > effort and so on. Not one of us would be happy if, buying an airplane > ticket we are told that the day and time the plane will fly will be > according to `conditions.' *And I thought Howard was making a wrong comparison. :-/ Others have also made similar comparisons, some even to propose that scientists and other serious academics were getting a whiff of Anatta when they think in terms of `impersonal phenomena'. But this is neither being close to the understanding of Anatta or for the matter anything Dhamma and it leads me to question the understanding of those who make such comparison. People are attracted to different ways of `making sense of the world' and become attached to it. The idea of `impersonal phenomena' is one such way on which I too at one time indulged in. But the fact of Anatta is to be "understood" and not to merely be taken as an idea to play around with or applied to phenomena "out there". Having `conceived' the scientist then goes on to try and make sense of `things' based on that initial misperception. Likewise, the Buddhist having conceived, he tries to apply the `theory' of Anatta, but only when convenient. However, if Anatta has not been seen to refer to *this* present moment experience, then it has not been understood and applied at all! Scientists talk about the `world' as formed by impersonal processes, but they have absolutely no clue about the only `real world' of Nama and Rupa arising and falling away as they speak. To them therefore the world will forever be concept only and with no relation to reality at all. And this is no different to where most Buddhists are at. Ask them and they will say, "Of course I believe in Anatta and conditionality". But when it comes to knowing and accepting the very thoughts that arises "now", especially when this is about a cherished practice, they end up only justifying following those suggestions and conveniently attaching positive labels regarding what might have arisen at the ultimate level, including Anatta. Howard has in the past often warned others about the possibility of acts of akusala, including murder, in the name of Anatta and `no control'. This is not an understanding Anatta. However neither is the above position, one which seems to also involve feeling justified in doing what one does, only in this case is perceived as `good'. It seems that because in fact Anatta remains primarily a `philosophical idea', is reason why hope and fear arises. On the other hand, and this is just my opinion, a correct understanding of Anatta reflects a willingness to give up `self' in the moment, this can never arise to one who does not value other forms of kusala, re: the accumulation and development of the Parami. Sorry Howard that you got dragged into this. ===================== > The late Ven Buddhadasa distinguished between everyday language > (Phasa khon) and the language of Dhamma (Phasa Tham). And the > philosopher Wittgenstein also stressed the problems that can be > caused when words are taken from one `language game' and used in > another. One remark of his that clearly shows how confusion can arise > is: "When we think of the eye of God, do we think of eyebrows?" > No, I certainly don't believe that the Lord Buddha had a > deterministic view of reality. Language is never an issue. It becomes one only to those who do not understand and when this concerns Dhamma, to be bringing this up as being important shows that person's own level of understanding at which he considers things. "Linguistics" is not means by which one might come to correct one's views. Venerable, please don't allow the concepts used to mislead you into thinking that one is being asked to study something other than what arises "now". One considers for example `seeing' and it does not matter if one has ever heard about `cakkhuvinnana' (I thought you were missing the point when you wrote to ask for Abhidhamma charts earlier). Bhavanga cittas explain amongst other things, what goes on during deep sleep when no object of this world is being experienced. Why allow the fact of this being perhaps impossible to `experience' to be reason for rejecting the notion and why go on to devaluing the Abhidhamma?! There is only *one* point for studying the Abhidhamma, and this is to better understand one's moment to moment experiences. It is never about "trying to experience" any particular kind of citta listed. Yet once this is understood, one will have absolutely no reason to reject any of what else is stated. =================== > But the DSG consensus view dangerously points that way. > I really do thank all of you who reminded me to keep on going with > developing the N8FP. And for all the letters of encouragement you > send. You wouldn't want to go the wrong way would you? ;-) =================== > I see now see that using paramatha language alongside conventional > usage may be the cause for a lot of misunderstandings. Perhaps my > letter has helped to clarify things somewhat. > May any merit I have made be extended to you all. Once one knows to focus on "understanding", then one will discriminate between, not language use, but the "views" involved. In which case, one can use conventional language with right understanding and one can use paramattha language with wrong understanding. However in the end, because it is never about one or the other of these, one will likely end up using both quite freely. :-) I realize that I have expressed myself quite strongly in these two posts. I hope you understand. With respect, Sukin #81462 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:24 am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 232 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 232 Intro: In the previous sections it was explained that contact accompanying the vipaakacittas that are the sense-cognitions (seeing, etc.) conditions the associated feelings by way of conascence-condition and other conditions that are conascent. Moreover, it was explained that contact conditions the feelings accompanying the other vipaakacittas in the same sense-door process, namely receiving-consciousness, investigating-consciousness and registration, by way of natural decisive support-condition. This section (232) deals with mind-contact that conditions feelings arising in a mind-door process, namely those accompanying the vipaakacitta that is registration, and also mind-contact that conditions feelings arising with vipaakacittas that do not arise in a process. These are the rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and dying- consciousness which are kaamaavacaara vipaakacitta (of the sensuous plane of citta), ruupaavacaara vipaakacitta (vipaaka of ruupa-jhaana) and aruupaavacaara vipaakacitta (vipaaka of aruupa-jhaana). ---------------- Text Vis. 232: 'In the mind door in the same way': the contact called conascent mind-contact is also a condition in the same eight ways for sense-sphere resultant feeling occurring as registration in the mind door, -------- N: When the vipaakacitta which is registration, tadaaramma.nacitta, arises in a sense-door process, it also arises in the subsequent mind- door process. It is accompanied by mind-contact and this conditions the conascent feeling by way of conascence-condition and the other conascent conditions, as mentioned in the case of eye-contact etc. which conditions the conascent feeling. ------- Text Vis.: and so also for the kinds of resultant feeling in the three planes occurring with rebirth-linking, life-continuum and death. -------- N: As to the vipaakacittas of the three planes, occurring as rebirth- consciousness, bhavangacitta and dying-consciousness, the Tiika refers to these as the planes of cittas that are the sensuous plane of citta, and the planes of ruupaavacara citta and aruupaavacara citta. The results of ruupa-jhaana and aruupa-jhaana are rebirth by way of ruupaavacara vipaakacitta and aruupaavacara vipaakacitta. The bhavanga-cittas and the dying-consciousness are of the same types as the rebirth-consciousness. The vipaakacittas that are rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and dying-consciousness are accompanied by mind-contact that contacts the object experienced by those cittas. That object is the same as the object experienced by the last javanacittas before dying. The contact accompanying these vipaakacittas conditions the accompanying feeling by way of conascence-condition and the other conascent conditions. --------- Text Vis.: But the mind-contact associated with mind-door adverting is a condition in one way only, as decisive-support condition, for the kinds of feeling that occur in the mind door as registration in the sense sphere. ------- N: The mind-door adverting-consciousness is the first citta in the mind-door process and it is succeeded by the javanacittas.Thus far only the contacts that are accompanying vipaakacittas were dealt with. The Tiika remarks that according to some teachers this kind of contact (accompanying the mind-door adverting-consciousness) which is ‘not clung to’, thus, not vipaaka produced by kamma, is a condition, for the feelings accompanying registration in the mind-door process. The mind-door adverting-consciousness is kiriyacitta, not vipaakacitta and thus also contact is kiriya, not vipaaka. This contact conditions the feelings accompanying registration arising in the mind-door process, by way of natural decisive support-condition. The Tiika states that in this manner the condition of decisive support is applied to each case where contact conditions feeling arising in proximity to contact accompanying the preceding citta as well as not in proximity to that citta. Thus, as we have seen, contact may conditon feeling that accompanies the succeeding citta by way of decisive support, and also feeling that accompanies citta that is not immediately succeeding but arising in the same process by way of decisive support. --------- Text Vis.: This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With contact as condition, feeling'. --------- Conclusion: The Tiika to Ch XIV, 125 (the khandha of feeling) explains that feeling experiences the flavour of the object. Feeling can experience the flavour of the object since that object is ‘contacted’. All feelings arising in one sense-door process experience the flavour of the object that is contacted by phassa. They are strongly dependent on contact. The Tiika in the same section states about feeling: Thus, as the Commentary to M. I, 43 states, ******* Nina. #81463 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet HiHames > > Technically speaking, there is no "free will." What are we, creator > > gods? > > James: In the simple sense, there is free will. We can choose certain > actions or not; we can even choose certain ways of thinking. Well, this is not the way I see it - the choices are made by impersonal dhammas - but that's ok. If we think we make the choices and make wise choices because we think we can, great - all that matters is that the choices are made. "The wise man is known by his behaviour." Whatever kind of understanding conditions that behaviour, be it shallow or deep, technically correct or incorrect, the important thing is the behaviour. That's the way I feel now, that is the attitude that is suitable for me now. As the behaviour setttles into wholesome tendencies, there may or may not be conditions that lead me deeper. We are > not powerless. However, we don't have absolute power: > > "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.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html Always good to see this sutta. > > Whatever intention arises is conditioned by past intentions, > > surely no would deny that. > > James: Yes, but I don't think that one should think too much about > that. The only thing that is important is that we were born human- > which is the best opportunity to learn and practice the Dhamma. Yes, it is the best opportunity, that's clear in the suttas, isn't it. There was good kamma that gave us this human birth. And we're not wasting it - being as obsessed as we are is a good sign of that. Metta, Phil #81464 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:55 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet Hi again I wrote: > the choices are made by > impersonal dhammas. This doesn't sound quite right, but it'll do. Closer to the truth than saying there is free will, that we make the choices, I think. Metta, phil #81465 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 2. upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin (and Bhante) - In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:13:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: *And I thought Howard was making a wrong comparison. :-/ Others have also made similar comparisons, some even to propose that scientists and other serious academics were getting a whiff of Anatta when they think in terms of `impersonal phenomena'. But this is neither being close to the understanding of Anatta or for the matter anything Dhamma and it leads me to question the understanding of those who make such comparison. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You have misunderstood me, I believe, Sukin. I was only giving a theoretical analogy as a means to clarify the possibility of functioning at the level of convention while understanding at the level of reality. There is an enormous difference between a scientist's theories and the actual knowing of not-self/no-self. One fundamental aspect of the difference is that of theorizing versus direct knowing with wisdom. A deeper difference, IMO, is that the realizing of tilakkhana has nothing to do, itself, with theory, though, of course, correct teachings of the Buddhadhamma pondered deeply are crucial conditions for liberating wisdom. ------------------------------------------------------- People are attracted to different ways of `making sense of the world' and become attached to it. The idea of `impersonal phenomena' is one such way on which I too at one time indulged in. But the fact of Anatta is to be "understood" and not to merely be taken as an idea to play around with or applied to phenomena "out there". ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I completely agree! ----------------------------------------------------- Having `conceived' the scientist then goes on to try and make sense of `things' based on that initial misperception. Likewise, the Buddhist having conceived, he tries to apply the `theory' of Anatta, but only when convenient. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But even there, the Buddhist has the advantage. ------------------------------------------------------ However, if Anatta has not been seen to refer to *this* present moment experience, then it has not been understood and applied at all! Scientists talk about the `world' as formed by impersonal processes, but they have absolutely no clue about the only `real world' of Nama and Rupa arising and falling away as they speak. To them therefore the world will forever be concept only and with no relation to reality at all. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree! ------------------------------------------------------ And this is no different to where most Buddhists are at. Ask them and they will say, "Of course I believe in Anatta and conditionality". But when it comes to knowing and accepting the very thoughts that arises "now", especially when this is about a cherished practice, they end up only justifying following those suggestions and conveniently attaching positive labels regarding what might have arisen at the ultimate level, including Anatta. Howard has in the past often warned others about the possibility of acts of akusala, including murder, in the name of Anatta and `no control'. This is not an understanding Anatta. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right! It is a misunderstanding, or, in fact, not an understanding at all. Still, for those "stuck in their head," such misunderstanding is a danger, and it is good to be on the watch for it. ---------------------------------------------------------- However neither is the above position, one which seems to also involve feeling justified in doing what one does, only in this case is perceived as `good'. It seems that because in fact Anatta remains primarily a `philosophical idea', is reason why hope and fear arises. On the other hand, and this is just my opinion, a correct understanding of Anatta reflects a willingness to give up `self' in the moment, this can never arise to one who does not value other forms of kusala, re: the accumulation and development of the Parami. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with that last sentence. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Howard that you got dragged into this. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not dragged in at all. I willingly walked in "under my own steam." ;-) ============================== With metta, Howard #81466 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and James) - In a message dated 1/21/2008 6:55:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again I wrote: > the choices are made by > impersonal dhammas. This doesn't sound quite right, but it'll do. Closer to the truth than saying there is free will, that we make the choices, I think. Metta, phil ================================= How about "The choosing does occur, but it is an aggregation of conditioned, impersonal phenomena, and there is no choice-maker, no chooser." ? With metta, Howard #81467 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Phil and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Phil (and James) - > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 6:55:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > philco777@... writes: > > Hi again > > I wrote: > > > the choices are made by > > impersonal dhammas. > > This doesn't sound quite right, but it'll do. Closer to the truth > than saying there is free will, that we make the choices, I think. > > Metta, > > phil > ================================= > How about "The choosing does occur, but it is an aggregation of > conditioned, impersonal phenomena, and there is no choice-maker, no chooser." ? > I don't think that either one of these thicket of views are necessary, but if you think so then knock yourself out. :-) Choices are made by a person, by a human being. Choices are made by a conglomeration of the five khandas known as a human being. Denying the existence of a human being and viewing the world as disembodied dhammas floating around (like a pointilism painting seen close up) doesn't get a person any closer to giving up clinging. But, like I say, if you want to then okay. Metta, James #81468 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:05 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 19 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 450. "Mantaavatiyaa nagare, ra~n~no ko~ncassa aggamahesiyaa; dhiitaa aasi.m sumedhaa, pasaaditaa saasanakarehi. 448. In the city of Mantaavatii there was Sumedhaa, a daughter of King Ko~nca's chief queen. [She was] led to have faith by those who comply with the teaching. Tattha mantavatiyaa nagareti mantavatiiti eva.mnaamake nagare. Ra~n~no ko~ncassaati ko~ncassa naama ra~n~no mahesiyaa kucchimhi jaataa dhiitaa aasi.m. Sumedhaati naamena sumedhaa. Pasaaditaa saasanakarehiiti satthusaasanakarehi ariyehi dhammadesanaaya saasane pasaaditaa sa~njaataratanattayappasaadaa kataa. 448. There, in the city of Mantaavatii means: in the city that was named Mantaavatii. Of King Ko~nca's mean: I was the daughter conceived in the womb of the chief queen of the king named Ko~nca. Sumedhaa means: Sumedhaa by name. [She was] led to have faith (pasaaditaa) by those who comply with the teaching (saasana-karehi) means: she was led to have faith, made to be full of faith in the triple gem (sa~n~jaata-ratana-ttaya-ppasaadaa kataa), by those who comply with the teaching of the Teacher, the teaching (saasane) through the instruction of the Doctrine by the noble ones. 451. "Siilavatii cittakathaa, bahussutaa buddhasaasane vinitaa; maataapitaro upagamma, bha.nati ubhayo nisaametha. 449. Virtuous, a brilliant speaker, having great learning, trained in the Buddha's teaching, going up to her mother and father, she said, "Listen both of you." Siilavatiiti aacaarasiilasampannaa. Cittakathaati cittadhammakathaa. Bahussutaati bhikkhuniina.m santike pariyattidhammassutiyutaa. Buddhasaasane viniitaati eva.m pavatti, eva.m nivatti, iti siila.m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naati suttaanugatena (dii. ni. 2.186) yonisomanasikaarena tada"ngato kilesaana.m vinivattattaa buddhaana.m saasane viniitaa sa.myatakaayavaacaacittaa. Ubhayo nisaamethaati tumhe dvepi mama vacana.m nisaametha, maataapitaro upagantvaa bha.natiiti yojanaa. 449. Virtuous (siilavati) means: possessed of virtuous conduct and right conduct (aacaara-siila-sampannaa). A brilliant speaker (citta-kathaa) means: a brilliant speaker about the Doctrine (citta-dhamma-kathaa). Having great learning means: bent on hearing those accomplished in the Doctrine in the presence of the bhikkhuniis. Trained in the Buddha's teaching (Buddha-saasane) means: trained - restrained in body, speech, and mind - in the teaching (saasane) of the Buddha (Buddhaana.m) that turns away defilements through the substitution of opposites by properly paying careful attention to the discourses such as "Thus it is set going, thus it is ended. This is virtuous conduct, this is concentration, this is wisdom." Listen, both of you means: listen to my speech you two. She approached her mother and father and spoke; that is the implication. 452. "Nibbaanaabhirataaha.m asassata.m bhavagata.m yadipi dibba.m; kima"nga.m pana tucchaa kaamaa, appassaadaa bahuvighaataa. 450. "I delight in quenching. Existence is non-eternal, even if it is as a deity. How much [non-eternal] are empty sensual pleasures giving little enjoyment [and] much distress. Yadipi dibbanti devalokapariyaapannampi bhavagata.m naama sabbampi asassata.m anicca.m dukkha.m vipari.naamadhamma.m. Kima"nga.m pana tucchaa kaamaati kima"nga.m pana maanusakaa kaamaa, te sabbepi asaarakabhaavato tucchaa rittaa, satthadhaaraaya.m madhubindu viya appassaadaa, etarahi aayati~nca vipuladukkhataaya bahuvighaataa. 450. Even if it is as a deity means: all existence indeed, even belonging to the deva worlds, is non-eternal, is a phenomenon subject to change. How much more non-eternal are empty sensual pleasures means: how much more so are the sensual pleasures of human beings. All of them are also empty, hollow, because of being without substance; like a drop of honey on a razor's edge, giving little enjoyment now and in the future; and because of great pain, giving much distress. .. to be continued, connie #81469 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/21/2008 9:02:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Phil and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Phil (and James) - > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 6:55:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > philco777@... writes: > > Hi again > > I wrote: > > > the choices are made by > > impersonal dhammas. > > This doesn't sound quite right, but it'll do. Closer to the truth > than saying there is free will, that we make the choices, I think. > > Metta, > > phil > ================================= > How about "The choosing does occur, but it is an aggregation of > conditioned, impersonal phenomena, and there is no choice-maker, no chooser." ? > I don't think that either one of these thicket of views are necessary, but if you think so then knock yourself out. :-) Choices are made by a person, by a human being. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: And what exactly *is* that? Didn't the Buddha give the chariot example for a reason? Are you saying that the Puggalavadins were right? ------------------------------------------------------- Choices are made by a conglomeration of the five khandas known as a human being. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, a specific sort of dynamic aggregation of conditioned dhammas is called "a human being," and we *speak* of a human being acting. That's common - we all speak that way. But to see further, and clearly, is important, isn't it? We don't engage in Dhamma study, meditating, staying mindful, and guarding the senses just to think and speak of people acting. Nothing is required to do that. It's the norm. ------------------------------------------------------- Denying the existence of a human being and viewing the world as disembodied dhammas floating around (like a pointilism painting seen close up) doesn't get a person any closer to giving up clinging. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, I ask what was the Buddha's decompositional chariot exercise intended to accomplish? And I don't deny human beings. They are aggregations with a specific nature. Dhamma practice enables us to directly see that empty nature. -------------------------------------------------------- But, like I say, if you want to then okay. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hey, man! Thanks! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------- Metta, James =========================== With metta, Howard #81470 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, All the objects that appear through the six doors should be fully known; when they are understood as elements devoid of self, there can be detachment from them. Since we have accumulated ignorance from life to life, understanding cannot develop rapidly, without there being the right conditions for it. We need to listen again and again and be reminded to be aware of all dhammas that appear. Although the long bus trips were most exhausting, Acharn Sujin was never tired to explain Dhamma to us. I am most grateful for all her reminders, specifically those she gave me in the different situations we had to face. She pointed out to us when we were clinging to the idea of self, which is deeply engrained. We read in the “Dhammapada” (translated by Ven. Narada), verses 76-77 : Should one see a wise man, who, like a revealer of treasures, points out faults and reproves, let one associate with such a wise person; it will be better, not worse, for him who associates with such a one. Let him advise, instruct, and dissuade one from evil; truly pleasing is he to the good, displeasing is he to the bad. During this pilgrimage we experienced that association with wise friends is of great benefit. When we were waiting at the airport of Patna, on our way to Sikkim, one of my Thai friends, Khun Sukol, reminded me that we do not want to accept that there is no self. Even though we understand the truth intellectually, deep in our hearts we cling to the idea of self. The Buddha taught against the stream of common thought. Khun Sukol is eager for Dhamma conversations at any time. ****** Nina. #81471 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:09 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? NO WAY! truth_aerator Dear All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > James: In the simple sense, there is free will. We can choose certain actions or not; we can even choose certain ways of thinking. We are not powerless. However, we don't have absolute power: > > "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.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html >>>>> > > Whatever intention arises is conditioned by past intentions, > > surely no would deny that. >>>> Not always. Nibbana is unconditioned that can be achieved in this life. Furthermore, are you saying that "intention to kill" is conditioned only by past intentions and nothing can be done about it? > James: Yes, but I don't think that one should think too much about > that. The only thing that is important is that we were born human- > which is the best opportunity to learn and practice the Dhamma. > > Metta, > James > How to deal with distracting thoughts: 1) attending to another theme... 2) scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... 3) giving no attention to those thoughts... 4) relaxing of thought-fabrication ... 5) beating down, constraining and crushing mind.... (last resort, when all other fails) "Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Indriya-bhavana Sutta The Development of the Faculties And how is one a noble one with developed faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. "When hearing a sound with the ear... When smelling an aroma with the nose... When tasting a flavor with the tongue... When touching a tactile sensation with the body... When cognizing an idea with the intellect, there arises in him what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. "This is how one is a noble one with developed faculties. "So, Ananda, I have taught you the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of a noble one; I have taught you how one is a person in training, someone following the way; I have taught you how one is a noble one with developed faculties. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html Lots of Metta, In Dhamma, Alex #81472 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. truth_aerator Dear Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: Nothing can stop the thinking process from arising to judge the `situation' and any actions through speech and body which follows. >>>>>>>>> MN20 Vitakkasanthana Sutta--- How to deal with distracting thoughts: 1) attending to another theme... 2) scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... 3) giving no attention to those thoughts... 4) relaxing of thought-fabrication ... 5) beating down, constraining and crushing mind.... (last resort, when all other fails) "Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html >>> And there is nothing wrong in any of this, only with some understanding, kusala is seen as worthy of encouragement and > akusala is never so. >>>> So if intion to kill arises, then there is nothing wrong with it? 3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority." 5. "Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. 6. "But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to long life, that is to say, to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to lay aside the rod and lay aside the knife, to be considerate and merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html > One of these akusala dhammas however is miccha ditthi, the one as > stated above, which takes `seriously' the existence of people, > situations and the actions which follow from this. >>>> Read ditthisamyutta. Craving is the cause of many different ditthis. Craving is more than mere intellectual misunderstanding, it is also a reflex (which is beyond logic). Indriaya-Bhavana for example helps one to train to refrain from reacting in the same way toward the same stress. >>>> To those striving for `goodness', this dhamma often manifests as the idea of `control' determining good and trying to rid of the bad. >>>> Not to all. Some do it to decondition the sankhara skandha from repeating old akusala reflexes. >>>> And peculiar to Buddhists, added is the idea of needing to `sit down to meditate' and develop awareness. >>>> First of all, not just to Buddhists. Many religions and traditions have meditations. Even early Christianity was very meditative, almost exactly the same as in Thai Forest tradition (except for external packaging). 2nd) Meditation should be done in ALL postures. Sitting posture is generally the ideal one as it allows one to slow down and see mind states one by one as they occur. The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... joyous... rapid... quick... penetrating discernment. For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight1 into mental qualities one after another. This is what occurred to Sariputta through insight into mental qualities one after another: "There was the case where Sariputta — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness,2 desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He understood, 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it, he confirmed that 'There is.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html Only panna which sees to any degree, the conditioned nature of dhammas, can correct this tendency. And until > this happens, I don't believe that one can actually be said to be > following the Buddha's Way. >>>> See above (mn111). > When akusala citta has arisen and no understanding has followed to > know this, this dhamma can bee seen to have been taken for `self' >>>> See above. >>> if there is any idea about needing to immediately `guard the senses' etc. >>>> Sense Restraint "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. This is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. Typical path is this: 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 (and more suttas.) >>>>>>> > The Middle Way *is* to know the way things are. <>?>>>>> The Noble Eightfold Path "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." — SN 56.11 >>> And this manifests as non-resistance to whatever arises at any given moment. >>> Read Mn20 Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html >>> However this being about the study of Dhamma / dhammas, it should not bring about any change in terms of one's daily activities, >>> See above. > But then to outsiders, this is interpreted in any number of ways > depending on their own ideas about what should and not be done. > > Some will say that this is being lazy, but I ask, how many people do > they know, who are so dedicated to Dhamma as some people of this > group. The fact that we don't meditate is because we see the very idea > as being rooted in `wrong understanding', period. Some think that we > are making an excuse to live the household life and continue to > indulge in sensual pleasures. I don't think any of us particularly > identifies with being `householder' to begin with, and when it comes > to akusala, how many people do you know who have pointed out the very > subtle ways in which these manifests in daily life as Nina for > example, has? In any case, should one be expecting putthujanas to be > other than what they are, namely "attached" to sensual objects? > Some say it is a `fatalistic' outlook, but this is because they fail > to see their own attachment to the idea of `control' which is the > position from which they make their observation. Some see it as > reliance on "luck", but that's because they fail to acknowledge how > much they believe in their own power to bring about desired effects. > >>>> > The thing is that while some of us see the Middle Path as being > manifested, depending on accumulations and other conditions, either as Pariyatti, Patipatti or Pativedha and acknowledging that in our case it is mostly Pariyatti, others seem to have their own `conventional ideas' of what the Middle Path is. >>>> Since when did you become more wise than the Buddha himself? The Noble Eightfold Path "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." — SN 56.11 >>>> They have an idea about Sila, Samadhi and Panna in terms of `things to be done' and project that on to others. >>> The threefold division of the path [Visakha, a layman, ex-husband of Ven. Sister Dhammadinna:] "And are the three aggregates [of virtue, concentration, discernment] included under the noble eightfold path, lady, or is the noble eightfold path included under the three aggregates?" [Ven. Sister Dhammadinna:] "The three aggregates are not included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment." — MN 44 ..... Lots of Metta, & karuna, Alex #81473 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:16 am Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 2. truth_aerator Dear Sukinder and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Ven. Pannabahulo (*and Howard), > > Now I'd like to go into this present post of yours. > > > > There are many paths to enlightenment, and we are told there are > > several paths to Buddhahood. >>>> Only one. Satipatthana is an important part of N8P. "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants." — DN 16 Siddhattha Gotama became a Buddha by > > means of wisdom. > > We will discuss this when we meet next month. But the impression I get > as of now, is that this is a wrong statement to make. True, each > individual is different and how anyone arrives at the Dhamma and > proceeds from there, the `stories' will be different and all equally > interesting. However, when it comes to what indeed the `practice' is, > namely Satipatthana, then I think we should loudly proclaim this to be > the "One and Only Way to Enlightenment". With this in mind, we should > always try to bring the attention back to this particular fact. > > ================ > > > All that he went through to attain the level of > > wisdom necessary for enlightenment shows clearly that he didn't > > accept that wisdom is just a set of conditions that we cannot > > intentionally develop. In fact his last words to his disciples > > were: "Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your > > salvation with diligence!" > > Firstly, Samma Ditthi arose only at the point of enlightenment, being > what is meant by having `discovered' the N8FP, not before that. > Secondly, that one speaks against wrong effort, does not imply the > encouragement of *no* effort. The `no control' perspective does not > imply `no effort'. Effort arises with all javana cittas. Only these > are "conditioned" and not particularly caused by any "intention to do" > preceding it. Besides `intention' is not one of the factors of the 8FP > and those that are the factors, these arise by accumulations and > Natural Decisive Support Condition, certainly not Kamma condition! > > ================ > > > But we must be particularly careful when it comes to Abhidhamma > > texts. We know that these texts were not recited at The First > > Council. Using the test of what to accept being based on direct > > experience, most of the suttas I have studied talk directly to a > > meditator. But sole study of the Abhidhamma is not open to > > verification in the same way. For example, it is not possible for us > > to count - and label - how many cittas or cetasikas there are; and > > there is no way that any of us can prove, or disprove, the existence > > of bhavanga-citta. These must always remain theoretical entities and, > > as such, are the reason for the main thrust of my pariyatti vs > > patipatti discussions. >>>> I agree with Venerable: --- Parable of an Arrow ---- "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden- colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html#poison Abhidhamma: (1) In the discourses of the Pali canon, this term simply means "higher Dhamma," and a systematic attempt to define the Buddha's teachings and understand their interrelationships. (2) A later collection of analytical treatises based on lists of categories drawn from the teachings in the discourses, added to the Canon several centuries after the Buddha's life. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/end.html Abhidhamma = too much Dhamma (Ajahn Chah) > ================= > > And this amounts to an "I" that studies, practices, intends, exerts effort and so on. >>>> This IS good for a while as a temporary action to do. ------- Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned. "This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then, at a later time, he abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness- release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then, at a later time, he abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then, at a later time, he abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html ----- Lots of Metta, Alex #81474 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:45 am Subject: Anatta Vs natthatta . Was Buddha a Nihilist? truth_aerator Hello all, Something interesting I've found. Can someone refute this point by point? -- The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman) which is the "light (dipam), and only refuge" [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to some popular books written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no "Doctrine of anatta/anatman" mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta. Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from the macrocosmic, to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body or the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. "All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta." Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly held belief to wit that: "Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul" is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism. The Pali term and noun for "no soul" is natthatta (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there "was no soul (natthatta)", equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is "Na me so atta" (this/these are not my soul), nearly so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where "na me so atta" = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is "no-Soul" (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist). Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be "shown the way to Immortality (amata)" [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated thru the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he "saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature". Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: "subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things `these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul'" [MN 1.232] The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: "Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?" "Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact compliments it. What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto". For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a `doctrine of no- Soul', but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical "self" in the very meaning of "my-self" (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command `denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta') of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta', "This/these are not my Soul" (na me so atta'= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, "Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real"[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul. Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] "Both formerly and now, I've never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending" Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates. Due to secular propagation, a general acceptance of the concept of "A Doctrine of Anatta" exists as status quo, however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism's denial of soul, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self- Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, "impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)". The only noun in sutra which is referred to as "permanent (nicca)" is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169. In fact the phrase "Doctrine of anatta", or "Anatmavada" is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non- doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a "lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth". Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a "Doctrine of anatta" as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is "subject to arising and passing", and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is "my Self, is That which I am", is "not my Soul", of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta. The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436] The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is "beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts" thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only thru "the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not"- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis. http://www.attan.com/anatta.html http://www.attan.com/againstanatta.pdf --- Comments? Lots of Metta, Alex #81475 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:50 am Subject: Citta in Buddhism truth_aerator Here is something else that I've found on the net. --- Here is what someone wrote ("Attasarana") ---- That citta=atman in Buddhism, it bears extensive mention here "How is it that one is called a `Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind/will (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a `Buddha'." [MN 2.144] -Attasarana "The purification of one's own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49] "This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything)" [MN 2.265] "This said: `the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling' means Nibbana"[MN2-Att. 4.68] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)"[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] "'The purification of one's own mind/will', this means the light (joti) within one's mind/will (citta) is the very Soul(attano)" [DN2- Att. 2.479] -Attasarana Parinirvana = pure citta [DN 2.157] "No longer with (subsists by) in-breath nor out-breath, so is him (Gotama) who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated." The perfect (anasava) mind (citta) being = parinirvana: [SN 3.45] "The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana)."- Attasarana What is the meaning of the most important word in Buddhism, the Citta, in short? The Citta is the ontological will, or metaphorically in the scriptural context of Buddhist doctrine (as well as the Upanishads too for that matter, which translates citta as "Pure- Consciousness"), is the "Light" which is unmanifest. "The light (joti) within one's mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)" [DN2- Att. 2.479]. The metaphysical nexus of purification in Buddhism is the non-empirical and pre-corporeal citta. As per Buddhism, the inchoate (self-nescient) will (citta) is manifest as an attribution and self-sublimated, as the empirical consciousness (vinnana), the finest attribute of samsaric and empirical existence. In short, this `white-light' Will (citta), when manifest upon `blue' form is blue-vinnana (consciousness), or when manifest upon `red' form, is red-vinnana (consciousness). The sati (recollection) and samadhi (assimilation) methodology of Buddhism is to make this primordially pure but inchoate Will (citta), choate (self-Knowing) such that further identification with its phenomenal attributes has been forever cut (bhavanirodha nibbanam).-Attasarana Just as there is no Light (citta) in what is merely illumined (vinnana/consciousness) from afar, but merely En-lumined by this non- empirical Light, so to is the apex of Buddhism the disidentification with this causal nexus beginning with phenomenal consciousness (vinnana) by making the will (citta) self-choate by the erasure of nescience (avijja/avidya) thru means of gnosis and sati and samadhi methodologies. [12-1 Upadisa] "Just as a man (erroneously) looks upon his body placed in the sun as having the property of light (citta) in it, so, he looks upon the intellect (vinnana) pervaded by the reflection of Citta as the Self (inner-nature of the Citta)." In summation, the Citta is nowhere as pertains the body, and certainly not the brain (as erroneously presumed by pseudo-buddhist researchers), but is the unmanifest Light which constantly feeds light, or rather life, into this dead form of many constituents. We are to see our True-Selves (svabhava) as this unmanifest Light, rather than its petty corporeal reflection/manifestation, being consciousness and its lower superstructure (the body).]-Attasarana 1. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain the state of "non- clinging" (anupada) "This is immortality, that being the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling (anupada) after anything" [MN 2.265]. 2. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain the state of being "taintless" (anasava) [DN 2.35, MN 1.501, MN 3.20, SN 3.45...etc etc]. 3. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain/is gathered in "the realm of immortality": "he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436]. "This is immortality, that being the liberated citta" [MN 2.265]. [AN 1.282] "He gathers the mind inside the immortal realm". 4. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to be the basis (arammana) for Parinibbana. Said immediately after Gotama's physical death: [DN 2.157] "No longer with (subsists by) in-breath nor out-breath, so is him (Gotama) who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahma) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (Nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated." The taintless (anasava) mind (citta) being = parinirvana: [SN 3.45] "The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound Parinirvana)." "This said: `the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling' means Nibbana" [MN2-Att. 4.68]. 5. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is differentiated from the five aggregates (rupa/vedana/sanna/sankhara/vinnana): "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436, AN 4.422]. [SN 3.234] The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi "Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis." [MN 1.511] "For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness." 6. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which, when perfected by samadhi and panna, is = Soul (attan): "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind (citta)" [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]. "'The purification of one's own mind', this means the light (joti) within one's mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano)" [DN2-Att. 2.479]. [AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the- Soul' (thitattoti)". [AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul has become Brahma". [MN 1.213] "The collected and quelled mind is the Supreme Soul". "Steadfast-in-the-Soul(thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa'ta-Att. 3.4]. 7. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to be the basis/medium for the recollection of past lives: "directs his mind (citta) to the recollection of past lives" [DN 1.81]. 8. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to be "its own foundation/not based in anything" (anarammana), therein philosophically anything which is "a thing in itself", i.e. "without a foundation of its own" is hence the basis for marking the mind as the Absolute (when wisdom and samadhi are culminated): [Pati-A 2.478] "The sovereign-mind which is its own support (an-without + a'rammana=support) means the sovereign-mind is the foundation". [Dh-A 4.26] "Ones own mind is the foundation of the Soul". [MN-A 2.297] "Nibbana is the foundation, that being the emancipated-mind (citta)". [Sn-A 2.583] "Emancipation is meant the foundation, that being the establishment of the emancipated mind".[Theragatha-A 1.138] "Supramundane samadhi is the foundation of Nibbana, that being the exceedingly quelled mind (citta)" 9. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is compared to the "indestructible" diamond: [AN 1.124] "What, followers, is a being who has a diamond- mind (vajiru'pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind." 10. The entire Aryan path itself is said to both being and end with the citta (mind) as its basis: [MN 1.197] "Followers, the Brahma life is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind alone, which is the quintessential final core". [MN 1.301] "What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign". 11. The citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to go to the light/heaven realm: [SN 5.370] "His mind goes heaven-bound to auspiciousness." 12. Most importantly, the citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain freedom from nescience/ignorance/agnosis (avijja): [MN 1.279] "When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance." 13. The ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain the state of emancipation (vimutta) is the citta (cittavimutta)- common pali term. 14. As per the `superior' path VS. the `inferior' path, the mind is the sole basis for the `superior' path: "ariyacittassa anasavacittassa ariyamaggasamangino" [MN 3.72] "The Aryan citta, the taintless citta; this is that with which the Aryan path is endowed with". 15. The citta is the ONLY NOUN which is deemed "the highest absolute": [MN 1.298] "Emancipation of the mind is the highest absolute." [MN 1.298] "Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind, the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind is the highest supernal." 16. The entire basis for Buddhism itself is said to be for/ as regards the citta: "The purification of one's own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49]."How is it that one is called a `Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a `Buddha'." [MN 2.144] [AN 1.6] "I do not have, followers, insight into anything or any dharma which, when made to become and made to expand that brings greater bliss than the mind (citta). The mind, followers, when made to become and made to expand, brings the greatest bliss." [SN 1.26] Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power! 17. The citta is the ONLY NOUN which is deemed to achieve `freedom from becoming (bhava)'. All thing "as become must pass. The borne, the become, the made, the create has no other fate than to pass just as they have arises". The philosophical implication that the citta can transcend causation/becoming cannot be denied. "My mind (citta) is emancipated from desire (kama), emancipated from becoming (bhava), emancipated from nescience/ignorance (avijja), `Emancipation! Emancipation alas!'…there exists no fruit more exquisite and perfect that this." [DN 1.84]-Attasarana Citta is the Absolute The mind is the absolute as illuminated in scripture time and again: [MN 1.197] "Followers, the Brahma life is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind alone, which is the quintessential final core." [DN 2.81] "Through perfection of wisdom's fulfillment the mind is emancipated from all defilements. That is-desire defilements, becomings defilements, and ignorance defilements." [DN 2.233] "The light of ones mind." [SN 5.158] "Maha'puriso, Maha'puriso I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Mahapuriso mean? A mind emancipated having assimilated the Soul (vimuttacittatta'), I say Shariputra, this is a Mahapuriso. Without mind emancipated having assimilated the Soul Shariputra, one is not a Maha'puriso." [AN 1.282] "He gathers the mind inside the immortal realm." [MN 1.36] The mind is originally pure. [MN 1.213] "Friend Shariputra, a follower delights in solitariness, and in delighting in solitariness he tranquilizes the mind in yoking it to the very Soul, he does not neglect his jhanas, he is endowed with insights, and perfectly devoid of the profane." [MN 1.235] "A follower who has an emancipated mind possesses three transcendental qualities: transcendental illumination, transcendental mastery of the light, transcendental liberation." [MN 1.239] "When suffering and feelings arise upon him, it does not penetrate into his mind since his mind is Soul become." [MN 1.249] "When my steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then I directed my mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. I knew thusly as it truly was such that: This is suffering, this is the source of suffering, this is the subjugation of suffering and this is the path of illumination leading away from all suffering." [MN 1.249] "When my discourse is completed, Aggivessana, I make absorbed my mind upon the sign of my very Soul wherein I remain fixed, am subdued, and make it as unto this singleness. This is the bliss I perpetually reside within." [MN 1.279] "When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directes his mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance." [MN 1.296] "Friend, how many contingencies are there for the perfection of making unmanifest the emancipation of mind? Two contingencies: turning away from determinately manifest phenomena and turning towards the unmanifest realm." [MN 1.297] "What friend is emancipation of the mind by means of devoidness (shunyata)? Herein a follower has gone to a clearing in the forest and the root of a tree and investigates thusly: `This is devoid (sunna) of the Soul and what the Soul subsists upon." This is called emancipation of the mind by means of devoidness." [MN 1.298] "Emancipation of the mind is the highest absolute." [MN 1.298] "Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind, the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind is the highest supernal." [MN 1.301] "When the mind is made to become, one gains Suchness of Soul." [Pat.isambhida'magga-Att. 1.236] "To bring to unification the mind is to be fixed upon the Soul." [Suttanipata Att. 2.410] "Mind inter-sighted is the Soul." [Theragatha Att. 2.151] "The mind is the Soul." [Itivuttaka Att. 1.168] "The Supreme Soul is the mind yoked to steadfastness; the steadfast mind is dedicated to the Soul." [Itivuttaka Att. 1.168] "The Supreme Soul is the Soul." [Sagathavagga Att. 1.237] "The Soul is the mind." [Sagathavagga Att. 1.112] "The mind is the Soul." [SN 3.152] "On account of the mind being defiled, sattas are defiled; on account of mind being pure, so too are sattas purified." [AN 1.147] "How is one Lord of the Soul? He has made mind (citta) sovereign and quelled, so is he Lord of the Soul, for he dwells in the purity of the Soul. This, followers, is how one is deemed `Lord of the Soul'." [AN 1.207] "The Aryan disciple keeps the Brahma- sabbath. He dwells in Brahma. Owing to Brahma is he mind (citta) is calmed, that blissfulness arises and his mind is wiped clean of defilements." [AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called `fixed-in- the-Soul.'" [AN 4.402] "When, followers, when ones mind is thoroughly ripe with wisdom, he can say that birth is destroyed, the Brahma- faring has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done, for there is naught but this very Soul." [Udana #47] "The entirety of everything is encompassed by the mind, there is nothing which exists higher or more beloved than ones Soul. Since there is not other dearer than ones Soul, him who holds love of the Soul is without harm." [Itivuttaka #115] "One is supremely liberated of mind (citta) who has Samma' gnosis. Emancipated he is That, verily That (Brahma)." [SN 5.410] "I proclaim there is absolutely no difference between a layperson with a mind (citta) which is liberated and that mind of a bhikkhu which has been liberated for a century. [Saggathavagga-Att. 1.272] "Develop (mind upon) signlessness means: the sign of permanence is made known of the Soul, is the meaning of Vipassana signlessness." [SN 1.188] "I'm burning alive with sensual lusts! My mind (citta) is engulfed by this inferno; pray tell me how I might unbind it, of out pity for me Gotama." It is through an inversion of perception that your mind (citta) is engulfed. Inflexure (your mind [invert, revert upon itself]) away from the signs of the pleasing which are connected with taints. Envision experiences (phenomena) as otherness, as suffering, as not the Soul. Unbind (quench) the mighty fire of lusts such that you are not consumed again and again (transmigration). Develop the mind (citta) upon (gnosis) of the foul (the body), for this is sovereignty wherein one is supremely quelled; recollect (hinder to, recollection of beforeness) that which is before the body, being disgusted with it (body). Develop this signlessness…and you shall be on who fares within equanimity." [MN 3.280] "Rahula's mind (citta), by not clinging (after phenomena) was liberated from all taints. On the spot arose the eye of Dhamma that: "the all (phenomena) which is of the nature to arise, is also of the nature to fall prey to subjugation." [Tikanipa'ta-Att. 3.4] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True- nature (thitasabha'vo)." [KN 4.82] "Whether he walks, stands, sits, or lays on his side; so long as his mind (citta) is sovereign upon his very Soul, he is thoroughly quelled." [Theragatha-Att. 1.51] "Parinirvana is to be steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti)." [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind(suppatitthitacitto)" [SN 1.26] "Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power!" [Jataka-2-1341] "The Soul is Charioteer." [AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the-Soul' (thitattoti)." [AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul has become Brahma." [AN 1.124] "What, followers, is a being who has a diamond-mind (vajiru'pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind." [AN 1.124] "What, followers, is a being who has a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto)? He comprehends things as they are or have become; that being suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. Just as a flash of light in pitch of night illuminates things; so to is him who possesses holy vision into the nature of things are they are or have become such that he comprehends suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. This is one who possesses a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto)." [AN 1.6] "I do not have, followers, insight into anything or any dharma which, when made to become and made to expand that brings greater bliss than the mind (citta). The mind, followers, when made to become and made to expand, brings the greatest bliss." [AN1.10] "The mind (citta) is primordially luminous, but due to defilements which come from without, it is defiled. The mind (citta) is primordially luminous once again, when defilements which come from without are cleansed from it." [MN 1.197] "Followers, this Brahma-faring is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind (citta) alone, which is the quintessential final core." [MN 1.213] "The collected and quelled mind is the Supreme Soul." [MN 1.301] "What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign." [SN 5.73] "What is the one benefit, Master Gotama, which you exist for? The one thing that the Tathagata exists for is the fruit and emancipation by gnosis, illumination (vijja)." [MN 2.265] "This is immortality, that being the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling (after anything)." [MN2-Att. 4.68] "This said: `the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling' means Nibbana." [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] "Steadfast- in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind." [SN 1.233] "Your mind is supremely emancipated, like the full moon on the fifteenth day in dark of night!" [SN 3.83] "Attained the steadfast Soul, their mind (citta) is calm; they're cleansed of the entire world, taintless they have become Brahma." [DN2-Att. 2.479] "'The purification of one's own mind', this means the light (joti) within one's mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano)." [DN 2.49] "The purification of one's own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha." [MN 2.144] "How is it that one is called a `Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)… such is how one is deemed a `Buddha'." [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163] "The Tathagata is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards within the signless inflexured (mind upon itself) mind (citta). There within, Ananda, dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge."- Attasarana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anatta#That_citta.3Datman_in_Buddhis m.2C_it_bears_extensive_mention_here --- Comments? Lots of Metta, Alex #81476 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:37 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? dhammanusara Hi Sarah and Nina (James), - Do you agree with James' summary of Khun Sujin's "philosophy" below? I do not think James' last sentence is what Khun Sujin teaches, i.e. "determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the best". But who else know Khun Sujin's teachings better than you two? ................... >James: Venerable, you should have sense enough to know that the Buddha's teaching is not determinism. The Noble Eightfold Path contains many intentional actions (mental and physical) designed to purify the mind: Right Effort, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, etc. >You have just summarized a faulty view of the Dhamma based on an immature understanding of anatta. In that view, anatta means no individual being; no individual being means no possible action; no possible actions means no control; no control means determinism; determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the best. >That is not the "higher truth" taught by the Buddha. ................... T: Thank you in advance. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ven. Pannabahula, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" > wrote: > > > > My dear Dhamma friends, > > > > Everything arises because of conditions. Right?.got it. So that > > every thought is the product of conditioned cittas. And the wholesome > > or unwholesome cittas that arise depend also on `accumulations' which > > are also one aspect of conditions as such. > #81477 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:00 am Subject: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot truth_aerator Hello all, The whole thing that -> "ABCDEF" is not X thus X doesn't exist is a logical fallacy which has plagued "Buddhist" philosophy after the Buddha. -- Category Errors These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors: Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property) Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property) http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/category.htm -- Thus the whole thing about "No-Self" and "non-existence of things" are simply illogical arguments of some later thinkers who were succesful because those who listened to them were not smart enough to see through gross deception -- No-Soul = NATTHATTA in sutra, not anatta/anatman (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]) has only five occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha. Anatta' is not "no-Soul", but natthatta' which is deemed, by Gotama, to be ucchedavada annihilationist heresy. [SN 1.96] "The nihilist (natthika) goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" To espouse negation of the Soul is heresy in Buddhism, contrary to the personal dogma of 'modern Buddhism' who misconceive the via negative methodology (na me so atta, neti neti, anatta) so common to Indian philosophical systems. http://www.attan.com/anatta.html ---- Here what Nanavira Thera has wrote --- 8. It is quite possible that the notion of paramattha sacca, 'truth in the highest, or ultimate, or absolute, sense' was in existence before the time of the Milindapañha; but its use there (Pt. II, Ch. 1) is so clear and unambiguous that that book is the obvious point of departure for any discussion about it. The passage quotes the two lines (5 & 6) containing the simile of the chariot. They are used to justify the following argument. The word 'chariot' is the conventional name given to an assemblage of parts; but if each part is examined individually it cannot be said of any one of them that it is the chariot, nor do we find any chariot in the parts collectively, nor do we find any chariot outside the parts. Therefore, 'in the highest sense', there exists no chariot. Similarly, an 'individual' (the word puggala is used) is merely a conventional name given to an assemblage of parts (parts of the body, as well as khandhá), and, 'in the highest sense', there exists no individual. That is all. 9. Let us first consider the validity of the argument. If a chariot is taken to pieces, and a man is then shown the pieces one by one, each time with the question 'Is this a chariot?', it is obvious that he will always say no. And if these pieces are gathered together in a heap, and he is shown the heap, then also he will say that there is no chariot. If, finally, he is asked whether apart from these pieces he sees any chariot, he will still say no. But suppose now that he is shown these pieces assembled together in such a way that the assemblage can be used for conveying a man from place to place; when he is asked he will undoubtedly assert that there is a chariot, that the chariot exists. According to the argument, the man was speaking in the conventional sense when he asserted the existence of the chariot, and in the highest sense when he denied it. But, clearly enough, the man (who has had no training in such subtleties) is using ordinary conventional language throughout; and the reason for the difference between his two statements is to be found in the fact that on one occasion he was shown a chariot and on the others he was not. If a chariot is taken to pieces (even in imagination) it ceases to be a chariot; for a chariot is, precisely, a vehicle, and a heap of components is not a vehicle -- it is a heap of components. (If the man is shown the heap of components and asked 'Is this a heap of components?', he will say yes.) In other words, a chariot is most certainly an assemblage of parts, but it is an assemblage of parts in a particular functional arrangement, and to alter this arrangement is to destroy the chariot. It is no great wonder that a chariot cannot be found if we have taken the precaution of destroying it before starting to look for it. If a man sees a chariot in working order and says 'In the highest sense there is no chariot; for it is a mere assemblage of parts', all he is saying is 'It is possible to take this chariot to pieces and to gather them in a heap; and when this is done there will no longer be a chariot'. The argument, then, does not show the non-existence of the chariot; at best it merely asserts that an existing chariot can be destroyed. And when it is applied to an individual (i.e. a set of pañcakkhandhá) it is even less valid; for not only does it not show the non-existence of the individual, but since the functional arrangement of the pañcakkhandhá cannot be altered, even in imagination, it asserts an impossibility, that an existing individual can be destroyed. As applied to an individual (or a creature) the argument runs into contradiction; and to say of an individual 'In the highest sense there is no individual; for it is a mere asemblage of khandhá' is to be unintelligible. 10. What, now, is the reason for this argument? Why has this notion of 'truth in the highest sense' been invented? We find the clue in the Visuddhimagga. This work (Ch. XVIII) quotes the last four lines (5, 6, 7, & 8) and then repeats in essence the argument of the Milindapañha, using the word satta as well as puggala. It goes on, however, to make clear what was only implicit in the Milindapañha, namely that the purpose of the argument is to remove the conceit '(I) am' (asmimána): if it is seen that 'in the highest sense', paramatthato, no creature exists, there will be no ground for conceiving that I exist. This allows us to understand why the argument was felt to be necessary. The assutavá puthujjana identifies himself with the individual or the creature, which he proceeds to regard as 'self'. He learns, however, that the Buddha has said that 'actually and in truth neither self nor what belongs to self are to be found' (see the second Sutta passage in §4). Since he cannot conceive of the individual except in terms of 'self', he finds that in order to abolish 'self' he must abolish the individual; and he does it by this device. But the device, as we have seen, abolishes nothing. It is noteworthy that the passage in the Milindapañha makes no mention at all of 'self': the identification of 'self' with the individual is so much taken for granted that once it is established that 'in the highest sense there is no individual' no further discussion is thought to be necessary. Not the least of the dangers of the facile and fallacious notion 'truth in the highest sense' is its power to lull the unreflecting mind into a false sense of security. The unwary thinker comes to believe that he understands what, in fact, he does not understand, and thereby effectively blocks his own progress. http://nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm Lots of Metta, With Dhamma, Alex #81478 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:01:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, The whole thing that -> "ABCDEF" is not X thus X doesn't exist is a logical fallacy which has plagued "Buddhist" philosophy after the Buddha. -- Category Errors These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors: Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property) Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property) http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/category.htm -- Thus the whole thing about "No-Self" and "non-existence of things" are simply illogical arguments of some later thinkers who were succesful because those who listened to them were not smart enough to see through gross deception -- No-Soul = NATTHATTA in sutra, not anatta/anatman (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]) has only five occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha. Anatta' is not "no-Soul", but natthatta' which is deemed, by Gotama, to be ucchedavada annihilationist heresy. [SN 1.96] "The nihilist (natthika) goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" To espouse negation of the Soul is heresy in Buddhism, contrary to the personal dogma of 'modern Buddhism' who misconceive the via negative methodology (na me so atta, neti neti, anatta) so common to Indian philosophical systems. http://www.attan.com/anatta.html ---- Here what Nanavira Thera has wrote --- 8. It is quite possible that the notion of paramattha sacca, 'truth in the highest, or ultimate, or absolute, sense' was in existence before the time of the Milindapañha; but its use there (Pt. II, Ch. 1) is so clear and unambiguous that that book is the obvious point of departure for any discussion about it. The passage quotes the two lines (5 & 6) containing the simile of the chariot. They are used to justify the following argument. The word 'chariot' is the conventional name given to an assemblage of parts; but if each part is examined individually it cannot be said of any one of them that it is the chariot, nor do we find any chariot in the parts collectively, nor do we find any chariot outside the parts. Therefore, 'in the highest sense', there exists no chariot. Similarly, an 'individual' (the word puggala is used) is merely a conventional name given to an assemblage of parts (parts of the body, as well as khandhá), and, 'in the highest sense', there exists no individual. That is all. 9. Let us first consider the validity of the argument. If a chariot is taken to pieces, and a man is then shown the pieces one by one, each time with the question 'Is this a chariot?', it is obvious that he will always say no. And if these pieces are gathered together in a heap, and he is shown the heap, then also he will say that there is no chariot. If, finally, he is asked whether apart from these pieces he sees any chariot, he will still say no. But suppose now that he is shown these pieces assembled together in such a way that the assemblage can be used for conveying a man from place to place; when he is asked he will undoubtedly assert that there is a chariot, that the chariot exists. According to the argument, the man was speaking in the conventional sense when he asserted the existence of the chariot, and in the highest sense when he denied it. But, clearly enough, the man (who has had no training in such subtleties) is using ordinary conventional language throughout; and the reason for the difference between his two statements is to be found in the fact that on one occasion he was shown a chariot and on the others he was not. If a chariot is taken to pieces (even in imagination) it ceases to be a chariot; for a chariot is, precisely, a vehicle, and a heap of components is not a vehicle -- it is a heap of components. (If the man is shown the heap of components and asked 'Is this a heap of components?', he will say yes.) In other words, a chariot is most certainly an assemblage of parts, but it is an assemblage of parts in a particular functional arrangement, and to alter this arrangement is to destroy the chariot. It is no great wonder that a chariot cannot be found if we have taken the precaution of destroying it before starting to look for it. If a man sees a chariot in working order and says 'In the highest sense there is no chariot; for it is a mere assemblage of parts', all he is saying is 'It is possible to take this chariot to pieces and to gather them in a heap; and when this is done there will no longer be a chariot'. The argument, then, does not show the non-existence of the chariot; at best it merely asserts that an existing chariot can be destroyed. And when it is applied to an individual (i.e. a set of pañcakkhandhá) it is even less valid; for not only does it not show the non-existence of the individual, but since the functional arrangement of the pañcakkhandhá cannot be altered, even in imagination, it asserts an impossibility, that an existing individual can be destroyed. As applied to an individual (or a creature) the argument runs into contradiction; and to say of an individual 'In the highest sense there is no individual; for it is a mere asemblage of khandhá' is to be unintelligible. 10. What, now, is the reason for this argument? Why has this notion of 'truth in the highest sense' been invented? We find the clue in the Visuddhimagga. This work (Ch. XVIII) quotes the last four lines (5, 6, 7, & 8) and then repeats in essence the argument of the Milindapañha, using the word satta as well as puggala. It goes on, however, to make clear what was only implicit in the Milindapañha, namely that the purpose of the argument is to remove the conceit '(I) am' (asmimána): if it is seen that 'in the highest sense', paramatthato, no creature exists, there will be no ground for conceiving that I exist. This allows us to understand why the argument was felt to be necessary. The assutavá puthujjana identifies himself with the individual or the creature, which he proceeds to regard as 'self'. He learns, however, that the Buddha has said that 'actually and in truth neither self nor what belongs to self are to be found' (see the second Sutta passage in §4). Since he cannot conceive of the individual except in terms of 'self', he finds that in order to abolish 'self' he must abolish the individual; and he does it by this device. But the device, as we have seen, abolishes nothing. It is noteworthy that the passage in the Milindapañha makes no mention at all of 'self': the identification of 'self' with the individual is so much taken for granted that once it is established that 'in the highest sense there is no individual' no further discussion is thought to be necessary. Not the least of the dangers of the facile and fallacious notion 'truth in the highest sense' is its power to lull the unreflecting mind into a false sense of security. The unwary thinker comes to believe that he understands what, in fact, he does not understand, and thereby effectively blocks his own progress. http://nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm Lots of Metta, With Dhamma, Alex ============================== Paramattha dhammas are contingent, depending on prior and co-occurring dhammas, and aggregations are *doubly* contingent, being dependent on the interrelated paramattha dhammas that are their basis and which, in turn, are all contingent. Thus nothing whatsoever has own-being/self - nothing is a self-existent entity. Whatever exists does so only as a wispy, fleeting, contingent aspect of a dynamic, seamless flux. The Buddha didn't teach non-existence of aggregations (in particularly, of beings), but their emptiness. What he denied existence to is self, identity, or core of own-being in anything - most especially people. With metta, Howard #81479 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? dhammanusara Hi Howard and James, - Your dialogue is a round-and-round discussion. In order to break this perpetual motion I decide to give a different view for you both to consider (see below). >James: I don't think that either one of these thicket of views are necessary, but if you think so then knock yourself out. :-) Choices are made by a person, by a human being. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: And what exactly *is* that? Didn't the Buddha give the chariot example for a reason? Are you saying that the Puggalavadins were right? ------------------------------------------------------- >James: Choices are made by a conglomeration of the five khandas known as a human being. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, a specific sort of dynamic aggregation of conditioned dhammas is called "a human being," and we *speak* of a human being acting. That's common - we all speak that way. But to see further, and clearly, is important, isn't it? We don't engage in Dhamma study, meditating, staying mindful, and guarding the senses just to think and speak of people acting. Nothing is required to do that. It's the norm. ------------------------------------------------------- Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to subha- sanna. Anatta and asubha-sanna characterize the ariyans, while atta and subha-sanna are the puthujjana-dhammas. Puthujjanas do not "see" ariya dhammas, until they attain samma-ditthi. Best wishes, Tep === #81480 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot moellerdieter Hi Howard and Alex, you wrote : ' The Buddha didn't teach non-existence of aggregations (in particularly, of beings), but their emptiness. What he denied existence to is self, identity, or core of own-being in anything - most especially people.' D: Actually I have this example of the chariot and its part in respect to 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', in my mind too. Whereas a chariot means a function(driving) of parts coming together, similar like the khandas constitute the individual being/people , self is a position (I-Identification) , which in fact has no substance, cannot be found.. I guess we may agree here But I have to read Ven. Nanvira' s in detail whether any other aspect is involved in his considerations.. with Metta Dieter #81481 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:30 am Subject: Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ============================== > Paramattha dhammas are contingent, depending on prior and co- occurring dhammas, and aggregations are *doubly* contingent, being dependent on the > interrelated paramattha dhammas that are their basis and which, in turn, are all > contingent. Thus nothing whatsoever has own-being/self - nothing is a self-existent entity. >>>> True. 5 Aggregates are Anatta. >>>> Whatever exists does so only as a wispy, fleeting, contingent > aspect of a dynamic, seamless flux. The Buddha didn't teach non- existence of aggregations (in particularly, of beings), but their emptiness. >>> True again. >>>> What he denied existence to is self, > identity, or core of own-being in anything - most especially people. > > With metta, > Howard >>>> Actually now I am not 100% sure here. As far as I know He NOWHERE has declared Natthattha (There is absolutely no self). No-Soul = NATTHATTA in sutra, not anatta/anatman (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]) has only five occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha. Anatta' is not "no-Soul", but natthatta' which is deemed, by Gotama, to be ucchedavada annihilationist heresy. [SN 1.96] "The nihilist (natthika) goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" To espouse negation of the Soul is heresy in Buddhism, contrary to the personal dogma of 'modern Buddhism' who misconceive the via negative methodology (na me so atta, neti neti, anatta) so common to Indian philosophical systems. ---- NOTHINGISM (Natthika), A Buddhist heresy Buddhism differs from the "nothing-morist" (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has `Gone to That [Brahman]" (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa)-i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana- kaya) "name and appearance", and the "body with its consciousness". #1. Vimanavatthu #1252-1253 "My name was Piyasi, I held sway over the Kosalans; I held the view of a nihilist (natthikaditthi), was of evil habbit and was miserly; I was an anti- foundationalist/annihilationist then (ucchedavada)….[#1253] "…a recluse Kumarakassapa gave me a talk on the Dhamma and drove from me those (previously held) evil views! (annihilationism/nihilism)." #2. natthatta'ti (literally "there is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul]" has only 5 occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha (even the worthless Abhidhamma). Anatta' is not "no-Soul", but natthatta' which is deemed, by Gotama, to be Ucchedavada annihilationistic heresy. Sutta states explicitly that natthatta' (no-Soul) = natthika (nihilism) = ucchedavada (Annihilationism). If you do hold the view that there is "no-Soul", you are a Natthika (nihilist); i.e. a Ucchedavadin. #3. Petekopadesapali 40 Ucchedavada=Natthika #4. SN 1.96 Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation "The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness". What Bhikkhu Bodhi failed to realize is that SN 4.400 Natthatta (no-Soul) is = Ucchedavada (Annihilationism) which is = natthika as per (petekopadesapali 40, etc.). If Bhikkhu Bodhi knew that these three were synonymous with each other, he would certainly reconsider his translation of natthika as "nihilist". #5 To hold the view that there is "no-Soul" (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist). #6. [SN 2.17] `Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi `the all is ultimately not' (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan `the all is merely composite (atoms)' [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])'". http://www.attan.com/anatta.html --- Maybe Achariya Maha Boowa is rightly awakened Arahant, and the problem isn't with him but with Thera-"vada" which doesn't agree with Buddhism in all cases. Lots of Metta, Alex #81482 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and James) - In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:52:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to subha- sanna. Anatta and asubha-sanna characterize the ariyans, while atta and subha-sanna are the puthujjana-dhammas. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I disagree. All dhammas are anatta whether it is realized or not. ------------------------------------------------------- Puthujjanas do not "see" ariya dhammas, until they attain samma-ditthi. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: All dhammas are anatta. Worldlings don't fully realize them as such, though there can be an increasing recognition as progress occurs. Ariyans have increasing direct insight into the empty nature of dhammas and persons, with arahants seeing this perfectly. ============================ With metta, Howard #81483 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Noble Search (Was: Is Nibbana a Dhamma? Is Nibbana really Anatta?) m_nease Hi Scott, Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Mike, > > Sorry for the delay, Back at you-- > I'm a bit swamped and the Paa.li seemed a bit > difficult this time. I really appreciate the trouble you've gone to. > Mike, this is very good. Here's a more full passage from the > ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi translation: > > MN 26 Ariyapariyesana Sutta The Noble Search: > > "And what is the noble search (ariyaa pariyesanaa)? Here someone > being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what > is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, > Nibbaana; being himself subject to ageing...he seeks the unageing > security...being himself subject to sickness...he seeks the unailing > supreme security...being himself subject to death...he seeks the > deathless supreme security...being himself subject to sorrow...he > seeks the sorrowless supreme security...being himself subject to > defilement, having understood the danger in what is subject to > defilement, he seeks the undefiled supreme security from bondage, > Nibbaana. This is the noble search. > > "Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an > unenlightened Bodhisatta, I too, being myself subject to > birth...Suppose that, being subject to birth...I seek the unageing, > unailing, deathless, sorrowless, and undefiled supreme security from > bondage, Nibbaana.'" > > [The second paragraph above: Ahampi suda.m bhikkhave pubbeva sambodhaa > anabhisambuddho bodhisattova samaano attanaa jaatidhammo samaano > jaatidhamma~n~neva pariyesaami, attanaa jaraadhammo samaano > jaraadhamma~n~neva pariyesaami, attanaa byaadhidhammo samaano > byaadhidhamma~n~neva pariyesaami, attanaa mara.nadhammo samaano > mara.nadhamma~n~neva pariyesaami, attanaa sokadhammo samaano > sokadhamma~n~neva pariyesaami, attanaa sa"nkilesadhammo samaano > sa"nkilesadhamma~n~neva pariyesaami.] > > M: "Besides my particular liking for this sutta, it seems significant > to me because (a) it shows the Bodhisatta conceiving of (the concept > of) nibbaana before (I think?) having attained any path, and (b) > because it seems to me to establish a (conceptual) goal toward which > he consciously strove until reaching the actual goal..." > > Scott: This is food for thought. I'm thinking that the moment of > consciousness that conditioned this thought for the Bodhisatta was > likely one consisting of developed mental factors which do not exist > for me at the same lofty level of development. That certainly seems reasonable. > M: "Do you reckon this is only a possibility for bodhisattas, or...?" > > Scott: I think that ariyaa pariyesanaa is likely not the same as me > simply saying to myself or others that I'm really into Nibbaana and > want to cross the river. I think 'ariyaa' is a very important > qualifier. I think other factors must be present in order for one's > 'search' for Nibbaana to be more than just talking. Here's > Sammohavinodanii (II, p. 275): > > "...Pariyesanaa ('search') is the search for visible data, etc. as > object. For what comes to be when there is craving. Laabho ('gain') > is the gain of a visible datum, etc., as object. For that comes to be > when there is a search. But vinicchayo ('discernment' se Dii 58-61) > is fourfold by knowledge, craving, view, and applied thought. Herein, > discernment by knowledge is this: 'One should know how to discern [the > different kinds of happiness; knowing how to discern happiness, one > should devote oneself to happiness within' (M iii 230,233). The 108 > ways of behaviour of craving (see MA i 219) handed down thus: > 'Discernment - there are two kinds of discernment. Discernment by > craving and discernment by view...are discernment by craving. The 62 > kinds of wrong view are discernment by view. But in the sutta [which > says:] 'Zeal, Lord of Gods, has its origin in applied thought' (D ii > 277) and here as well, it is only applied thought which has been > handed down as discernment. For on making a gain, the discerning is > done by applied thought [of it as] desirable or undesirable, good or > not good..." > > What do you think? All good material, thanks again--I didn't think to look up pariyesanaa in Sammohavinodanii--thanks for that. Not sure that it sheds any light on the issue at hand, though. By my reading of the texts, when the Buddha talked of his earlier life and lives, he meant the stories to be instructive--not just descriptive of mental states imponderable to us puthujjanas. It seems to me that only a bodhisatta would or could conceive of unbinding as a goal--just as only a sammaasambuddha would or could (re) discover the 4nt and teach them. This doesn't answer the question though of whether the search is the noble search once the goal has been pointed out by a Buddha. Anyway, since 'pariyesanaa' is really just a conventional expression, it doesn't seem to me really to matter much directly, though I think the implications might be important--as to the place of the goal (3nt) in right view of pariyatti & pa.tipatti, for example. But this is all getting pretty speculative and not particularly useful, I think. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. mike #81484 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to subha- sanna. >>> Apparently not exactly. (literally "there is not/no[nattha] +atta'[Soul/self]) , anatta = [is] not soul/self Asubha = is not beatiful. Not the inherent characteristic of repulsiveness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anatta and asubha-sanna characterize the ariyans, while atta > and subha-sanna are the puthujjana-dhammas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to asubha-sanna, morticians, gynecologists and surgeons develop it quite a lot (it comes from their job) - but by itself they aren't awakened. Anatta the way it is interpreted as "non existence of soul/self" and "mechanistic conditions" is awefully close to modern atomistic/deterministic materialism. If one removes rebirth and kamma, then it's some form of humanism and nothing else. Full bodied determinism is 19th century science - Atomism. -- atomism In natural philosophy, atomism is the theory that all the objects in the universe are composed of very small, indestructible building blocks - atoms.[citation needed] Or, stated in other words, that all of reality is made of indivisible basic building blocks.[citation needed] The word atomism derives from the ancient Greek word atomos which can be parsed in to a-tomos (not cuttable) - tomos being a form of the Greek verb temnein (to cut) - meaning that which cannot be cut into smaller pieces. If atomism is the idea that anything might ultimately consist of an aggregation of small units that cannot be sub-divided further, then it might be applied to even the aggregations of society or logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism This form of anatta of people and objects is found in western science. But this isn't Buddhism!!! >>> Puthujjanas do not "see" > ariya dhammas, until they attain samma-ditthi. >>>> True. Lots of Metta, Alex #81485 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Alex) - In a message dated 1/21/2008 2:05:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, you wrote : ' The Buddha didn't teach non-existence of aggregations (in particularly, of beings), but their emptiness. What he denied existence to is self, identity, or core of own-being in anything - most especially people.' D: Actually I have this example of the chariot and its part in respect to 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', in my mind too. Whereas a chariot means a function(driving) of parts coming together, similar like the khandas constitute the individual being/people , self is a position (I-Identification) , which in fact has no substance, cannot be found.. I guess we may agree here ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The difference is the difference between a mere aggregate and what I call an "aggregation" - the difference is a matter of relations not holding and relations holding. A chariot is a collection of parts *in particular relation*. Without that relationship holding, there is no chariot and there are no parts of a chariot. The corresponding statements are true with regard to aggregations in general, and beings in particular, and the interrelated dhammas underlying them. ------------------------------------------------------ But I have to read Ven. Nanvira' s in detail whether any other aspect is involved in his considerations.. with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard #81486 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? nilovg Hi Tep and Alex (and Scott), Op 21-jan-2008, om 18:37 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Do you agree with James' summary of Khun Sujin's "philosophy" below? > I do not think James' last sentence is what Khun Sujin teaches, > i.e. "determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the > best". But who else know Khun Sujin's teachings better than you two? ------- N: Sukin has very well explained about the Buddha's teaching not teaching determinism and dumb luck. Alex, I am not able to read long posts, sorry. Would you not talk with me about the present moment? But not long, please. ----------- I am also not satisfied with myself the way I answered your last Q: A: Does it help you to develop sila, samadhi, pannna? Or does it give you a convinient excuse not to strain yourself too hard? ------- I answered, N: Understanding more about conditions helps me to have more confidence in the teachings. What is taught in the Patthana, and in the whole of the Tipitaka (yes tipitaka, not dvipitaka) can be verified. More confidence gives an elan (chanda) to persevere developing understanding. Not straining oneself too hard, nor being indolent. This is a kind of thinking that need not occur: how much do I strain myself? Such a thought is again directed to 'self', what self is doing or not doing. -------- Now, N: It is right that such thinking does not help. But about not being indolent: yes I am indolent at all those moments there is akusala citta and thus no awareness. But I am grateful at the same time to be able to learn more about this. It is understanding that can cure laziness. For example just now seeing arises and immediately there is attachment to seeing or colour unknowingly. That is the danger. We learn about this through the teachings, otherwise we would never know. Cittas are so fast and we could not catch it. You quoted suttas about wise attention. This wise attention needs conditions, it needs listening to the Dhamma, studying it. You speak a lot about conventional truth and the dhamma teaching. Here I find a good balance, what Scott wrote about the person of the Bodhisatta: Scott: ------- Nina. #81487 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? dhammanusara Hi Howard, - There seems to be a misunderstanding ! I cannot figure out where in my reply (below) you've found contradicting to 'sabbe dhamma anatta'. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and James) - > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:52:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to subha-sanna. Anatta and asubha-sanna characterize the ariyans, while atta and subha-sanna are the puthujjana-dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree. All dhammas are anatta whether it is realized or not. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Puthujjanas do not "see" > ariya dhammas, until they attain samma-ditthi. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > All dhammas are anatta. Worldlings don't fully realize them as such, though there can be an increasing recognition as progress occurs. Ariyans have increasing direct insight into the empty nature of dhammas and persons, with arahants seeing this perfectly. > ============================ > With metta, > Howard > Best wishes, Tep === #81488 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 1/21/2008 2:30:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Actually now I am not 100% sure here. As far as I know He NOWHERE has declared Natthattha (There is absolutely no self). ============================== I can't find the sutta, but I'm sure there is one in which the Buddha says that no aggregate, nor any collection of aggregates, NOR anything outside the aggregates is self. But if I'm wrong, and the Buddha never explicitly said "There is no self," why do you think he did not? Because there IS, or because he didn't want to inculcate anatta as an article of faith, but as something which one comes to directly know as the result of practice? One thing is clear: The Buddha *did* say that none of the khandhas is self, or has self in it, or i*s something that a self has*. So, there is no self that *has* consciousness, feeling, perception, etc. This is made clear in the Samanupasana Sutta. With metta, Howard #81489 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Alex, I am not able to read long posts, sorry. Would you not talk > with me about the present moment? But not long, please. > ----------- Considering that you are able to read and write so much about Abhidhamma, I am surprised at what you've said above. 1) There are plenty of suttas that show that the path involves a lot of "doing". -by seeing, (4NT, ideas that lead do dropping of sensuality, becoming, ignorance ) ·by restraining, (the 6 sense-faculties) ·by using, (robe, alms food, lodging, medicinal requisites- properly) ·by tolerating, (cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. ) ·by avoiding, (wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer ) ·by destroying, (thought of sensuality, ill will, cruelty, evil, unskillful mental qualities) ·by developing. (mindfulness, analysis of qualities, persistence, rapture, serenity, concentration, equanimity) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html 2) "I AM" conceit exists even for Anagami, and since we are not there yet, it may be injurous to try to build a 10th floor without reinforcing the 1st. 3) AN4.159 teaches that healthy conceit&craving is good if used for the goal. Again, this reinforces the above. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html 4) Ultimately at Arahantship, it is true that we may see everything as mere dhammas rising and falling away. But this knowledge requires other things to be done FIRST and various asavas to be removed. Remember the discource about the foolish cow that went to unknown pastures too quick? Even though that sutta refers to meditation, it can be applied here, to the studies. More could be said ... Lots of Metta, Alex #81490 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:08:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard, - There seems to be a misunderstanding ! I cannot figure out where in my reply (below) you've found contradicting to 'sabbe dhamma anatta'. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and James) - > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:52:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to subha-sanna. Anatta and asubha-sanna characterize the ariyans, while atta and subha-sanna are the puthujjana-dhammas. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here you speak of puthujjana-dhammas, supposedly existing and being atta. But there are no puthujjana-dhammas - just dhammas, and they are anatta, though worldlings don't recognize them as such. ------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree. All dhammas are anatta whether it is realized or not. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Puthujjanas do not "see" > ariya dhammas, until they attain samma-ditthi. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > All dhammas are anatta. Worldlings don't fully realize them as such, though there can be an increasing recognition as progress occurs. Ariyans have increasing direct insight into the empty nature of dhammas and persons, with arahants seeing this perfectly. > ============================ > With metta, > Howard > Best wishes, Tep ============================== With metta, Howard #81491 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I can't find the sutta, but I'm sure there is one in which the Buddha says that no aggregate, nor any collection of aggregates, NOR anything outside the aggregates is self. >>> Is it the "sabba suttam" . The all? "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html Notice the last sentence. "Because it lies beyond range". Of course nothing of 5 aggretes is Atta, Nicca, Sukha. But outside of them we cannot describe anything since it is outside of linguistic abilities. Just because we cannot describe something, it doesn't mean non-existence. -- TB-- "Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html#n-1 >>>>> > But if I'm wrong, and the Buddha never explicitly said "There is no self," why do you think he did not? Because there IS, or because he didn't want to inculcate anatta as an article of faith, but as something which one comes to directly know as the result of practice? >>>>> This has to be realized by oneself for oneself. Speculation is just that, speculation. Speculation is by the means of 5 aggregates, which cannot properly describe something which isn't part of "The All" (describable). This is one of the reasons why the Buddha hesitated to teach since it was so far away from our common reality. >>> > One thing is clear: The Buddha *did* say that none of the khandhas is self, or has self in it, or i*s something that a self has*. So, there is no self that *has* consciousness, feeling, perception, etc. This is made clear in the Samanupasana Sutta. >>>> This is true. Lots of Metta, Alex #81492 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... TGrand458@... Hi Alex and Howard Maybe these work for you? ....... “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta #115) “All formations are impermanent; all things are not self.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 322, The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka, Culasaccaka Sutta, #35) “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?â€? “It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) TG .................................................................. In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:28:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Alex - In a message dated 1/21/2008 2:30:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _truth_aerator@truth_ae_ (mailto:truth_aerator@...) writes: Actually now I am not 100% sure here. As far as I know He NOWHERE has declared Natthattha (There is absolutely no self). ============================== I can't find the sutta, but I'm sure there is one in which the Buddha says that no aggregate, nor any collection of aggregates, NOR anything outside the aggregates is self. But if I'm wrong, and the Buddha never explicitly said "There is no self," why do you think he did not? Because there IS, or because he didn't want to inculcate anatta as an article of faith, but as something which one comes to directly know as the result of practice? One thing is clear: The Buddha *did* say that none of the khandhas is self, or has self in it, or i*s something that a self has*. So, there is no self that *has* consciousness, feeling, perception, etc. This is made clear in the Samanupasana Sutta. With metta, Howard #81493 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:45 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? dhammanusara Dear Alex (and Howard), - In the last post I contrast opposite dhammas : anatta vs atta, asubhasanna vs subhasanna. Anatta is opposite to atta because 'an' in Pali means 'not'. Ñanamoli Thera: "Etymologically anattaa (adj. or n.) consists of the negative prefix an- plus attaa (cf. Vedic Sanskrit aatman). There are two main Pali forms of the word, namely, attaa (instr. attanaa) and atta (instr. attena)". >Alex: Apparently not exactly. (literally "there is not/no[nattha] +atta'[Soul/self]) , anatta = [is] not soul/self. Asubha = is not beatiful. Not the inherent characteristic of repulsiveness. ................... >Alex: Full bodied determinism is 19th century science - Atomism. >If atomism is the idea that anything might ultimately consist of an aggregation of small units that cannot be sub-divided further, then it might be applied to even the aggregations of society or logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism >This form of anatta of people and objects is found in western science. But this isn't Buddhism!!! T: You're right. I myself have a difficulty relating 'full bodied determinism' to self. ................... > >Tep: Puthujjanas do not "see" ariya dhammas, until they attain samma-ditthi. >>>> >Alex: True. T: It is like a view from the top of a tall mountain is not seen by a person at the ground level. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to > subha- sanna. > >>> > #81494 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi Alex and Howard > Maybe these work for you? ....... > “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view > could treat anything as self â€" there is no such possibility.â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka > Sutta #115) > “All formations are impermanent; all things are not self.â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 322, The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka, > Culasaccaka Sutta, #35) > “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In > what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?â€? > “It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that > it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’â€? > (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) > > > TG > .................................................................. It refers to the "world" of 5 aggregates which ofcourse are Anicca- Dukkha-Anatta, and I agree 100% with that 5 skandhas are anatta. Nibbana for example is not part of these 5 aggregates. Considering the number of similies of Nibbana, including "amata" [AN 4.422] In the first Jhana he dwells. Whatever form there be, feelings, perceptions, impulses, or consciousness, these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Soulless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta) away from these; he gathers his very mind in the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). [MN 1.232] "What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things `this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama!" http://www.attan.com/anatta.html Lots of Metta, Alex #81495 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:06 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear Alex (and Howard), - > > In the last post I contrast opposite dhammas : anatta vs atta, > asubhasanna vs subhasanna. Anatta is opposite to atta because 'an' in > Pali means 'not'. > Not simple means that ABCDEF is not X. This doesn't mean that X doesn't exist. The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: "Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?" "Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact compliments it. Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] "Both formerly and now, I've never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending" Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates. Due to secular propagation, a general acceptance of the concept of "A Doctrine of Anatta" exists as status quo, however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism's denial of soul, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self- Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, "impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)". The only noun in sutra which is referred to as "permanent (nicca)" is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169. In fact the phrase "Doctrine of anatta", or "Anatmavada" is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non- doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. As the saying goes, a "lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth". Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a "Doctrine of anatta" as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is "subject to arising and passing", and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is "my Self, is That which I am", is "not my Soul", of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta. The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436] Atta'sarana anan'n'asarana. "Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge" DN 2.100 "Atta' ca me so saranam gati ca". -"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" Jatakapali 1441 Akkhakandam "Soul the refuge (Saran.am.attano)" DN 2.120 Jataka-2 #1341 "tattha atta' va sarathi". "the Soul is Charioteer" http://www.attan.com/anatta.html Lots of Metta, Alex #81496 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? dhammanusara Hi Howard, - Thank you for the timely response. > T: > There seems to be a misunderstanding ! I cannot figure out where in my reply (below) you've found contradicting to 'sabbe dhamma anatta'. > > > Tep: Anatta is opposite to atta as asubha-sanna is opposite to subha-sanna. Anatta and asubha-sanna characterize the ariyans, while atta and subha-sanna are the puthujjana-dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Here you speak of puthujjana-dhammas, supposedly existing and being atta. But there are no puthujjana-dhammas - just dhammas, and they are anatta, though worldlings don't recognize them as such. > ------------------------------------------------------------ T: I see. Conventionally speaking, the email you write is Howard's email. Similarly, atta and subha-nimitta in the five khandhas as seen by puthujjanas can be called "puthujjana-dhammas", even though nobody owns them. Seeing atta in the khandhas is a ditthi/view of puthujjanas; but the worldlings cannot make the khandhas not anatta. ............ > > Howard: > > All dhammas are anatta. Worldlings don't fully realize them as such, though there can be an increasing recognition as progress > occurs. Ariyans have increasing direct insight into the empty nature of dhammas and persons, with arahants seeing this perfectly. > > ============================ T: I cannot agree more. Tep === #81497 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? ... Atta & Anatta ... dhammanusara Hi Alex, - Let's start with atta that means self. The literal meaning of 'an' is 'not', so 'an' + 'atta' simply means 'not self' or 'non-self'. Now if you prefer 'soul' or 'atman' over 'self', a few other meanings of 'atta' will be lost. For example, 'attabhaava', 'attaanuvaada', 'attakilamathaanuyoga', 'attadi ipa', 'attapa.tilabha' and 'attamano' cannot be explained by 'soul'. Are you familiar with Ñanamoli Thera's "Anattaa According to the Theravaada" ? As principal Tipi.taka (and Commentary) uses of the very commonly employed attaa and atta the following five types of examples may be cited : as "one-self" in the more or less colloquial sense: e.g., attaa hi atatno naatho (Dh. XII, 4/v. 160), attanaa va kata"m paapa"m (Dh. XII, 5/v. 161), attaanu"m na dade poso (S. I, 78/vol. i, 44), aha"m... parisuddhakaayakammantata"m attani samanupassamaano (M. 4/vol. i, 17), attahitaaya pa.tipanno no parahitaaya (A. IV, 95/vol. ii, 95), n'ev'ajjhagaa piyatara"m attanaa kvaci, evam piyo puthu attaa paresa"m (S. III, 8/vol. i, 75) yam hi appiyo appiyassa kareyya ta"m te attana'va attano karonti (S. III, 4/vol. i, 72-2), pahitatta (M. 4/vol. i, 22), attaanuvaada (A. IV, 121/ vol. ii, 121), attakilamathaanuyoga (S. LVI, 11/vol. v, 421), attadiipa (D. 16/vol. ii, 100), attaanam gaveseyyaatha (Vin. Mv, Kh. 1), etc.; as "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body): attapa.tilabha (D. 9/vol. i, 195), attabhaava (A. III, 125/vol. i, 279; D. 33/vol. iii, 231; Dhs. 597); appaatumo and mahattaa (A. III, 99/vol. i, 249), brahmabhutena attanaa viharati (M. 51/vol. i, 349), paccatta"m ajjhatta"m (M. 28/vol. i, 185; for four kinds of ajjhatta see DhsA. 46); self as a "subtle metaphysical entity" (always repudiated as unidentifiable and undiscoverable): atthi me attaa (M. 2/vol. i, 8), ruupa"m attato samanupassati (M. 44/vol. i, 300), attaanudi.t.thi (D. 15/vol. ii, 22), attavaadupaadaana (M. 11/vol. i, 66), su~n~nam idam attena vaa attaniyena vaa (M. 106/ vol. ii, 263), rupam bhikkhave anattaa (S. XXII, 59/vol. iii, 66), etc.; enclitic -atta in the sense of "-ness": socitattam (D. 22/vol. ii, 306); confusion with atta as pp. of odaadati and niratta as pp. of nirassati: attamano (M. 2/vol. i, 12) explained as sakamano (DA, i, 155), attam nirattam (Sn. vv. 787, 858, 919, and 1098 commented on as a pun at Mahaaniddesa pp. 82 = 248 = 352 and by Paramatthajotikaa (Hewavitarne ed.) pp. 422, 476). Attaa The first two senses of attaa distinguished above may be assumed to have been ordinary usage and no subject of disagreement between the Buddha and his opponents (se D. 9, cited below). The last two are of minor import and need not concern us beyond noting them. The characteristic of Not-self (anatta-lakkha.na) deals with the third, the unidentifiable entity that is conceived and sought and made the subject of a certain class of views, namely, self-views (attaanudi.t.thi). Many suttas classify the conflicting notions of the nature of self held by opponents of the Buddha. It could be, and apparently was, for instance, claimed that it had materiality, or was immaterial; or both, or neither; was percipient of oneness, or of plurality, or of the limited or of the measureless; was eternal, or uneternal, or both, or neither; had only pleasure, or only pain, or both or neither; each of these theories being maintained by its propounder as "the only truth and all else wrong" (M. 102, etc.). Or else it could be described as having materiality either limited or infinite, or as immaterial and either limited or infinite. And then whichever of these four is adopted, it may be seen as such now, or due to be such (upon rebirth), or in this way "Though it is not yet real, still I shall contrive for its reality" (D. 15/vol. ii. 64). All these rationalized views (di.t.thi) stem from uncritical acceptance or overlooking of an underlying tendency (anusaya), or fetter (sa"myo jana) — a natural predisposition — to regard, to identify, some aspect or other, in the situation of perceiving a percept, as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" (e.g. M. 22). These two levels — the self-view and the I-sense — are respectively what are called the "(lower or immediate) fetter of views" (di.t.thi- sa"myo jana) and the "(higher or remoter) fetter of conceit" (maana- sa"myo jana). The first is abandoned with the attainment of the first stage of realization (the path of stream-entry) while the second is abandoned only with the fourth and final stage (the path of arahantship: see D. 33). It may be noted here in parenthesis that the rendering of maana by "pride," though not wrong, severs the semantic relationship with ma~n~nati and ma~n~nanaa, which it is most important to preserve intact for the understanding of this situation. The overlooked fundamental conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) — a mirage that, in the act of perceiving, is conceived will fulfil its counterpart, the intuitive sense of lack, which is craving — in the basic ontological structure of ordinary perception provokes the ordinary man with no knowledge of the Buddha's teaching to indulge in uncritical speculation about what this may be that "I am," and consequently to build up self-theories. He perceives (sa~njaanaati): but the very act of his perceiving is tendentious so that he simultaneously conceives (ma~n~nati) his percepts with an I-tendency. But a stream-enterer, who has attained the first stage of realization, has direct acquaintance (abhijanaati) where the ordinary man has perception, owing to which fact the former has the possibility of hastening his attainment of arahatship; and an arahant has no more conceivings (ma~n~nanaa) at all. So long as a man leaves intact this fundamental tendency to conceive in the very act of perceiving, accompanied by the tendency to formulate views, he will look for answers to the questions that these two tendencies together prompt him to ask, and he will invent them and try to prove them: "This is how he gives unreasoned attention (ayoniso- manasikaara): '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 doubtful in himself about the presently arisen extent thus: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Whence will this creature have come? Whither will it be bound?' "When he gives unreasoned attention in this way one of the six kinds of view arises in him: the view 'A self exists for me' arises as true and established, or the view 'No self exists for me'... or the view 'I perceive self with self'... or the view 'I perceive not-self with self'... or the view 'I perceive self with not-self" arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as 'It is this my self that speaks and feels and that experiences here and there the ripening of good and bad actions; but this my self is permanent, ever lasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' This field of views is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. No untaught ordinary man bound by the fetter of views is freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair: he is not freed from suffering, I say." — M. 2/vol. i, 8 In assuming that "I was" etc. cannot be analyzed, all these philosophical systems attempt to settle with unilateral certainty the dialectic questions "what was I?" and the rest and to dispose of them on an inadequate ontological basis of self-identity without querying how the questions come to be put in the first place or what is the structural nature of being. But any one answer, "I am this" cannot as it happens be decisively established over its contrary opposite, though it can be fortified by arguments, more or less logical or emotional, introducing "my self" and defining relations between it and what it is considered not to be, endowing it then with certain qualities and values and with either eternal or temporary permanence according to bent. The impossibility of establishing absolutely any one of these views as the only truth may lead to abuse and even to violence in the end, since it is often thought important to be right. The pre-rational conceit "I am" (asmi-maana) is a "fetter but not a view" (Ps. Di.t.thikathaa/vol. i, 143). To perceive is to recognize and identify (see Vis. Ch. XIV/p. 462). In perceiving a percept the "untaught ordinary man" automatically conceives in the positional terms of "I," which then must seem involved in an I-relationship to the percept: either as identical with it, or as contained in it or as separate from it, or owning it as "mine." That relationship so conceived is relished (favored and approved) through want of full knowledge of the situation (M. 1; cf. M. 49). The rational self-view (attaanudi.t.thi) is both a "fetter and a view." Though the conceit "I am" is normally associated with the tendency to formulate views, these views need not by any means be definitely formulated; but whenever they are, none can be specifically described without reference to the five categories affected by clinging (upaadanakkhandha: see S. XXII, 47 cited below). For that reason they can all be reduced to one of the types of what is called the "embodiment view" (sakkaya-di.tthi, from sat (or sa"m) plus kaaya = "true (or existent) body") which is set up schematically as follows: "The untaught ordinary man who disregards the ariyas... sees materiality (ruupa) as self, or self as possessed of materiality, or materiality in self, or self in materiality. [And likewise with feeling (vedanaa), perception (sa~n~naa), formations (sankhaaraa), and consciousness (vi~n~naana]" (M. 44/vol. i, 300). These four self-identifications embracing the five categories make twenty types. For each of the four basic modes of identifying, the Pa.tisambhidaamagga gives a simile as follows: "How does he see (say, materiality) as self?... Just as if a man saw a lighted lamp's flame and color as identical thus 'What the flame is, that the color is; what the color is that the flame is'... How does he see self as possessed of (say, materiality)?... Just as if there were a tree possessed of shade such that a man might say 'This is the tree, this is the shade; the tree is one, the shade another; but this tree is possessed of this shade in virtue of this shade'... How does he see (say, materiality) in self?... Just as if there were a scented flower such that a man might say 'This is the flower, this is the scent; the flower is one, the scent another; but the scent is in this flower'... How does he see self in (say, materiality)?... Just as if a gem were placed in a casket such that a man might say 'This is the gem, this is the casket; the gem is one, the casket another; but this gem is in this casket.'" — Ps. Di.t.thikathaa/vol. i, 144-5 Self so viewed is then taken either as eternal thus "This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, ever-lasting..." (M. 22 cited below) or as temporarily permanent but eventually annihilated, for instance; thus "As soon as this self is annihilated... that is peace..." (Iti, II. ii, 12). All possible views of whatever shade are again classified under sixty-two types in the first Sutta of the Diigha-Nikaaya called Brahmajaala Sutta or the "Divine Net." In this "net" all possible views are "caught" and so it can be seen how they come to be. Now all these views — and all these standpoints for views (di.t.thi.t.thana) — are formed (or conditioned; sankhata) because "it is impossible that anyone shall experience (them) apart from contact (phassa)... and with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving (ta.nhaa); with craving as condition, clinging (upaadaana); with clinging as condition, being (bhava); with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition aging and death come to be, and also sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair; that is how there is an origin to this whole aggregate-mass of suffering" (D. 1/vol. i, 43-5). The structure of the conceit "I am" and the views to which it gives rise, is, in fact nothing else than the structure of being, the structure of what is "impermanent, formed, and dependently originated." "A Tathaagata understands that thus '(These views) are formed and (consequently) gross; but there is cessation of formations: there is that.' By knowing and seeing the escape from them a Tathaagata transcends them (tad upaativatto)" (M. 102/vol. ii, 229-30). The Buddha explains how he uses the word attaa (self) in the second sense, namely, the "person" or "individual" noted above: "There are these three kinds of acquisition of self (atta- patilaabha): gross, constituted of mind, and immaterial... The first has materiality and consists of the four great entities (elements of earth, water, fire, and air), and consumes physical food; the second is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty; the third consists of perception... I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding's perfection... If it is thought that to do that is an unpleasant abiding, that is not so: on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness and a pleasant (blissful) abiding... These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions by which a Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending them." — D. 9/vol. i, 195-202 abbr. It is only after this sketch of views that we can treat of the doctrine of not-self (for views in general see especially D. 1 and 2; M. 102; Di.t.thi-Sa"myutta; Ps. Di.t.thikathaa; and Vbh.) Definitions of Anattaa The first discourse given by the Buddha after his Enlightenment set out the Four Noble Truths. The second stated the characteristic of Not-self as follows: "Bhikkhus, materiality is not self. Were materiality self, then this materiality would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of materiality 'Let my materiality be thus, let my materiality be not thus.' And it is because materiality is not self that materiality leads to affliction and one cannot have it of materiality 'Let my materiality be thus, let my materiality be not thus' (And similarly with feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness)." The Buddha then continued: "How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, is materiality permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent pleasure or pain?" — "Pain, Lord." — "Is what is impermanent, painful and subject to change fit to be seen thus 'This is mine, this is what I am, this is my self'?" — "No, Lord." (And similarly with the other four categories.) "Consequently, bhikkhus, any kind of materiality (feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, is all (to be seen thus) 'This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self.' That is how it should be seen with right understanding as it actually is." — S. XXII, 58/vol. iii, 66 The characteristic is stated more succinctly in this way: "The eye (ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and six external bases) is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is not self" (S. XXXV, 1/vol. iv, 1); or "All is not-self. And what is the all that is not self? The eye is not self..." (S. XXXV, 45/vol. iv, 28); or again "All things (dhamma) are not-self" (e.g. Dh. XX, 7/v. 279). The canonical commentary, the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, adds "Materiality (etc.) is not-self in the sense that it has no core (saara)" (Ps. ~Naanakathaa/vol. i, 37). Aacariya Buddhagohosa's definitions are as follows: "The characteristics of impermanence and suffering are known whether Buddhas arise or not; but that of not-self is not known unless there is a Buddha;... for the knowledge of it is the province of none but a Buddha" (Aayatana Vibhanga A./VbhA. 49-50). "The Blessed One in some instances shows not-self-ness through impermanence (as in M. 148 cited below), in some through suffering (as in S. XXII, 59 cited above), and in some through both (as in S. XXII, 76 or XXXV, 1 cited above). Why is that? While impermanence and suffering are both evident, not-self is unevident" (MA. ad M. 22/vol. ii, 113); for "the characteristic of not-self seems unevident, obscure, arcane, impenetrable, hard to illustrate and hard to describe" (VbhA, 49). He distinguishes "the not-self and the characteristic of not-self... Those same five categories (which are impermanent and suffering) are not-self because of the words 'What is suffering is not self.' Why? Because there is no exercising mastery over them. The mode of insusceptibility to the exercise of mastery (avasavattana) is the characteristic of not-self" (Vis. Ch. XXI/p. 640). Again "(The eye) is not-self in the sense of insusceptibility to the exercise of mastery over it. Or alternatively, because there is no exercising of mastery over it in the following three instances, namely, 'Let it when arisen not reach presence' or 'Let it when already reached presence not age' or 'Let it when already reached aging not dissolve'; it is void of that mode of exercise of mastery, therefore it is not-self for four reasons: because it is void, because it has no owner, because it cannot be done with as one wants, and because it denies self" (VbhA. 48; cf. MA. ii, 113). The Vibhaavini-Tiikaa (commentary to the Abhidhammattha-sangaha) says "Not-self is the absence (abhaava) of self as conjectured by other teachers; that not- self as a characteristic is the characteristic of not-self." [end quote]. ............. Any thought? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Alex (and Howard), - > > > > In the last post I contrast opposite dhammas : anatta vs atta, > > asubhasanna vs subhasanna. Anatta is opposite to atta because 'an' > in > > Pali means 'not'. > > > > Not simple means that ABCDEF is not X. This doesn't mean that X > doesn't exist. > > #81498 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... TGrand458@... Hi Alex (and Howard) In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:56:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi TG, --- In _dhammastudygroup@dhammastudygdha_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , TGrand458@.., TG > Hi Alex and Howard > Maybe these work for you? ....... > “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view > could treat anything as self â€" there is no such possibility.â€Â? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka > Sutta #115) > “All formations are impermanent; all things are not self.â€Â? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 322, The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka, > Culasaccaka Sutta, #35) > “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In > what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?â€Â? > “It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that > it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’â€Â? > (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) > > > TG > ............ .... .... .... .... .... .... It refers to the "world" of 5 aggregates which ofcourse are Anicca- Dukkha-Anatta, and I agree 100% with that 5 skandhas are anatta. ............................................................. NEW TG: How do you come to the conclusion that the above statements are referring to the 5 Aggregates only? Considering this quote -- "All formations are impermanent; all things are not self" -- Most commentators I've read believe that the reason there is a differentiation between "all formations" and "all things" was to say that "non-self" includes everything ... including Nibbana. Regarding this quote -- "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self" -- How do you determine that this refers only to the 5 Aggregates? The obvious reading, in my view, would indicate it refers to all possible things. .............................................................. Nibbana for example is not part of these 5 aggregates. Considering the number of similies of Nibbana, including "amata" [AN 4.422] In the first Jhana he dwells. Whatever form there be, feelings, perceptions, impulses, or consciousness, these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññ#241;ato), as Soulless (anattato). So he turns his mind (ci from these; he gathers his very mind in the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). [MN 1.232] "What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things `this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama!" _http://www.attan.http://www.http_ (http://www.attan.com/anatta.html) ................................................................. NEW TG: Maybe I misunderstood the topic of this piece. These two quotes seem irrelevant to the subject of non-self being limited to the 5 Aggregates of an "individual." TG .................................................................. Lots of Metta, Alex #81499 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... TGrand458@... Hi Alex and Howard Another appropriate quote I think along the lines of one I already posted but a little more detailed........ “Whether Tathagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent … that all formations are subject to suffering … that all things are non-self. A Tathagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrating it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self.â€? (The Buddha . . . Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 77) TG #81500 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:21 pm Subject: Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex (and Howard) > > > In a message dated 1/21/2008 1:56:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hi TG, > > --- In _dhammastudygroup@dhammastudygdha_ > (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , TGrand458@, TG > > Hi Alex and Howard > > Maybe these work for you? ....... > > â€Å"It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing > right view > > could treat anything as self â€" there is no such possibility.â€Â? > > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, > Bahudhatuka > > Sutta #115) > > â€Å"All formations are impermanent; all things are not self.â€Â? > > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 322, The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka, > > Culasaccaka Sutta, #35) > > â€Å"Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the > world.’ In > > what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?â€Â? > > â€Å"It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs > to self that > > it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’â€Â? > > (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) > > > > > > TG > > ............ .... .... .... .... .... .... > > It refers to the "world" of 5 aggregates which ofcourse are Anicca- > Dukkha-Anatta, and I agree 100% with that 5 skandhas are anatta. > > ............................................................. > > > NEW TG: How do you come to the conclusion that the above statements are referring to the 5 Aggregates only? Considering this quote -- "All formations are impermanent; all things are not self" >>> The Sabba Sutta SN 4.15 Sabbasuttam. At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, I will teach you on sabba (`the `all')! Pray listen closely. And what, bhikkhus, is sabba? The eye and its corresponding forms, the ear and its corresponding sounds, the nose and its corresponding smells, the tongue and its corresponding tastes, the body and its corresponding sensations, the intellect and its corresponding dhamma. This, O' bhikkhus, is c'all'ed sabba. Whosoever, bhikkhus, should proclaim thusly: "Having abandoned these `the `all' (sabba), I sh'all' manifest different set of `the `all' (sabba)"-that surely would be only mere (foolish) presumption on his part. If he were questioned on this matter he would only reap his own vexation. How so? It would be utterly outside his abilities to talk about this. -- 5 aggregates are the world and everything that we can describe. >>> -- Most commentators I've read believe that the reason there is a differentiation between "all formations" and > "all things" was to say that "non-self" includes everything ... including Nibbana. >>> You have answered yourself by mentioning "Commentators". --- The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other "All's" in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha's omniscience (literally, All- knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation. Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html#t-1 Okay the last paragraph is good. I wonder how the guys who preach Buddha taught "atta" would interpret the above last paragraph of TB's writing. Maybe that this is the "undiffirentiated inner core" that remains which is indescribable, but it isn't cold/blank nothingness (which is differentiation). It is interesting that except for the "control" part, Nibbana shares many qualities with the so called "Self/Soul/Atman" that is constant & ultimate happiness. It is interesting that Hindu sage Adi Shankara who taught unity of Atman & Brahman was accused of being a disguised Buddhist. This seems very strange as the two systems *appear* to be cardinally different on Atman - or were they? > > > Regarding this quote -- "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self" -- How do you determine that this refers only to the 5 Aggregates? The obvious reading, in my view, would indicate it refers to all possible things. >>>> I wonder what is the word translated as "anything" ? Dhamma? If Nibbana is above "Dhamma", then the above quote doesn't apply to it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > Nibbana for example is not part of these 5 aggregates. Considering > the number of similies of Nibbana, including "amata" > > [AN 4.422] In the first Jhana he dwells. Whatever form there be, > feelings, perceptions, impulses, or consciousness, these he sees to > be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a > sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty > (suññ#241;ato), as Soulless (anattato). So he turns his mind > (ci > from these; he gathers his very mind in the realm of Immortality > (amataya dhatuya). > > [MN 1.232] "What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? > Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or > blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent > and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare > of such things `this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? > Indeed not Gotama!" > _http://www.attan.http://www.http_ (http://www.attan.com/anatta.html) > > ................................................................. > > > NEW TG: Maybe I misunderstood the topic of this piece. These two quotes > seem irrelevant to the subject of non-self being limited to the 5 Aggregates of > an "individual." > > > TG >>>> It is not. What "amataya dhatuya" is that "citta" turns to? Obviously it cannot be anicca. Lots of Metta, Alex #81501 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex and Howard > > “Whether Tathagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a > firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent … > that all formations are subject to suffering … that all things are > non-self. > A Tathagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully > awakened to it and penetrating it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, > presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are > impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things > are non-self.â€? > (The Buddha . . . Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 77) > TG > Nibbana is not impermanent or suffering. It is not a Dhamma --- TB--- there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html#t-1 Lots of Metta, Alex #81502 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:27:48 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Nibbana is not impermanent or suffering. It is not a Dhamma ........................................................................ Hi Alex Since in my view, Nibbana means extinction as in -- a fire that has gone out -- then it is only "nonself" due to the fact it is a non-thing. Therefore, "Nonself" applies to Nibbana IMO, but is superfluous. A "non-thing" is certainly not a self. Therefore, the saying that -- "all things are not self" -- simply covers every possible thing or non-thing...i.e., every possible contingency. Its a comprehensive outlook with no alternative. TG #81503 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > Since in my view, Nibbana means extinction as in -- a fire that has gone out > -- then it is only "nonself" due to the fact it is a non-thing. Therefore, > "Nonself" applies to Nibbana IMO, but is superfluous. A "non- thing" is certainly not a self. Therefore, the saying that -- "all things are not self" -- simply covers every possible thing or non- thing...i.e., every possible contingency. Its a comprehensive outlook with no alternative. > > > TG > Nothingness is a perception, so is "non-thing". What you say, how is different from "base of nothingess" or higher? Kotthita sutta is interesting. Nibbana isn't a blank nothing (nor is it something, both or neither). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html Lots of Metta, Alex #81504 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:42:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I can't find the sutta, but I'm sure there is one in which the Buddha says that no aggregate, nor any collection of aggregates, NOR anything outside the aggregates is self. >>> Is it the "sabba suttam" . The all? "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html Notice the last sentence. "Because it lies beyond range". --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, that's not what I had in mind. What I have in mind is even more explicit. It is completely clear as to there being no self anywhere. As for "another all," in other suttas, for example MN 49, the Buddha does speak of "consciousness unmanifestive" as being beyond the allness of the all. But I personally think that vi~n~nanam anidassanam (sp?) refers to nibbana, and it lies "beyond the allness of the all" only in the sense that it is "the all" as it *really is*, in its "seamless majesty," rather than as "the dust of the world" from the perspective of samsara, the "appearance realm of separate things." [That last phrase is my own take on samsara.] As an aside: The denying of something strictly outside of the allness of the all because "it lies beyond range" is, as I see, a case of the Buddha's radical, pragmatic phenomenalism. ---------------------------------------------------------- Of course nothing of 5 aggretes is Atta, Nicca, Sukha. But outside of them we cannot describe anything since it is outside of linguistic abilities. Just because we cannot describe something, it doesn't mean non-existence. -- TB-- "Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think it is outside the all, for the Buddha is quite explicit in the Sabba Sutta in denying that there is any other all. As I see it, samsara is the all misperceived, and nibbana is the all as it is. This is what I presume Nagarjuna meant in his hard-to-understand identifying of samsara and nibbana. In any case, nibbana is not a self, at least certainly not a personal self, for there is nothing personal about it. Moreover, it is not an agent of any sort, and though it is not impermanent, it is also not permanent, for no condition at all holds of it. It is beyond all conditions including time. ------------------------------------------------------- This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html#n-1 >>>>> > But if I'm wrong, and the Buddha never explicitly said "There is no self," why do you think he did not? Because there IS, or because he didn't want to inculcate anatta as an article of faith, but as something which one comes to directly know as the result of practice? >>>>> This has to be realized by oneself for oneself. Speculation is just that, speculation. Speculation is by the means of 5 aggregates, which cannot properly describe something which isn't part of "The All" (describable). This is one of the reasons why the Buddha hesitated to teach since it was so far away from our common reality. >>> > One thing is clear: The Buddha *did* say that none of the khandhas is self, or has self in it, or i*s something that a self has*. So, there is no self that *has* consciousness, feeling, perception, etc. This is made clear in the Samanupasana Sutta. >>>> This is true. Lots of Metta, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard #81505 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Alex) - In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:43:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Alex and Howard Maybe these work for you? ....... “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta #115) “All formations are impermanent; all things are not self.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 322, The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka, Culasaccaka Sutta, #35) “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?â€? “It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) TG ============================== TG, these ALL work for me! They are excellent!! Thanks!!! With metta, Howard #81506 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 1/21/2008 4:08:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: > > Howard: > > All dhammas are anatta. Worldlings don't fully realize them as such, though there can be an increasing recognition as progress > occurs. Ariyans have increasing direct insight into the empty nature of dhammas and persons, with arahants seeing this perfectly. > > ============================ T: I cannot agree more. ==================================== Excellent! :-) With metta, Howard #81507 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > Howard: > No, that's not what I had in mind. What I have in mind is even more > explicit. It is completely clear as to there being no self anywhere. >>> By anywhere do you mean "spatial" place? Now it is definately true that "self" and "non self" require space and time to exist in order for there to be differentiation. But Nibbana is beyond that. > As for "another all," in other suttas, for example MN 49, the Buddha > does speak of "consciousness unmanifestive" as being beyond the allness of the > all. But I personally think that vi~n~nanam anidassanam (sp?) refers to > nibbana, and it lies "beyond the allness of the all" only in the sense that it is > "the all" as it *really is*, in its "seamless majesty," rather than as "the > dust of the world" from the perspective of samsara, the "appearance realm of > separate things." [That last phrase is my own take on samsara.] > As an aside: The denying of something strictly outside of the allness of > the all because "it lies beyond range" is, as I see, a case of the Buddha's > radical, pragmatic phenomenalism. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't think it is outside the all, for the Buddha is quite explicit in > the Sabba Sutta in denying that there is any other all. >>> Except for non-differentiated Nibbana. >>> Moreover, it is not an agent of any sort, and though it is not impermanent, >>>>> True. >>> it is also not permanent, for no condition at all holds of it. It is beyond all conditions including time. >>>> It is unconditioned, thus it is timeless & blissful. "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible. "These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. "Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible. "These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.047.than.html [Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication.1 The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html Lots of Metta, Alex #81508 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 232 and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Nina: "The Tiika to Ch XIV, 125 (the khandha of feeling) explains that feeling experiences the flavour of the object." Larry: Does the quality of being undesirable, moderately desirable, or very desirable play a role here? For example something could be soft but elicit pleasant or unpleasant feeling depending on whether it was perceived as desirable or not. [see CMA p. 172 for background on the "desirable" quality] Larry #81509 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: <. . .> > > 1) There are plenty of suttas that show that the path involves a lot > of "doing". > > -by seeing, (4NT, ideas that lead do dropping of sensuality, > becoming, ignorance ) > > ·by restraining, (the 6 sense-faculties) > > ·by using, (robe, alms food, lodging, medicinal requisites- properly) > > ·by tolerating, (cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, > mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & > bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, > piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. ) > > ·by avoiding, (wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, > a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an > open sewer ) > > ·by destroying, (thought of sensuality, ill will, cruelty, evil, > unskillful mental qualities) > > ·by developing. (mindfulness, analysis of qualities, persistence, > rapture, serenity, concentration, equanimity) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > > Hi Alex, At DSG there is occasionally someone (usually a follower of B. Thanissaro) who tells us, "Of course there is a self! If there were no self who would receive the fruits of kamma? Who would attain enlightenment? (etc etc)" They then explain that anatta is not a fact but just a strategy. As "proof" that the Buddha believed in a self, these people point to where the suttas use the words man, woman, child, bhikkhu, my self, your self, his self . . . etc. I know you don't go so far as to say there is a self, but aren't you employing the same sort of logic as these other people? Aren't you saying, "Look, the Buddha used the words, "by seeing" therefore he must have meant the conventional activity known as seeing (or looking). He used the words, "by restraining," therefore he must have meant restraining in the conventional sense . . etc." I keep asking you, Alex, to learn about the momentary world of namas and rupas. In this world there are no people, no places and no 'things to do.' Only in this world can we see what the Buddha actually taught. Ken H #81510 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > > <. . .> > > > > > 1) There are plenty of suttas that show that the path involves a > lot > > of "doing". > > > > -by seeing, (4NT, ideas that lead do dropping of sensuality, > > becoming, ignorance ) > > > > ·by restraining, (the 6 sense-faculties) > > > > ·by using, (robe, alms food, lodging, medicinal requisites- > properly) > > > > ·by tolerating, (cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, > > mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & > > bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, > > piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. ) > > > > ·by avoiding, (wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild > dog, > > a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an > > open sewer ) > > > > ·by destroying, (thought of sensuality, ill will, cruelty, evil, > > unskillful mental qualities) > > > > ·by developing. (mindfulness, analysis of qualities, persistence, > > rapture, serenity, concentration, equanimity) > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > > > > > Hi Alex, > > At DSG there is occasionally someone (usually a follower of B. > Thanissaro) who tells us, "Of course there is a self! If there were > no self who would receive the fruits of kamma? Who would attain > enlightenment? (etc etc)" They then explain that anatta is not a fact but just a strategy. > Don't change the topic. Please answer the above. The fact is the path have to be developed. There are things to be done. Ultimately what matter is Stress, and its Cessation. While 5 aggreates are not self, and it is not possible to describe or delianate anything outside of them (and Nibbana is without differentiation)- the fact is that there IS something specific to be done! The suttas are clear, and ultimately this what matters - Stress & its cessation. Lots of Metta, Alex #81511 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Howard, This is a very deep issue and I hope that my trite post didn't irritate you. I do, however, get very weary of discussing it at times. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And what exactly *is* that? Didn't the Buddha give the chariot example > for a reason? Are you saying that the Puggalavadins were right? > ------------------------------------------------------- James: The Buddha didn't give the chariot example to explain anatta. That was spoken by a nun to argue with Mara- and I think it is often misinterpreted. Human beings exist, just as chariots exist (or existed- I've seen Ben Hur enough times to know that chariots existed and what they looked like ;-)). But, how we view that human being and how we view that chariot is different depending on one's wisdom. As Mara asked the nun: Who made this human being? Who is this human being's maker? Who is the human being? Who is the human being that ceases? Mara was expressing atta-view: That a human being is created by something, that it is a permanent something, and that it is something that ends. The nun tells Mara that no such human being exists. However, she didn't say that human beings don't exist at all! That would be illogical as we know that they do. > > Choices are made by a > conglomeration of the five khandas known as a human being. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, a specific sort of dynamic aggregation of conditioned dhammas is > called "a human being," and we *speak* of a human being acting. That's common - > we all speak that way. But to see further, and clearly, is important, isn't > it? James: See further and clearly in what way? We don't engage in Dhamma study, meditating, staying mindful, and > guarding the senses just to think and speak of people acting. James: We do those things to transcend clinging. It doesn't really matter how we speak. Nothing is required to > do that. It's the norm. James: Speaking of reality is weird ways isn't anything special. Philosophers have been doing that for centuries. The Buddha's teaching is pragmatic, not just philosophy. It doesn't matter how we speak; it matters how we purify our minds. Metta, James #81512 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: >> > 2nd) Meditation should be done in ALL postures. Sitting posture is > generally the ideal one as it allows one to slow down and see mind > states one by one as they occur. > > ==== Dear Alex do you have the reference where it says mind states can be slowed down by doing sitting meditation? robert #81513 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:50:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Nothingness is a perception, so is "non-thing". What you say, how is different from "base of nothingess" or higher? Kotthita sutta is interesting. Nibbana isn't a blank nothing (nor is it something, both or neither). _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html) Lots of Metta, Alex ......................................................... Hi Alex The base of nothingness, as I understand it, is a perception of nothing. It isn't actually a "no-thing." The way I described Nibbana is straight from the Suttas and the literal meaning of the term Nibbana. Those holding to the idea the Nibbana is a "something" I think are grasping at straws ... so to speak. If one considers "the end of suffering" or "the ceasing of perception, feeling, and consciousness" as a something, then OK ... but I don't get it. TG #81514 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:04 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet Hi Howard and James (futher down) and all > > I wrote: > > > the choices are made by > > impersonal dhammas. > > This doesn't sound quite right, but it'll do. Closer to the truth > than saying there is free will, that we make the choices, I think. > > ================================= > How about "The choosing does occur, but it is an aggregation of > conditioned, impersonal phenomena, and there is no choice-maker, no chooser." ? Better, Howard, thanks. And I would add to this. "There is, however, a very helpful illusion of a choice-maker, and this illusion of a choice-maker is appealed to by the Buddha at one level, even as he appeals to deeper understanding of no-choice-maker at another level." I say this because there are many suttas where the Buddha, for just one of many examples of suttas in which a sense of self is appealed to, says something like "this path (indulging in sense pleasures) is a path for inferior people, it is not for superior people, it is not a path for me." The Buddha does at times appeal to one's ego, one's sense of self that is working to lift itself out of the mire. Meanwhile, the deeper teacher is always there - we have to grow into it very gradually as the film of ignorance is ever so gradually removed from our lenses, so to speak. James, I also appreciate your perspective. I guess you would be defined as a pugiliwatchmacallit or whatever it is the folks who believed that the person exists in reality were called! That's fine. I do think a lot about a quotation you mentionned, that F.Scott Fitzgerald one about the true man of genius is he who can deal with two apparently conflicting ideas and find truth in both of them, something like that. I was trying to find it in a book of aphorisms but couldn't. What was it exactly, and what context did you mention it here at DSG? I think it is relevant. We can develop through practices in which taking care of, being intersted in people is essential, and at the same time not believe that people exist in reality, something like that. BTW, while I was looking for the Fitzgerald quote, I found this from Bertrand Russel: "A drop of water is not immortal; it can be resolved ito oxygen and hydrogen. If, therefore, a drop of water were to maintain that it had a quality of aqueousness which would survive its dissolution we should be inclined to be skeptical." (Doesn't that "aqeuousness" sound postively Howard-esque? :) On the other hand, this from D.H Lawrence. "Water is H2O, hydrogen two parts, oxygen one, but there is also a third thing, that makes it water and nobody knows what that is." Metta, Phil #81515 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:04 pm Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. truth_aerator Dear RobertK, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > >> > > 2nd) Meditation should be done in ALL postures. Sitting posture is > > generally the ideal one as it allows one to slow down and see mind > > states one by one as they occur. > > > > ==== > Dear Alex > do you have the reference where it says mind states can be slowed down > by doing sitting meditation? > robert > Abandoning the Hindrances "Endowed with this noble aggregate of virtue, this noble restraint over the sense faculties, this noble mindfulness and alertness, and this noble contentment, he seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore. "Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html There are MANY other cases. This is just an example. But this should be done in ALL postures too. It is not very helpful to develop the mind only when you are sitting. You should have sense restraint, mindfulness, etc as often as possible. Lots of Metta, Alex #81516 From: "shennieca" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:22 pm Subject: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) shennieca Hi Howard, all, Believing in no-freewill make me feel less guilty when I do unwholesome things. The easiest way out has always been to blame it others and not on `ourselves'. Do Buddhists always blame their circumstances on `bad conditions'? I don't think so. I think we are responsible for some of the conditions that happen to us. ------------------- Howard: It's never quite clear to me what folks mean by "free will". What *can* that mean? A willing that occurs without condition, arising randomly? Elaine: I think we have the ability to make the conditions favorable for good things / bad things to happen, which means that we play an active role in influencing these conditions. But if you believe that conditions are beyond our control, and it is governing all aspects of our lives, then there is definitely no freewill. -------------- Howard: Would that not make such willing an asankhata dhamma different from nibbana, the supposedly unique asankhata dhamma? Also, is the willing of something that arises due to desire "free"? Is not the desire a condition for the willing? And does not the desire arise due to causes & conditions? Elaine: Desires arise when we see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think. Desires don't come from no-where. Imo, we can make an effort to arouse wholesome desires and remove unwholesome desires, but this requires strong will-power. ---------------- Howard: Finally, if in fact "free" will is truly unconditioned, random, and based on nothing (including desire), what is it that would make such a will desirable? Why should we care for it? Elaine: We have to care, because I think `we' can make wholesome or unwholesome choices. If you think there is no `we', then maybe our understanding of anatta is different. To me, anatta does not mean that we are exclusively subjected to conditions, which we have no control over. I think, we can control come of these conditions (it's just my opinion). ---------------- Howard: What is clear to me is that choosing among alternatives occurs, it most often does so on the basis of desire, though sometimes on the basis of both desire and reasoning. So, choosing among alternatives for a course of action is real but dependent on conditions. Whether such will is called "free" or not is in the eye (or, better, the mind) of the beholder. Elaine: Yes, it is in the eye of the beholder. It makes me feel less guilty if I believe in No-freewill because if I do something bad, it wasn't because `I' did it, it was because those bad conditions 'forced' me to do it. How convenient, isn't it? I don't believe the high-court judge will believe our reasoning if we say we can't control our actions when we have done something bad. Lastly, if we have no control over conditions, then I cannot understand what is the reason for favorable conditions to Suddenly come to us and propel us to Nibbana? Is it because our `accumulations' are complete? Hence, how are we different from Hindus??? With mettaa, Elaine #81517 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a ch... TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/21/2008 3:50:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Kotthita sutta is interesting. Nibbana isn't a blank nothing (nor is it something, both or neither). _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html) Lots of Metta, Alex ............................................ Hi Alex As far as the Kotthita Sutta is concerned, it is non-determinative regarding "Nibbana's ontological status." It merely says "Don't say that" when questioned about Nibbana's status. I take this to mean that holding any view of Nibbana, including the view that "no-thing remains," will merely act as an obstacle in ever attaining Nibbana / overcoming suffering. There is a Sutta in Majjhima where the Buddha meets two ascetics. One has the view that everything exists, the other has the view that nothing exists. Although neither view is suitable, the Buddha prefers the view that "nothing exists" as being closer to non-attachment. This doesn't prove anything regarding our conversation, but is related and interesting. TG #81518 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) truth_aerator Dear Howard, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > It's never quite clear to me what folks mean by "free will". What *can* that mean? A willing that occurs without condition, arising randomly? Would that not make such willing an asankhata dhamma different from nibbana, the supposedly unique asankhata dhamma? Also, is the willing of something that >>> An example. Lets say a person is standing in a field. He could step to the right, he can step to the left, and in all 360 degrees. He could do it now, or some time later. Try to predict where and when he will step first. Even if you are telepathic it may not always work. Interesting story: many years ago I was sparring with one karate kid. He could effectively block all my attacks and somehow I thought (or maybe he said, I don't remember) that he was telepathic. Anyhow, what I did was to think one thing and do another, (ie I thought to punch, but I did a kick. Something in that nature.) - that seemed to confuse him a lot. Similiar here with a standing person example. Another comment: After he did a step you may be able to figure out why he did it and find causes, but always afterwards. Furthermore it is not only what he did, BUT WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE. In our case, do we react to any feeling (vedana) with delusion (atta belief), craving or aversion? While we can speak in probabilities, it is just that. A person reacted this way, but s/he could have reacted differently. Furthermore if that person is serious and wise Meditator, there is less and less chances that his actions will be under serious wrong view. Of course we and he himself cannot predict how the next reaction to vedana will be. However it is up to "him" to act or react. Lots of Metta, Alex #81519 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:08 pm Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear RobertK, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > > wrote: > > >> > > > 2nd) Meditation should be done in ALL postures. Sitting posture > is > > > generally the ideal one as it allows one to slow down and see > mind > > > states one by one as they occur. > > > > > > ==== > > Dear Alex > > do you have the reference where it says mind states can be slowed > down > > by doing sitting meditation? > > robert > >=========================================== Alex: . Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having > crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful > mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html > > There are MANY other cases. > >_______ Dear Alex I had a look at those suttas you cite, but couldn't find anything about slowing down the mind states. Could you highlight the phrases where this is said. Robert #81520 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/21/2008 9:25:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, This is a very deep issue and I hope that my trite post didn't irritate you. I do, however, get very weary of discussing it at times. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And what exactly *is* that? Didn't the Buddha give the chariot example > for a reason? Are you saying that the Puggalavadins were right? > ------------------------------------------------------- James: The Buddha didn't give the chariot example to explain anatta. That was spoken by a nun to argue with Mara- and I think it is often misinterpreted. Human beings exist, just as chariots exist (or existed- I've seen Ben Hur enough times to know that chariots existed and what they looked like ;-)). But, how we view that human being and how we view that chariot is different depending on one's wisdom. As Mara asked the nun: Who made this human being? Who is this human being's maker? Who is the human being? Who is the human being that ceases? Mara was expressing atta-view: That a human being is created by something, that it is a permanent something, and that it is something that ends. The nun tells Mara that no such human being exists. However, she didn't say that human beings don't exist at all! That would be illogical as we know that they do. > > Choices are made by a > conglomeration of the five khandas known as a human being. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, a specific sort of dynamic aggregation of conditioned dhammas is > called "a human being," and we *speak* of a human being acting. That's common - > we all speak that way. But to see further, and clearly, is important, isn't > it? James: See further and clearly in what way? ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Answer: To see the exact way in which aggregations are empty. I do not say that aggregations do not exist. They do exist. But they lack self-existence in an even more thorough way than do paramattha dhammas. I had written to Alex the following: That has been my understanding, and it remains so. ---------------------------------------------------------------- We don't engage in Dhamma study, meditating, staying mindful, and > guarding the senses just to think and speak of people acting. James: We do those things to transcend clinging. It doesn't really matter how we speak. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We stop clinging when we cease to view things differently from the way they really are. The cessation of ignorance marks results in the cessation of clinging. ------------------------------------------------------------ Nothing is required to > do that. It's the norm. James: Speaking of reality is weird ways isn't anything special. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What sounds weird may merely be strange in the literal sense of 'strange', namely "external, foreign, and unfamiliar." What is strange speech may still well be true speech. I believe that speaking of aggregations as strongly lacking in self-existence is speech that is both strange and true. It goes against the stream, and we resist it. But it is true. ------------------------------------------------------------ Philosophers have been doing that for centuries. The Buddha's teaching is pragmatic, not just philosophy. It doesn't matter how we speak; it matters how we purify our minds. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard We do that by realizing truth, even strange truth. ---------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James =========================== With metta, Howard #81521 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex) - In a message dated 1/21/2008 9:57:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear Alex do you have the reference where it says mind states can be slowed down by doing sitting meditation? robert =================================== In my opinion, mind states do not slow down while meditating. The idea is incoherent, in fact. Slow with respect to what? The states of mind that are "observing" are part of the very same flow of states that are "observed." What happens while meditating that is erroneously described as the mind slowing down is that calm and clarity and attention and mindfulness all increase enormously, and thus it is FAR easier to see what is what. With metta, Howard #81522 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:46 pm Subject: Re: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine - In a message dated 1/21/2008 10:22:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: Lastly, if we have no control over conditions, then I cannot understand what is the reason for favorable conditions to Suddenly come to us and propel us to Nibbana? Is it because our `accumulations' are complete? Hence, how are we different from Hindus??? ============================ There *is* the actuality of influencing conditions. Willed actions occur and do have their effects. The willing, however, isn't uncaused and random. With metta, howard #81523 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:13 pm Subject: Durutu Poya Day! bhikkhu0 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Durutu Poya day is the full-moon of January. This holy day celebrates the first visit of the Buddha to Sri Lanka. The Buddha visited the very place, where the present magnificent Mahiyangana Stupa was built to enshrine the Buddha's hair relics and the collar bone. For Details see: http://www.buddhanet.net/sacred-island/mahiyangana.html 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... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town, & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! The New Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Can quite advantageously be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be light, swift, and sweet. Never give up !! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html Durutu Poya Day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #81524 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:53 pm Subject: Re: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) upasaka_howard Hi. alex - In a message dated 1/21/2008 10:40:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > It's never quite clear to me what folks mean by "free will". What *can* that mean? A willing that occurs without condition, arising randomly? Would that not make such willing an asankhata dhamma different from nibbana, the supposedly unique asankhata dhamma? Also, is the willing of something that >>> An example. Lets say a person is standing in a field. He could step to the right, he can step to the left, and in all 360 degrees. He could do it now, or some time later. Try to predict where and when he will step first. Even if you are telepathic it may not always work. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Prediction is one thing, and being random is another. ---------------------------------------------------------- Interesting story: many years ago I was sparring with one karate kid. He could effectively block all my attacks and somehow I thought (or maybe he said, I don't remember) that he was telepathic. Anyhow, what I did was to think one thing and do another, (ie I thought to punch, but I did a kick. Something in that nature.) - that seemed to confuse him a lot. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Probably he was (even subliminally) "reading" subtle body signs, eye movements, and so on of yours. Your rapidly switching mentality affected those bodily signs and threw him off. ----------------------------------------------------- Similar here with a standing person example. Another comment: After he did a step you may be able to figure out why he did it and find causes, but always afterwards. Furthermore it is not only what he did, BUT WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, HAD CONDITIONS BEEN OTHERWISE. ------------------------------------------------------ In our case, do we react to any feeling (vedana) with delusion (atta belief), craving or aversion? While we can speak in probabilities, it is just that. A person reacted this way, but s/he could have reacted differently. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again: Had conditions been otherwise. But they were as they were. ------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore if that person is serious and wise Meditator, there is less and less chances that his actions will be under serious wrong view. Of course we and he himself cannot predict how the next reaction to vedana will be. However it is up to "him" to act or react. Lots of Metta, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard #81525 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: Whoops! (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) / James & Dieter upasaka_howard Hi, James and Dieter - Whoops! Not Dieter ... James!! (Hey, how neat to insult two folks at the same time! LOLOL! Just kidding, as I know that you both know! ;-) In a message dated 1/21/2008 11:33:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/21/2008 9:25:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, This is a very deep issue and I hope that my trite post didn't irritate you. I do, however, get very weary of discussing it at times. =============================== With metta, Howard #81526 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:22 pm Subject: Discussion in Kaeng Krajan in April sarahprocter... Dear Friends, If anyone plans to join us in Thailand in April for the trip to Kaeng Krajan, pls let me know *in the next few days* (off-list) as I just received this note from Lodewijk about it and need to pass on confirmed names and numbers for bookings now: >L: Dear Sarah, we received a letter from Khun Duangduen suggesting that our Dahmmagroup stay at Kaengkrachen from Tuesday April 8 to Thursday April 10. For us these dates are perfect. She also asked us to contact you for you to find out the number of people joining us at KKr. and for you to inform her as soon as possilbe about that number, so that she can make the necessary arrangements at KKr.. Since these days of April are school children's holiday, the accomodation there has to be booked very early in advance.< If anyone is considering joining us for the first time, I'd strongly encourage you to contact me off-list asap as well. James, Phil, Tep, Dieter, AndrewT - anyone, do consider it! Metta, Sarah ======== #81527 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:54 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Phil (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > James, I also appreciate your perspective. I guess you would be > defined as a pugiliwatchmacallit or whatever it is the folks who > believed that the person exists in reality were called! That's fine. James: Well, I don't really know much about that sect of Buddhism. I did some research and this is what I found: The chief characteristic of the Puggalavada Sect was their rejection of the Abhidharma Pitaka as a teaching of the Buddha. They maintained that Abhidharma is apocryphal scripture cooked up by the Theravada Elders between the 2nd and 3rd Councils and adopted at the 3rd Council. The Puggalavadins as well as Sautranitikas rejected the Abhidharma Pitaka and had only 2 Pitakas viz: Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas. In the Suttas the Buddha speaks of a person who fares on in Sansara, performs good and bad deeds and receives reward or distribution for them. In fact the entire Sutta Pitaka is based on the assumption that there is a person (puggala) who is subject to the sufferings in Sansara. The purpose of the Buddha-Dhamma is to eliminate this suffering and help them to attain Nirvana. The Puggalavadins could not accept the theory that the Buddha had taught two kinds of truth. Nowhere had he done so. The Theravadins cannot quote from any part of the Sutras where he has taught that there are two truths called Sammuti and Paramartha. Thus they refuted this contention and asserted that the Abhidharma Pitaka is a fabrication and required another concoction to maintain its validity. It is with the help of this fabrication that Abhidharma scholars reconcile the inconsistency in the Sutra and Abhidharma teachings. Their teaching was that their was no person, or being, but a mere flux of fleeting thought moments which are impersonal. The Puggalavadins considered this a bovine folly. http://www.island.lk/2000/09/19/featur04.html James: Okay, I guess this description fits my viewpoint. The Puggalavadins don't believe in a soul or atta, they just believe in people and don't believe in the Abhidhamma as the word of Buddha. That fits me and now I don't know why Howard uses the label as some type of slur or bad name?? > > I do think a lot about a quotation you mentionned, that F.Scott > Fitzgerald one about the true man of genius is he who can deal with two > apparently conflicting ideas and find truth in both of them, something > like that. I was trying to find it in a book of aphorisms but couldn't. > What was it exactly, and what context did you mention it here at DSG? James: I got that from a book on Buddhism and I don't have that book anymore (left it in Egypt). I will try to find the post for you when I have time. > I think it is relevant. We can develop through practices in which > taking care of, being intersted in people is essential, and at the same > time not believe that people exist in reality, something like that. Metta, James #81528 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- Alex wrote: <...> >and to say of an > individual 'In the highest sense there is no individual; for it is a > mere asemblage of khandhá' is to be unintelligible. ... S: In short, Nanavira didn't understand it. There really are only paramattha dhammas, Alex. The rest is in the imagination only. He thought he was a sotapanna, in spite of missing the 'basics' on anatta. No wonder he felt a need to suggest a sotapanna doesn't really keep the precepts perfectly and so on (you've quoted on all this at length as I recall). Alex, this is one very good reason why speaking about attainments, especially in public, is unwise. Mistakes are often made and we end up clinging to some nonsense we have said or written to justify it all. Lots of madness through delusion. Another point is that, as in the good sutta Tep quoted on needing integrity to understand another's integrity and so on, without developed wisdom, we will never be able to appreciate wisdom when we hear/read it. Metta, Sarah ======= #81529 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Citta in Buddhism sarahprocter... Hi Alex, [You ask for comments and my first immediate comment is that you've forgotten the DSG guidelines!!! The extract you posted (without any comments of your own) was over 7 pages of fine print. Next time, pls just give the link and one or two paragraphs only (preferably with your comments) Any comments on this off-list only, thx:-)] OK, here's my comment on the first para only: --- Alex wrote: > Here is something else that I've found on the net. > > --- Here is what someone wrote ("Attasarana") ---- > > That citta=atman in Buddhism, it bears extensive mention here ... S: This sounds most suspect, Alex. Where is there a citta=atman in the texts? .... > "How is it that one is called a `Buddha'?...gnosis that the mind/will > (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed > a `Buddha'." [MN 2.144] -Attasarana ... S: A suspect quote again. OK, here's the text from Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: "Who knows about his former lives, Sees heaven ans states of deprivation, And has arrived at birth's destruction - A sage who knows by direct knowledge, Who knows his mind is purified, Entirely freed from every lust, Who has abandoned birth and death, Who is complete in the holy life, Who has transcended everything - One such as this is called a Buddha." S: Really, I think the lines you quoted above make little sense on their own. ... > "The purification of one's own mind/will (citta); this is the > Doctrine of the Buddha" [DN 2.49] > > "This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) > which does not cling (after anything)" [MN 2.265] > > "This said: `the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling' > means Nibbana"[MN2-Att. 4.68] > > "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed > within the mind/will (citta)"[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] > > "'The purification of one's own mind/will', this means the light > (joti) within one's mind/will (citta) is the very Soul(attano)" [DN2- > Att. 2.479] -Attasarana .... S: Again, these translations make no sense to me at all out of context. However, I'm glad to see you now happily quoting commentaries to suttas and (in another slab), texts from KN. Does this mean that commentaries, KN and even Abhidhamma are acceptable these days???? Metta, Sarah ========= #81530 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Thx for asking. --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Do you agree with James' summary of Khun Sujin's "philosophy" below? > I do not think James' last sentence is what Khun Sujin teaches, > i.e. "determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the > best". ... S: First on your quote above: The Buddha neither determinism nor control. Hope is lobha, so 'hoping for the best' is also not the Buddha's teaching. .... > >You have just summarized a faulty view of the Dhamma based on an > immature understanding of anatta. In that view, anatta means no > individual being; ... S: Yes, no individudal being, no atta of any kind (no chariot, no telephone, no computer, no house either). Beginning to understand dhammas as dhammas may not be a 'mature' understanding, but it is a beginning. Insisiting on having an individual who takes actions, performs and can sit to become enlightened is following a path of wrong understanding. .... >no individual being means no possible action; ... S: It means no action by any individual (or group of) beings. Meanwhile there are countless cittas performing actions as we 'speak'. .... >no > possible actions means no control; no control means determinism; > determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the best. ... S: No control means life at this moment can never be according to anyone's wishes. Seeing now, hearing now arise conditioned by past kamma. Thinking, like and dislike now, arise conditioned by past accumulations. Any right reflection, right understanding now arises conditioned by what has been heard and read and reflected on before. I don't really mind what words are used, but it's obvious that right understanding and other wholesome states can and do develop accordingly. The mistake in all the summaries (and the inability to understand what some of us stress over and over again) is in the insistence of hanging on to a Self for dear life in all interpretations. .... > > >That is not the "higher truth" taught by the Buddha. > ................... > > T: Thank you in advance. .... S: So what's your comment, Tep:-))??? (btw, you gave a very helpful summary from the Patisambhidamagga in another thread on D.O. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/81187Thank you for that and helping us get the New Year off to a good start.) Metta, Sarah ========= #81531 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. moellerdieter Hi Robert ( Alex, ..), you wrote: do you have the reference where it says mind states can be slowed down by doing sitting meditation? D: Robert , there are plenty ..and I am wondering why you seemingly overlook them..here the most famous ones: "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication... D.N. 22 There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming the bodily processes, and to breathe out calming the bodily processes. "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental processes, and to breathe out sensitive to mental processes. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental processes, and to breathe out calming mental processes. M.N. 118 with Metta Dieter #81532 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta Vs natthatta . Was Buddha a Nihilist? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Briefly back to another very loooong extract from somewhere.... --- Alex wrote: > Something interesting I've found. Can someone refute this point by > point? ... S: !!!;-))) I'm sure you're the one who has the stamina for this! ... > > -- > The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an > adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being > devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman) which > is the "light (dipam), and only refuge" [DN 2.100]. ... S: Unclear in the end what the light is! .... > there is no "Doctrine of anatta/anatman" mentioned anywhere in the > sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as > other than the Soul, to be anatta. ... S: Sorry, Alex - it's just too confusing to me... ... > http://www.attan.com/anatta.html > http://www.attan.com/againstanatta.pdf ... Better if you give us a summary of the articles with your own comments, perhaps? Metta, Sarah ====== #81533 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kamma and vipaka. was: TYPO FIX jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for the further explanation. upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > You are pointing here to the relationship between the intention that > prompts some action and the rupa that is then experienced as a result of > that action. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Not quite. The action and the rupa are one and the same. The action = > the motion = the rupa. There is cetana that conditions eyelid motion. I am > saying that this motion is kamma-conditioned rupa (kamma-samuttaana-ruupa). If > vipaka must be nama, then 'vipaka' is the wrong word in this case. I don't care > about the word - only about the fact of willing conditioning a rupa. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > OK, I understand better now what you are saying. You are focussing on the fact that eyelid motion follows closely upon the deliberate intention to open the eyes (or, as you put it below, that the willing to open the eyes *leads to* the action of opening the eyes). This is something that we can all agree is in accordance with our experience in life; something that is generally (although not invariably) the case. But I think that trying to draw any general proposition from such experience, and applying it to the development of insight, is another matter. Perhaps you could spell out your thinking in this regard. I don't think you've done this as yet. > To my understanding, this relationship is not one of kamma and vipaka > (notwithstanding that kamma is cetana). > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Okay, fine. That is unimportant to me. > --------------------------------------------------------- > I think you now accept that the relationship in question is not one of kamma/vipaka. The exact nature of this relationship is however of importance, if we are to see it as applying to the development of insight. > Firstly, the intended "result" may or may not happen. Movement does not > always follow the impulse to move. One may look but not be able to see > what one is trying to see, or anything at all. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Who cares, Jon? I'm not talking about seeing at the moment, but of > opening one's eyes. There is willing that leads to action. This is simple, Jon. > What are you debating? > --------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, willing leads to action. Our experience in life tells us that that is mostly the case. I agree it is simple; no debate from me on that point ;-)) (originally I thought you were trying to make a point involving kamma/vipaka) > Secondly, there is no necessary relationship between the nature or > quality of the "kamma" and that of the "result". For example, out of > attachment I eat a piece of chocolate (akusala intention all the way!) > and thereby experience a pleasant object through the taste door. No > cause and result relationship there. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't get your point, Jon. The intentional actions taught by the > Buddha do cultivate the mind usefully. > In any case, my point was that intention conditions results, among which > are both namas and rupas. What we intentionally do has consequences. They > aren't always intended consequences, but, in simple cases, they often are - as > when we have the impulse to open our eyes, and do so. In general terms I agree that what we intentionally do has consequences. I don't think anyone would argue with this. But the question remains how this applies as regards the development of insight, as set out in the suttas and other texts. On a point of terminology, I think we have already agreed that the movement of the eyelids is not a 'result' of the preceding intention, as that term is used in the teachings. > It seems to me that what you are after is that we should never act > intentionally at all, and especially not meditate!! It seems to me that you are > using every possible argument you can to stop people from meditating. I think > that is most contrary to the Dhamma. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Just to clarify for the record (yet again!), it is not my position that intentional action is something to be avoided. Intentional action is very much a fact of life, not only for the worldling but for the arahant also. What I have been questioning is the assumed role of conventional intentional action in the development of kusala in general and insight in particular, as set out in the teachings. > Thirdly, whether or not there is any identifiable intentional act, there > is experience through various sense-doors going on all the time. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Hmm, you noticed that. Me, too. The more we watch, the better we can see > the cause and effect that occurs. Do you observe cetana and its effect in > your body-mind, Jon? Do you engage in such mental monitoring? It is important > Dhamma practice. If you watch the bodily movements consistently enough, you'll > see how we react with desire and aversion, often quite subtly. You'll see > willing and response. You'll see conditionality. This is Dhamma practice. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > I think you are saying that the conditionality taught by the Buddha can be seen by watching one's bodily movements and noticing how there is reaction with aversion or desire, or by observing the effect of (conventional) intention on our mind and body. I beg to differ on this point. To my understanding, the panna that sees conditionality cannot be developed by watching bodily movements or observing the effect of (conventional) intention on our mind and body, because that is not the development of insight into the true nature of an arising dhamma. I notice you use the term "cause and effect" again in the context of deliberate intentional action and its consequences. For reasons already mentioned, I think that term is out of place here. > I don't think there is any cause-and-result relationship between an > intention to open one's eyes and the movement of the eyelids to open > (except in a very conventional sense). > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And I think that is hilariously false! It is patently false. > --------------------------------------------------- In a conventional sense, the movement of the eyelids is said to *result from* the intention to open the eyes (but we don't need a Buddha's teaching to be told that!). But in dhamma terms, *cause and result* describes the relationship between kamma and vipaka, and that is certainly not the situation we are discussing here. As I see it, there is no necessary relationship between the conventional deliberate intention to open one's eyes and movement of the eyelids to open, since (a) neither is a prerequisite for the other, and (b) either can occur without the other. Jon #81534 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/22/2008 1:55:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: Okay, I guess this description fits my viewpoint. The Puggalavadins don't believe in a soul or atta, they just believe in people and don't believe in the Abhidhamma as the word of Buddha. That fits me and now I don't know why Howard uses the label as some type of slur or bad name?? ================================= As best I know, the Puggalavadins (or Personalists) didn't just speak of "a person" as a 5-khandhic-stream aggregation, but referred to "a person" as some real soul/core of existence, an individual and actual, but very odd, entity, not just a collection and that is associated with a khandhic aggregation but neither the same as it nor different from it. They associated with that dynamic aggregate of interrelated dhammas that we, along with the Buddha, conventionally call a "person," some new sort of real entity that transmigrates, and literally is an agent of its kamma and the recipient of the effects of it's kamma. It was viewed as some actual something that is not a khandhic element, but that possesses rupa, vedana, sa~n~na, sankhara, and vi~n~nana, and which thus corresponds to one of the sorts of "self" listed by the Buddha in the Sammanupassana Sutta (SN 22.47). As I see it, they adopted an atta-perspective that is rightly considered a pseudo-Dhammic view. With metta, Howard #81535 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:39 pm Subject: Alleged Slowing Down of Mind States (Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Alex, and Robert) - In a message dated 1/22/2008 6:14:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Robert ( Alex, ..), you wrote: do you have the reference where it says mind states can be slowed down by doing sitting meditation? D: Robert , there are plenty ..and I am wondering why you seemingly overlook them..here the most famous ones: "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication... D.N. 22 There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming the bodily processes, and to breathe out calming the bodily processes. "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental processes, and to breathe out sensitive to mental processes. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental processes, and to breathe out calming mental processes. M.N. 118 with Metta Dieter =================================== Dieter, I haven't the slightest clue why you and Alex seem to think these sutta quotes relate to claimed slowing down of mind states during meditation. I don't see that dealt with there in the slightest. What am I missing? With metta, Howard #81536 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kamma and vipaka. was: TYPO FIX upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - Yours is a very long post. My sole point is that kamma conditions the arising of dhammas, including rupas. Volition has consequences. Sometimes they are intended consequences, such as opening the eyes, sometimes unintended consequences. Knowing what can lead to what is sometimes clear but often obscure. This is why, as regards kamma that supports or hinders or is neutral with regard to bhavana, study of the Dhamma is so important, to come to understand the crucially important but relatively obscure cases. In the following, I will add comments of mine only when they introduce something new. In a message dated 1/22/2008 7:13:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Thanks for the further explanation. upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > You are pointing here to the relationship between the intention that > prompts some action and the rupa that is then experienced as a result of > that action. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Not quite. The action and the rupa are one and the same. The action = > the motion = the rupa. There is cetana that conditions eyelid motion. I am > saying that this motion is kamma-conditioned rupa (kamma-samuttaana-ruupa). If > vipaka must be nama, then 'vipaka' is the wrong word in this case. I don't care > about the word - only about the fact of willing conditioning a rupa. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > OK, I understand better now what you are saying. You are focussing on the fact that eyelid motion follows closely upon the deliberate intention to open the eyes (or, as you put it below, that the willing to open the eyes *leads to* the action of opening the eyes). This is something that we can all agree is in accordance with our experience in life; something that is generally (although not invariably) the case. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Multiple conditions are always required. -------------------------------------------------- But I think that trying to draw any general proposition from such experience, and applying it to the development of insight, is another matter. Perhaps you could spell out your thinking in this regard. I don't think you've done this as yet. > To my understanding, this relationship is not one of kamma and vipaka > (notwithstanding that kamma is cetana). > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Okay, fine. That is unimportant to me. > --------------------------------------------------------- > I think you now accept that the relationship in question is not one of kamma/vipaka. The exact nature of this relationship is however of importance, if we are to see it as applying to the development of insight. > Firstly, the intended "result" may or may not happen. Movement does not > always follow the impulse to move. One may look but not be able to see > what one is trying to see, or anything at all. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Who cares, Jon? I'm not talking about seeing at the moment, but of > opening one's eyes. There is willing that leads to action. This is simple, Jon. > What are you debating? > --------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, willing leads to action. Our experience in life tells us that that is mostly the case. I agree it is simple; no debate from me on that point ;-)) (originally I thought you were trying to make a point involving kamma/vipaka) ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I meant top speak of consequence. Vipaka was too restrictive of a word. ---------------------------------------------------------- > Secondly, there is no necessary relationship between the nature or > quality of the "kamma" and that of the "result". For example, out of > attachment I eat a piece of chocolate (akusala intention all the way!) > and thereby experience a pleasant object through the taste door. No > cause and result relationship there. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't get your point, Jon. The intentional actions taught by the > Buddha do cultivate the mind usefully. > In any case, my point was that intention conditions results, among which > are both namas and rupas. What we intentionally do has consequences. They > aren't always intended consequences, but, in simple cases, they often are - as > when we have the impulse to open our eyes, and do so. In general terms I agree that what we intentionally do has consequences. I don't think anyone would argue with this. But the question remains how this applies as regards the development of insight, as set out in the suttas and other texts. On a point of terminology, I think we have already agreed that the movement of the eyelids is not a 'result' of the preceding intention, as that term is used in the teachings. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It has the preceding intention as an essential condition. That is the fact. If you don't like using 'result' in this context, that is your right. ----------------------------------------------------- > It seems to me that what you are after is that we should never act > intentionally at all, and especially not meditate!! It seems to me that you are > using every possible argument you can to stop people from meditating. I think > that is most contrary to the Dhamma. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Just to clarify for the record (yet again!), it is not my position that intentional action is something to be avoided. Intentional action is very much a fact of life, not only for the worldling but for the arahant also. What I have been questioning is the assumed role of conventional intentional action in the development of kusala in general and insight in particular, as set out in the teachings. > Thirdly, whether or not there is any identifiable intentional act, there > is experience through various sense-doors going on all the time. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Hmm, you noticed that. Me, too. The more we watch, the better we can see > the cause and effect that occurs. Do you observe cetana and its effect in > your body-mind, Jon? Do you engage in such mental monitoring? It is important > Dhamma practice. If you watch the bodily movements consistently enough, you'll > see how we react with desire and aversion, often quite subtly. You'll see > willing and response. You'll see conditionality. This is Dhamma practice. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > I think you are saying that the conditionality taught by the Buddha can be seen by watching one's bodily movements and noticing how there is reaction with aversion or desire, or by observing the effect of (conventional) intention on our mind and body. I beg to differ on this point. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't beg, Jon! It's unseemly and embarrassing! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------------------- To my understanding, the panna that sees conditionality cannot be developed by watching bodily movements or observing the effect of (conventional) intention on our mind and body, because that is not the development of insight into the true nature of an arising dhamma. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! It's sure as hell more likely to be seen observing bodily movement than by looking in a book! You might reread the Kayagatasati Sutta, Jon. In that the Buddha teaches of a monk engaged in the practice of mindfulness of the body "... when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body." He also teaches "Monks, whoever develops & pursues mindfulness immersed in the body encompasses whatever skillful qualities are on the side of clear knowing. Just as whoever pervades the great ocean with his awareness encompasses whatever rivulets flow down into the ocean, in the same way, whoever develops & pursues mindfulness immersed in the body encompasses whatever skillful qualities are on the side of clear knowing." He also teaches there "When anyone has developed & pursued mindfulness immersed in the body, then whichever of the six higher knowledges he turns his mind to know & realize, he can witness them for himself whenever there is an opening." Finally, I mention his conclusion of that teaching: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Monks, for one in whom mindfulness immersed in the body is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken, ten benefits can be expected. Which ten? [1] "He conquers displeasure & delight, and displeasure does not conquer him. He remains victorious over any displeasure that has arisen. [2] "He conquers fear & dread, and fear & dread do not conquer him. He remains victorious over any fear & dread that have arisen. [3] "He is resistant to cold, heat, hunger, thirst, the touch of gadflies & mosquitoes, wind & sun & creeping things; to abusive, hurtful language; he is the sort that can endure bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, sharp, stabbing, fierce, distasteful, disagreeable, deadly. [4] "He can attain at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhanas — heightened mental states providing a pleasant abiding in the here & now. [5] "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. [6] "He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified & surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine & human, whether near or far. [7] "He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion. He discerns a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion. He discerns a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion. He discerns a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind. He discerns an enlarged mind as an enlarged mind, and an unenlarged mind as an unenlarged mind. He discerns an excelled mind [one that is not at the most excellent level] as an excelled mind, and an unexcelled mind as an unexcelled mind. He discerns a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind. He discerns a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind. [8] "He recollects his manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting], '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 he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes & details. [9] "He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and he discerns 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 — he sees beings passing away & re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. [10] "Through the ending of the mental effluents, he remains in the effluent-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known and made them manifest for himself right in the here & now. "Monks, for one in whom mindfulness immersed in the body is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken, these ten benefits can be expected." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- I notice you use the term "cause and effect" again in the context of deliberate intentional action and its consequences. For reasons already mentioned, I think that term is out of place here. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no problem with it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there is any cause-and-result relationship between an > intention to open one's eyes and the movement of the eyelids to open > (except in a very conventional sense). > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And I think that is hilariously false! It is patently false. > --------------------------------------------------- In a conventional sense, the movement of the eyelids is said to *result from* the intention to open the eyes (but we don't need a Buddha's teaching to be told that!). But in dhamma terms, *cause and result* describes the relationship between kamma and vipaka, and that is certainly not the situation we are discussing here. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've already agreed several times that 'vipaka' was the wrong word. Why are you beating that dead horse? -------------------------------------------------------- As I see it, there is no necessary relationship between the conventional deliberate intention to open one's eyes and movement of the eyelids to open, since (a) neither is a prerequisite for the other, and (b) either can occur without the other. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I never said that intention to open one's eyes is a prerequisite to their opening. A person could be in a coma in a hospital bed and a doctor or nurse does the job. The matter of necessary condition was not an issue. -------------------------------------------------------- Jon ========================== With metta, Howard P. S. I'm pretty much at the end of this thread, Jon. ;-) #81537 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kamma and vipaka. was: TYPO FIX upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 1/22/2008 8:13:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: On a point of terminology, I think we have already agreed that the movement of the eyelids is not a 'result' of the preceding intention, as that term is used in the teachings. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It has the preceding intention as an essential condition. That is the fact. If you don't like using 'result' in this context, that is your right. ----------------------------------------------------- ================================ To clarify the foregoing: The preceding intention is essential for self-opening of one's eyes. It isn't needed at all for them to be opened by someone of something else. With metta, Howard #81538 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 20 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 453. "Kaamaa ka.tukaa aasii, visuupamaa yesu mucchitaa baalaa; te diigharatta.m niraye, samappitaa ha~n~nante dukkhitaa. 454. "Socanti paapakammaa, vinipaate paapavaddhino sadaa; kaayena ca vaacaaya ca, manasaa ca asa.mvutaa baalaa. 451. "Sensual pleasures, in which fools are bemused, [are] bitter, like a snake's poison. Consigned to hell for a long time, those [fools] are beaten, poisoned. 452. "Because of evil action, they grieve in a nether realm, increasing evil, without faith. Fools [are] unrestrained in body and speech and mind. Ka.tukaati ani.t.thaa. Sappa.tibhaya.t.thena aasiivisuupamaa. Yesu kaamesu. Mucchitaati ajjhositaa. Samappitaati sakammunaa sabbaso appitaa khittaa, upapannaati attho Ha~n~nanteti baadhiiyanti. Vinipaateti apaaye. 451. Bitter means: not desired. In the sense that they are very fearful, they are like a snake's poison. In whichever sensual pleasures they are bemused means: attached to. Consigned to means: because of their actions, they are completely directed towards, cast into [there]; reborn [there]. That is the meaning. [They are] beaten means: they are afflicted. 452. In a nether realm means: in hell.* *For "evil action," see the commentary above on v.239 (p.256). For "they grieve," see the commentary above on v.5 (p.21). {also for "the opportune moment", below, v.459.} 455. "Baalaa te duppa~n~naa, acetanaa dukkhasamudayoruddhaa; desente ajaanantaa, na bujjhare ariyasaccaani. 453. "Those fools, unwise, senseless, hindered by the arising of pain, not knowing, do not understand the noble truths being taught. Acetanaati attahitacetanaaya abhaavena acetanaa. Dukkhasamudayoruddhaati ta.nhaanimittasa.msaare avaruddhaa. Desenteti catusaccadhamme desiyamaane. Ajaanantaati attha.m ajaanantaa. Na bujjhare ariyasaccaaniiti dukkhaadiini ariyasaccaani na pa.tibujjhanti. 453. Senseless (acetanaa) means: senseless through the absence of thinking of one's own profit (atta-hita-cetanaaya). Hindered by the arising of pain (dukkha-samuday'-oruddhaa) means: hindered (ava-ruddhaa) in continued existence with craving as its sign. Being taught (desente) means: when the Doctrine of the four [noble] truths are being taught (desiyamaane). Not knowing means: not knowing the meaning. [They] do not understand (na bujjhare) the noble truths means: they do not comprehend (na pa.tibujjhante) the noble truths of pain, etc. 456. "Saccaani 'amma'buddhavaradesi, taani te bahutaraa ajaanantaa ye; abhinandanti bhavagata.m, pihenti devesu upapatti.m. 454. "Mother, they, the majority, not knowing the truths taught by the excellent Buddha, those who rejoice in existence long for rebirth among the devas. Ammaati maatara.m pamukha.m katvaa aalapati. Te bahutaraa ajaanantaati ye abhinandanti bhavagata.m pihenti devesu upapatti.m buddhavaradesitaani saccaani ajaanantaa, teyeva ca imasmi.m loke bahutaraati yojanaa. 454. Mother (amma) means: having singled out her mother (maata-ra.m) as foremost, she addresses her. They, the majority, not knowing means: those who rejoice in existence long for rebirth among the devas, not knowing the truths taught by the excellent Buddha, and they are the majority in this world; that is the implication. .. to be continued, connie #81539 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:23 am Subject: Re: Alleged Slowing Down of Mind States (Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody ...) moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Dieter, I haven't the slightest clue why you and Alex seem to think these sutta quotes relate to claimed slowing down of mind states during meditation. I don't see that dealt with there in the slightest. What am I missing?' D: what is your understanding of : 'He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' / 'He trains himself to breathe in calming mental processes, and to breathe out calming mental processes. That we have to calm the restlessness state of the every day mind in order to meditate , is out of question, isn't it? with Metta Dieter #81540 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? .. Soup Spoon .. dcwijeratna Hello Tep, Thanks for your e-m. I wish to make a few clarifications on the following: "T: Thank you for the wise comment. It is true that even a "fool" can change if he starts to listen (with the intention to learn). Right understanding can be gradually developed when "the causes and the conditions" are right. With appreciation from a fool, Tep" DC: The Pali word that is translated to English as "fool" in the above is "baalo". Oxford Dictionary gives the following meaning, to fool: (noun) a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person. This appears to be most probably ok in ordinary discussions. But we use it in a much restricted sense--a baala is one he indulges in 'akusala kammas.' Or an evil-doer. The opposite of baala is pa.ndita. That is person who leads a righteous life. There is one other difference: "yo baalo ma~n~nati baalya.m pa.ndito vaapi tena so baalo ca pa.ditamaanii save baaloti vuccati" --(if one knows that one is a baala, by that fact he becomes a pandita; but a baala who thinks that he is a pa.ndita is indeed a fool). So here we have the definition of baala in the Dhammapada; no need to speculate. You can find the confirmation in a number of suttas in the AN and MN. Let me explain that further: One is not only a baala but he thinks that he is pa.dita. In other words, he is conceited (di.t.thigata) and would not listen to any other point of view. Quite a lot of people would fall within this definition. Today is poya day. I have just returned from the temple; please partake of that. I am sure you would have done the same. So the last statement of your e-m, I change as follows: " With appreciation from a pa.ndita", With lots of metta, Your Dhamma friend, DC #81541 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ================================= > As best I know, the Puggalavadins (or Personalists) didn't just speak of > "a person" as a 5-khandhic-stream aggregation, but referred to "a person" as > some real soul/core of existence, an individual and actual, but very odd, > entity, not just a collection and that is associated with a khandhic > aggregation but neither the same as it nor different from it. > They associated with that dynamic aggregate of interrelated dhammas that > we, along with the Buddha, conventionally call a "person," some new sort of > real entity that transmigrates, and literally is an agent of its kamma and > the recipient of the effects of it's kamma. It was viewed as some actual > something that is not a khandhic element, but that possesses rupa, vedana, sa~n~na, > sankhara, and vi~n~nana, and which thus corresponds to one of the sorts of > "self" listed by the Buddha in the Sammanupassana Sutta (SN 22.47). As I see > it, they adopted an atta-perspective that is rightly considered a > pseudo-Dhammic view. Well, I did some research on the Internet and I can't find this type of description anywhere. Where did you come across this information? Is it from a book? As far as what I read, the Puggalavadins just believed in the existence of the person (the name means "belief in person"); they didn't believe in a soul or anything of the sort. They believed that there was a person which was a conglomeration of the five aggregates. They didn't believe the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha and disagreed with most of the commentaries by Buddhaghosa. They also believed in a bardo state, as there is evidence of such a state in the suttas. Actually, I think the description fits most of those who are called "Theravada" today. Those who don't believe in a person existing are usually called abhidhammaikas today (or something of the sort). Also, Howard, do you believe that people exist? Just answer straight out. You can't believe that they do and don't exist- that doesn't make any sense. Metta, James #81542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 232 and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, Op 22-jan-2008, om 2:03 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina: "The Tiika to Ch XIV, 125 (the khandha of feeling) explains that > feeling experiences the flavour of the object." > > Larry: Does the quality of being undesirable, moderately desirable, or > very desirable play a role here? For example something could be > soft but > elicit pleasant or unpleasant feeling depending on whether it was > perceived as desirable or not. > > [see CMA p. 172 for background on the "desirable" quality] -------- N: Feeling can accompany kusala citta, akusala citta, vipaakacitta or kiriyacitta. Feeling accompanying vipaakacitta may experience a desirable object or an undesirable object, and after that the feeling accompanying the javanacittas may be happy feeling, unhappy feeling or indifferent feeling. Happy feeling can accompany kusala citta or akusala citta rooted in lobha, unhappy feeling accompanies akusala citta rooted in aversion, and indifferent feeling can accompany kusala or akusala citta rooted in lobha. A desirable object can be experienced by akusala cittas with aversion and accompanied by unhappy feeling. This all depends on someone's accumulated inclinations, preferences etc. In all cases feeling experiences the flavour of the object, it shares the same object with citta. I do not have CMA, I have Topics of Abh and Commentary. Nina. #81543 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:06 am Subject: Respnse to Re: my parody and the reasons Part 1. truth_aerator Dear RobertK, > Dear Alex > I had a look at those suttas you cite, but couldn't find anything > about slowing down the mind states. Could you highlight the phrases > where this is said. > Robert > Robert, when it says to let go (cleanse mind) of restlessness & anxiety for example. Furthermore when one enters Jhana. Lots of Metta, Alex #81544 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 21-jan-2008, om 21:27 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Would you not talk > > with me about the present moment? But not long, please. > > ----------- > > Considering that you are able to read and write so much about > Abhidhamma, I am surprised at what you've said above. --------- N: The aim of the Abhidhamma and of the whole of the Tipitaka is understanding the reality appearing at the present moment. That is why I asked you this question. It is regrettable if people miss the point, but it depends on your interest. Nina. #81545 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn Sujin’s reminders that we continue to believe that it is “us” who want to develop insight whereas it is only a dhamma, not “us” who develops insight, were an important lesson to me. If we do not apply this truth we walk on the wrong Path and we shall not become detached from nåma and rúpa. I am grateful to the founder of the Maha-Bodhi Society, Anagarika Dharmapala. If he had not initiated the preservation of the holy places we would not be able to pay respect today to the Buddha at these sites and commemorate his birth, his enlightenment, his first sermon and his parinibbåna. The venerable monks of the Maha-Bodhi society continue Anagarika Dharmapala’s excellent work with great earnestness and devotion. Their simplicity, kindness and hospitality deeply impressed and inspired us. When we were in Såvatthí near the Buddha’s dwelling place, Acharn Sujin spoke about the Buddha’s daily routine and said that every morning he exhorted the bhikkhus to be diligent. We should persevere in the development of understanding and not become downhearted when we do not see rapid progress. This pilgrimage was most fruitful since it strengthened our confidence and determination to persevere with the development of right understanding. We read in the “Gradual Sayings”, Book of the Nines, Ch I, § 3, A IV, 354, translated by Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel 238-240), that Megiya wanted to dwell in meditation in a Mango Grove. However, he was overcome by evil thoughts. The Buddha spoke to him about five things which conduct to maturity for liberation: good friendship, virtuous conduct, profitable talk, zealous exertion and insight. We read that by good friendship, which is mentioned first by the Buddha, all the other conditions are fulfilled: “Of a monk, Meghiya, who has a noble friend, a noble companion and associate, it can be expected that he will be virtuous... that he will engage in talks befitting the austere life and helpful to mental clarity... that his energy will be set upon the abandoning of everything harmful and the acquiring of everything beneficial... that he will be equipped with the wisdom that perceives the rise and fall (of conditioned things); which is noble and penetrating and leads to the complete destruction of suffering.” ----------- (the end) Nina. #81546 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:19 am Subject: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi. alex - > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Prediction is one thing, and being random is another. > ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> If something can be accurately predicted, then it isn't random. > Similar here with a standing person example. > > Another comment: After he did a step you may be able to figure out > why he did it and find causes, but always afterwards. Furthermore it > is not only what he did, BUT WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, HAD CONDITIONS BEEN OTHERWISE. > ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> But the thing is, with EXACTLY same conditions he could have steped in front, or few inches in a different direction. There are cases when one can act in this or that way. In Quantum mechanics sub atomic particles can behave in many unpredictable ways, and scientists begining to talk about probabilities rather than fixed 100 certainties. Heard of Copenhagen interpretation? Also remember that Kamma can be lessened (remember salt in a water metaphor Buddha as taught) and some things apparently aren't due to Kamma. Lots of Metta, Alex #81547 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta Vs natthatta . Was Buddha a Nihilist? truth_aerator Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > -- > > The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an > > adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being > > devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman) which > > is the "light (dipam), and only refuge" [DN 2.100]. > ... > S: Unclear in the end what the light is! > .... > Light of wisdom maybe? The undefiled mind (AN something) that is bright? But the author of that site made a good point, Buddha VERY FREQUENTLY uses Atta. Infact he uses it far more than Anatta! > > there is no "Doctrine of anatta/anatman" mentioned anywhere in the > > sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as > > other than the Soul, to be anatta. > ... > S: Sorry, Alex - it's just too confusing to me... > ...>>> The author made a valid point regarding that. Buddha seems to say ABCDEF is not self (and I agree 100%). But the Buddha didn't seem to go on and say "Bhikkave Natthatta!" (Monks, Atta does not exist!) . And please don't say, "They weren't ready to hear it". Some of the people became arahants or ariyas. For Pali Experts: Is there ANY place (in 4 Nikayas) where Buddha definately say "The Atta DOES NOT exist" ? I have to find the email of that guy at that site and see what he says about some suttas dealing with Nibbana. Lots of Metta, Alex #81548 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: chariot simile. nilovg Hi James (and Howard), Op 22-jan-2008, om 3:24 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: The Buddha didn't give the chariot example to explain anatta. ------- N: I do not want to argue anything, but since I quote from Visuddhimagga it may interest you. Larry is giving us parts of the Vis. XVIII, and he will soon reach this part: The Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification chapter XVIII, 25) explains: Nina. #81549 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment. truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: am surprised at what you've said above. > --------- > N: The aim of the Abhidhamma and of the whole of the Tipitaka is > understanding the reality appearing at the present moment. >>> It maybe is the aim of Abhidhamma, but but is it the suttas. Buddha has taught 4 Noble Truths! Stress & its cessation. The more I have studied religions and philosophies, the more I've seen the pragmatic and ultimate superiority of Buddha Dhamma as found in the Suttas. "And how is a monk learned? His evil, unskillful qualities that are defiled, that lead to further becoming, create trouble, ripen in stress, and lead to future birth, aging, & death have streamed away. This is how a monk is learned. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#t-10 "And which is comprehension? Any ending of passion, ending of aversion, ending of delusion. 1 This is called comprehension." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.023.than.html "And how is one the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.1 Yet he doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the cessation of stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that thunders but doesn't rain. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.102.than.html Notice, no mention of Abhidhamma. Lots of Metta, Alex #81550 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment. nilovg Hi Alex, Op 22-jan-2008, om 16:57 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > And how is one the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain? > There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues, > narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, > spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, > question & answer sessions.1 ---------- N: You left out the footnote 1: Sutta, Geyya, etc. question & answer sessions: here are different parts mentioned and among them are Abhidhamma. This was discussed before, and it is too repetitive to discuss this again. You said at the end: Notice, no mention of Abhidhamma. --------- > A: Yet he doesn't discern, as it actually > is present, that 'This is stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually > is present, that 'This is the origination of stress.' He doesn't > discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the cessation of > stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is > the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the > type of person who thunders but doesn't rain. This type of person, I > tell you, is like the thunderhead that thunders but doesn't rain. ------- N: You have to continue the sutta, about someone who does discern. You may learn and recite the whole Tipitaka but forget that it all points to understanding the dhamma now. That is the point of the sutta you quote. Discerning: understanding. This is stress, dukkha. What is dukkha? It is the dhamma appearing now, just now. Seeing now is dukkha and this has to be realized as it is. Just all realities appearing now. How to realize them as such? Being mindful and develop understanding of them right now, when they appear. Do not put this off. Is there no seeing now, no hearing now? These are realities mentioned in the Abhidhamma. Is there attachment to what is seen? This is explained in the Abhidhamma. Some conceit? This is explained in the Abhidhamma. Nina. #81551 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:46 am Subject: To all DSG members pannabahulo Dear DSG members, Firstly I would like to clarify two points that I made as there is clearly some deep misunderstanding. Secondly, I wish to point out the purpose of my on-line e-mails and explain why I will not be writing again until after the seminars in Bangkok. In one letter I am quoted as saying: >There are many paths to enlightenment, and we are told there are > several paths to Buddhahood. And the reply I received was: „« Only one. Satipatthana is an important part of N8P But this is not what I meant at all. In ¡§The Buddha and His Teachings¡¨ the Ven Narada Maha Thera states: ¡§According to Buddhism there are three types of Bodhisattas ¡V namely, intellectual Bodhisattas (Pannadhika), devotional Bodhisattas (Saddhadhikka) and energetic Bodhisattas (Viriyadhika). These three kinds of Bodhisattas correspond to Jnana Yogi, Bhakti Yogi and Karma Yogi of the Hindus. Intellectual Bodhisattas are less devotional and more energetic: devotional ones are less energetic and more intellectual: energetic ones are less intellectual and more devotional. Seldom, if ever, are these three characteristics harmoniously combined in one person. The Buddha Gotama is cited as one of the intellectual group. According to the books the intellectual ones attain Buddhahood within a short period, devotional ones take a longer time, and energetic ones take longer still.¡¨ (p338) The letter goes on to quote me again: >Siddhattha Gotama became a Buddha by > means of wisdom And then continues: > We will discuss this when we meet next month. But the impression I get > as of now, is that this is a wrong statement to make. True, each > individual is different and how anyone arrives at the Dhamma and > proceeds from there, the `stories' will be different and all equally > interesting. However, when it comes to what indeed the `practice' is, > namely Satipatthana, then I think we should loudly proclaim this to be > the "One and Only Way to Enlightenment". With this in mind, we should > always try to bring the attention back to this particular fact. This is a highly contentious view and one that I think is greatly misunderstood. In his excellent commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta the Ven Analayo writes: ¡§The first section of the Satipatthana Sutta proper introduces the four satipatthanas as the ¡§direct path¡¨ to realization¡K¡K¡K.The qualification of being a ¡§direct path¡¨ occurs in the discourses almost exclusively as an attribute of satipatthana, thus it conveys a considerable degree of emphasis. Such emphasis is indeed warranted, since the practice of the ¡§direct path¡¨ of satipatthana is an indispensable requirement for liberation. As a set of verses in the Satipathana Samyutta point out, satipatthana is the ¡§direct path¡¨ for crossing the flood in past, present and future times. ¡§Direct path¡¨ is a translation of the Pali expression ekayano maggo, made up of the parts eka, ¡§one¡¨, ayana, ¡§going¡¨, and magga, ¡§path¡¨. The commentarial tradition has preserved five alternative explanations for understanding this particular expression. According to them, a path qualified as ekayano could be understood as a ¡§direct¡¨ path in the sense of leading straight to the goal: as a path to be traveled by oneself ¡§alone¡¨; as a path taught by the ¡§One¡¨ (the Buddha); as a path that is found ¡§only¡¨ in Buddhism; or as a path that leads to ¡§one¡¨ goal, namely to Nibbana. My rendering of ekayano as ¡§direct path¡¨ follows the first of these explanations. A more commonly used translation of ekayano is ¡§the only path¡¨, corresponding to the fourth of the five explanations found in the commentaries. In order to assess the meaning of a Pali term, its different occurrences in the discourses need to be taken into account. In the present case, in addition to occurring in several discourses in relation to satipatthana, ekayano also comes up once in a different context. This is in a simile in the Mahasihanada Sutta, which describes a man walking along a path leading to a pit. This path is qualified as ekayano. In this context ekayano seems to express straightness of direction rather than exclusion. To say that this path leads ¡§directly¡¨ to the pit would be more fitting than saying that it is ¡§the only¡¨ path leading to the pit. Of related interest is also the Tevijja Sutta, which reports two Bhramin students arguing about whose teacher taught the only correct path to union with Brahma. Although in this context an exclusive expression like ¡§the only path¡¨ might be expected, the qualification ekayano is conspicuously absent. The same absence recurs in a verse from the Dhammapada, which presents the noble eightfold path as ¡§the only path¡¨. These two instances suggest that the discourses did not avail themselves of the qualification ekayano in order to convey exclusiveness. Thus ekayano, conveying a sense of directness rather than exclusiveness, draws attention to satipatthana as the aspect of the noble eightfold path most ¡§directly¡¨ responsible for uncovering a vision of things as they truly are. That is, satipatthana is the ¡§direct path¡¨, because it leads ¡§directly¡¨ to the realization of Nibbana¡¨ (p27 ¡V 8) As I have said before, if there were only ¡¥one way¡¦ then no sense could be made of the Lord Buddha¡¦s dying words: "Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your salvation with diligence!" Of course ¡V IMHO - I believe that satipatthana is the most direct path. And I accept entirely the Lord Buddha¡¦s injunctions to that effect. But now to move on to a major concern which has bothered me for some time now. The Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi ¡V so a Western monk in Burma informed me ¡V gave a talk in the US where he stressed the need for monastic life to be the foundation for the spread of the Dhamma in the West. His reason was that there is an incredible amount of ¡¥New age¡¨ Buddhism which lays very little stress, if any, on the importance of Sila. In fact I have one MP3 CD of a well-known meditation teacher giving Dhamma talks during a complete vipassana retreat where sila is never even mentioned at all. Now, what I call the ¡§DSG consensus view¡¨ is one where meditation is referred to as ¡§that ¡¥M¡¦ word¡¨ and where intellectualism and terminological craving gain superiority over discussing the pragmatic use of the teachings for the work of mental purification!! This, to me, is also a ¡§New age¡¨ approach to the Dhamma that seeks to avoid the hard work involved in developing sila and Samadhi ¡V and facing up to one¡¦s defilements ¡V by moving the Dhamma into the realm of academia. I find it incredible that the Lord Buddha¡¦s daily routine began at 4am when, after washing, he sat down for one hour of meditation. After that he scoured the world to see who would most benefit from his help that day. In the afternoon he met his monks, answered their questions, offered them advice and then gave them appropriate subjects for their meditation. In the middle watch of the night he taught the Devas ¡V and as they cannot be seen with the eyes ¡V we must assume that he sat in a meditative jhana to do this. In the last watch of the night he practiced walking meditation. And we also know that, at his parinibbana he entered nibbana by way of the fourth jhana. In the suttas he compares the happiness of the monk¡¦s life ¡V abiding in jhana ¡V with the pleasures of the householder¡¦s life. In the Vinaya Pitika we learn that there were rules formulated so as to enhance the opportunity for meditation practice e.g. monks were forbidden to wear wooden shoes as the noise made by them disturbed meditators. And we know that even Sariputta ¡V the foremost in wisdom amongst the Lord Buddha¡¦s sangha ¡V practiced formal meditation (Remember the story of Sariputta and Moggallana sitting in meditation when the former is struck over the head by a demon?). I have met a number of monks and lay people who have attainments ¡V including high ones - through the practice of different meditation methods and styles. Solely relying on Abhidhamma study appears to have worked for Ajan Sujin; whether it will work for others is an open question. But I do know for sure that specific practices have produced definite results for numbers of people. As I have said before, what wisdom I have gained is from study and practice; and a lot more from the latter than the former. To intellectualise and question ¡§what is meant by meditation?¡¨ is ¡V in my view ¡V just another facet of ¡§New age Buddhism¡¨ - and its future decline if left unchallenged. From all the letters and discussion that have followed from my postings show that many of you see clearly the problems I am highlighting. In the Bangkok meetings I felt sure that many were frightened off from asking questions lest they would embarrass themselves by lacking the academic know how of the terminologists. I noticed that when I did get the opportunity to ask pragmatic questions and ask for simplification, others were keen to share similar concerns with me. I do not believe that Ajan Sujin is teaching the same thing as some of her students believe. I don¡¦t see her encouraging cravings for definitions; in fact she is continually trying to pull students back to the present moment which is Paramatha and not conceptual at all! My only reason in going to Ajan Sujin¡¦s Dhamma discussions is to hear what it is that she has to teach and to follow discussions that are relevant to practice and not theory. I understand that some have this ¡§terminological thirst¡¨ and so their needs must sure be met. But is the rest of the group expected to be mere spectators of this? Whatever happened to the ¡¥group¡¦ in group discussions? I intend to attend the group discussions in Bangkok next month to see again what happens. My whole purpose for attending is to learn and that is why I have spent so much time typing this stuff - albeit one finger style. But it may well be my last visit. I received another blow today when I learnt that discussions have been set up in April where it is not possible for monks to attend. Perhaps this is all turning out like Goenka Ji¡¦s vipassana courses where everything is aimed directly at householders; and where monks and nuns are clearly made to feel out of place. So be it if that is the case. It is ultimately anatta. But I believe my efforts to express the concerns raised in this posting have been more than vindicated by many of your responses to them - both on this site and via personal e-mails. With metta and best wishes to you all, Pannabahulo Bhikkhu #81552 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment. TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2008 8:09:19 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: The aim of the Abhidhamma and of the whole of the Tipitaka is understanding the reality appearing at the present moment. That is why I asked you this question. It is regrettable if people miss the point, but it depends on your interest. Nina. ................................................................. Hi Alex and Nina How many times do we read in the Suttas the Buddha telling us "the aim of his teaching is to understand reality appearing at the present moment"? Answer ... never. I really don't think the Buddha gave a darn (I toned it down considerably) about understanding reality in the present moment EXCEPT as to its usefulness in overcoming suffering. The Buddha used a slew of approaches to detach minds. Mindfulness of the present being just one type of approach; a good approach, and perhaps a required approach, but so are many others that come under the categories of virtue, concentration, insight. If the Buddha thought stories of past peoples and past physical formations, etc. would help lead to the end of suffering, he would of spoke about those things as well. OH, BTW, he often did...and not just to beginners. These examples of the past, or future, exemplify the conditions of the present as well. The teachings are devised to detach the mind, not to know realities. Although I don't deny that mindfulness of present activities ("realities" seems to pretentious) is a very great practice, I think one has MISSED THE POINT if one thinks this is the aim of the Buddha's teaching. TG #81553 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:26 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? A Clarification dhammanusara Hi Sarah (and James), - You wrote: Hi Tep, Thx for asking. Actually I only asked for your thought on James' opinion about Khun Sujin's philosophy (or teaching). --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Do you agree with James' summary of Khun Sujin's "philosophy" below? > I do not think James' last sentence is what Khun Sujin teaches, > i.e. "determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the > best". ... >S: First on your quote above: >The Buddha neither determinism nor control. Hope is lobha, so 'hoping for the best' is also not the Buddha's teaching. T: Thank you very much. I assume that you imply that you didagree with him. BTW the rest of your post (copied and pasted below) is supposed to be the reply to James' opinion. Unfortunately, without his name being mentioned, it sounds as if you were replying to me ! [Dialogue between James and Sarah follows:] > >You have just summarized a faulty view of the Dhamma based on an > immature understanding of anatta. In that view, anatta means no > individual being; ... S: Yes, no individudal being, no atta of any kind (no chariot, no telephone, no computer, no house either). Beginning to understand dhammas as dhammas may not be a 'mature' understanding, but it is a beginning. Insisiting on having an individual who takes actions, performs and can sit to become enlightened is following a path of wrong understanding. .... >no individual being means no possible action; ... S: It means no action by any individual (or group of) beings. Meanwhile there are countless cittas performing actions as we 'speak'. .... >no possible actions means no control; no control means determinism; > determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the best. ... S: No control means life at this moment can never be according to anyone's wishes. Seeing now, hearing now arise conditioned by past kamma. Thinking, like and dislike now, arise conditioned by past accumulations. Any right reflection, right understanding now arises conditioned by what has been heard and read and reflected on before. I don't really mind what words are used, but it's obvious that right understanding and other wholesome states can and do develop accordingly. The mistake in all the summaries (and the inability to understand what some of us stress over and over again) is in the insistence of hanging on to a Self for dear life in all interpretations. .... > > >That is not the "higher truth" taught by the Buddha. > ................... > [end of the James-Sarah dialogue] > T: Thank you in advance. .... S: So what's your comment, Tep:-))??? ......................... T: It is like an old record that has been played over and over again. Yours truly, Tep === #81554 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:52 am Subject: Re: Alleged Slowing Down of Mind States (Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody ...) moellerdieter Hi Howard again , ( Alex, Robert ,and ..., ) I did not read your previous message , sorry .. though it points obviously to the same misunderstanding. you wrote: In my opinion, mind states do not slow down while meditating. The idea is incoherent, in fact. Slow with respect to what? . D: slow /calm down the activity , the speed , in scientific terms the frequency the mind works in brain waves .. there are 4 categories of mind states ,the so-called beta, alpha, theta and delta brain waves ranging from to 40 down to 1,5 cycles per second... beta is our usual busy state of action, alpha the relaxed one ( ie. contemplative, meditative) , theta (day)dreaming and delta deep sleep. That is undisputed as far as I know. H: The states of mind that are "observing" are part of the very same flow of states that are "observed." D: I think when you recall your meditation practise you will see it in way that the mind turns from a state of major body/speech/thought activity to the more passive state of observing ....calming action/performance in favor of 'contemplate /listen/examine' .. that shows another frequency H: What happens while meditating that is erroneously described as the mind slowing down is that calm and clarity and attention and mindfulness all increase enormously, and thus it is FAR easier to see what is what D: there is no calm and clarity in a body/mind agitated .. and this I understand is clearly emphazised in both the Maha Satipatthana and Anapanasati Sutta as quoted. Over to you .. what do I miss ? ;-) with Metta Dieter #81555 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta Vs natthatta . Was Buddha a Nihilist? dhammanusara Hi Sarah (and Alex), - Lots of quotes and reading assignments are not always advantageous. > ... > S: Sorry, Alex - it's just too confusing to me... > ... > > http://www.attan.com/anatta.html > > http://www.attan.com/againstanatta.pdf > ... > Better if you give us a summary of the articles with your own comments, > perhaps? > > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > T: That is a very appropriate request, Sarah. For me I only give extremely long quotes once in a while, but only as a punishment. ;-) Tep === #81556 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment. truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > In a message dated 1/22/2008 8:09:19 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > N: The aim of the Abhidhamma and of the whole of the Tipitaka is > understanding the reality appearing at the present moment. That is > why I asked you this question. It is regrettable if people miss the > point, but it depends on your interest. > Nina. > ................................................................. > > Hi Alex and Nina > > How many times do we read in the Suttas the Buddha telling us "the aim of his teaching is to understand reality appearing at the present moment"? Answer > ... never. > > I really don't think the Buddha gave a darn (I toned it down considerably) about understanding reality in the present moment EXCEPT as to its usefulness in overcoming suffering. The Buddha used a slew of approaches to detach minds. Mindfulness of the present being just one type of approach; a good > approach, and perhaps a required approach, but so are many others that come under > the categories of virtue, concentration, insight. >>>> You are right James. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking who isn't being a sheep following a tradition (Vipassana, Abhidhamma, Zen, Mahayana, Vajrayana) when examining the Pali suttas will see the pragmatic superiority of Buddhist Teaching Vs later works, and especially New Age Interpretations. I can see how AP is appealing to most modern people, and how meditation is unappealing. The style, the content, and the way in the AP and suttas is simply too great of a difference for it to be the work of One person. It is interesting how versions of the suttas found in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, etc are so similiar - yet two works in the "same" language isn't... The only 'realities' worth studying are the tendencies of the mind to create suffering. Or as Ajahn Chah used to say something like "The only book you need to study is your own Heart." (Alex: and the Suttas!!!) --------- The Earliest Buddhist Manuscripts Finally, as an epilogue let us consider the case of the earliest Buddhist manuscripts yet discovered. A few years ago the British Library in London was approached to find out if it was interested in acquiring what appeared to be some old manuscripts which had emerged from war torn Afghanistan. These were a collection of rolled up birch bark manuscripts. These are very difficult materials to deal with as they normally crumble into dust as you touch them. In this case they were stored in urns and they were purchased in the urns. The library spent a year and a half gradually humidifying and unrolling the manuscripts a millimetre at a time and ended up with fragile sheets of birch bark sandwiched between perspex sheets. It should be born in mind that birch bark is a bit like vellum, as long as its kept in normal conditions it is pliable and an excellent writing surface, it only become so crumbly if left to dry out in an arid environment for two thousand years. These were then photographed and digitised. They are a very exciting discovery as it has become apparent that they date from around the first century CE. They are written in a dialect of Prakrit in a script called Kharoshti, and the number of scholars it is said who can read this script are said to be merely a handful. The Kharoshti script was popular in the North Western part of India and dropped out of use by the time of the Islamic invasions of India. The group of scholars who are working on these manuscripts are still working on deciphering them. The initial reports indicate that they are all fragments of works. This turns out to be because they are fragments of old manuscripts which had been re-copied and the old manuscripts were interred in an urn and buried as if they the body of the Buddha. This in itself is fascinating as it shows that the Buddhists buried their old manuscripts, Hindu's also treat their manuscripts like their dead and prefer to ideally place them into rivers as they do the ashes of bodies. The contents of the manuscripts include sections from Dhammapada, the rhinoceros verses, and verses in praise of the lake now known as Manasarover by Mount Kailash, known in Buddhist literature as lake Anavatapta. There also indications that they productions of the Dhammaguptika tradition. They contain no parts of the Vinaya or Abhidhamma pitakas and appear to be all drawn from the Sutta pitaka. However, we are still waiting for further detailed reports on their contents. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut059.htm --- Out of many schools today, NONE of them accept the Theravada Abhidhamma (except for Theravadins themselves, and then NOT ALL.) But the Suttas are considered Authentic. It is also interesting that Buddha has NEVER claimed that he taught Abhidhamma, and please don't say that Vyakarana includes AP - it doesn't. 1st) Why didn't He mention AP which is supposed to be so important by that name? 2nd) If vyakarana included AP, then early schools wouldn't consider AP no to be Buddha's workds. Lots of Metta, Alex #81557 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. dhammanusara Hi DC, - Thank you for the wise discussion. > > DC: The Pali word that is translated to English as "fool" in the above is "baalo". Oxford Dictionary gives the following meaning, to fool: (noun) a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person. This appears to be most probably ok in ordinary discussions. But we use it in a much restricted sense--a baala is one he indulges in 'akusala kammas.' Or an evil-doer. T: Interesting, DC. I used to think of fool/baalo as silly & unsophisticated person, but never as an evil doer !! ............ > DC: The opposite of baala is pa.ndita. That is person who leads a righteous life. There is one other difference: "yo baalo ma~n~nati baalya.m pa.ndito vaapi tena so baalo ca pa.ditamaanii save baaloti vuccati" --(if one knows that one is a baala, by that fact he becomes a pandita; but a baala who thinks that he is a pa.ndita is indeed a fool). So here we have the definition of baala in the Dhammapada; no need to speculate. You can find the confirmation in a number of suttas in the AN and MN. T: Thus a pa.ndita who knows him/herself as pa.ndita is perhaps the best of all! BTW what about a baalo who knows him/herself as baalo but is unable to think and do like a pa.ndita ? .......... >DC: Let me explain that further: One is not only a baala but he thinks that he is pa.dita. In other words, he is conceited (di.t.thigata) and would not listen to any other point of view. Quite a lot of people would fall within this definition. > T: Once in a while I myself do not listen to another point of view too. How do I find out if I am just stubborn but not conceited? ........... >DC: Today is poya day. I have just returned from the temple; please partake of that. I am sure you would have done the same. So the last statement of your e-m, I change as follows: " With appreciation from a pa.ndita", > T: Thank you for that nice thought! I think I am just a fool who sometimes gets a little smart, then quickly falls back again to the baalo state of mind. :-( Best wishes, Tep === #81558 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment. - Typo fix + more quotes. truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > 2nd) If vyakarana included AP, then early schools wouldn't consider > AP no to be Buddha's workds. >>> Correction: 2nd) If vyakarana included AP, then early schools wouldn't consider AP not to be Buddha's words. ----- another interesting pieces The different Abhidhamma pitaka traditions are acknowledged to be later parts of the canon which were not in existence at the time of the first council and they post date the Sutta and Vinaya pitakas. There are considerable variations between the different philosophical traditions. The Theravada tradition held that there were only four realities rupa, citta, cetasaka and Nibbana, whereas the Sarvastiva da tradition held that there were five realities and included space a ka sa as a fifth reality. Also whilst the Theravada tradition held that only the present moment `existed' when things were perceived, the Sarva stiva da tradition held that things `existed' in the past, present and future. This last view accounts for the name of the tradition which means `all exists'. Due to this it is natural that the philosophical texts vary in their contents. Despite sharing a common interest in philosophical analysis. Indeed the differences between the traditions form the basis for a Theravada tradition text, the Katthavattu or `Points of controversy' which outlines the differences between the traditions as seen from a Theravada viewpoint. There is a further question which is worth addressing here is. `What parts of the Nikaya Buddhist canon are also accepted by Mahayana Buddhist traditions?' Interestingly enough though the question becomes not really what are accepted texts, so much as what are texts that interest different traditions. The Sutta texts for instance are accepted as genuine by the Mahayana tradition, but they are of little interest to the Mahayana it seems. However, almost all the traditions agree on the importance of the Dhammapada as the essence of the Buddha's teachings. The Vinaya pitaka is also a commonly held part of the early canon. Although that majority of East Asian and Himalayan traditions follow the Sarva stiva da Vinaya rather than the Theravada Vinaya, however there are in theory no major differences. This is of course quite separate from the question of how the Vinaya is interpreted which evidently varies widely between the Northern and Southern traditions. The Abhidhamma contains almost no texts which are common between Nikaya Buddhists, let alone between the Nikaya Buddhists and the Mahayana Buddhists. However, there is a similar fascination with philosophy in all the traditions. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut059.htm - Lots Of Metta, Alex #81559 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:04 am Subject: Re: Alleged Slowing Down of Mind States (Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody .... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/22/2008 9:20:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Dieter, I haven't the slightest clue why you and Alex seem to think these sutta quotes relate to claimed slowing down of mind states during meditation. I don't see that dealt with there in the slightest. What am I missing?' D: what is your understanding of : 'He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' / 'He trains himself to breathe in calming mental processes, and to breathe out calming mental processes. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It speaks of calming the mind. That refers to an ease or peace, a lessening of upset, a lessening of desire for change & a corresponding satisfaction with whatever arises. It has nothing to do with speed of anything. -------------------------------------------------------- That we have to calm the restlessness state of the every day mind in order to meditate , is out of question, isn't it? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. But this has nothing to do with speed of anything. -------------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter =========================== With metta, Howard #81560 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To all DSG members nilovg Venerable Pannabahulo, Op 22-jan-2008, om 17:46 heeft pannabahulo het volgende geschreven: > The commentarial tradition has preserved five alternative > explanations for understanding this particular expression. According > to them, a path qualified as ekayano could be understood as > a ¡§direct¡¨ path in the sense of leading straight to the goal: as a > path to be traveled by oneself ¡§alone¡¨; as a path taught by the > ¡§One¡¨ > (the Buddha); as a path that is found ¡§only¡¨ in Buddhism; or as a > path that leads to ¡§one¡¨ goal, namely to Nibbana. ------- N:Your rendering is correct. I qote a little from the Co. to the Satipatthanasutta: ------------ I like this one: One lives alone with nama and rupa when there is a moment of mindfulness and understanding, no disturbance by crowds of people. When people shout at you what is there? Intruth there are no people, there is hearing, there is sound, only nama and rupa. One can truly live alone. ---------- The discussions are certainly not limited to laypeople, and also in April there will be some in Bgk, as Sarah will tell you. As to outside Bgk, this has practical reasons. One would have to consider the mealtimes for a monk and also his seat , a seat suitable for a monk, etc. The reason is not at all that it would be limited only to laypeople. #81561 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/22/2008 9:48:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ================================= > As best I know, the Puggalavadins (or Personalists) didn't just speak of > "a person" as a 5-khandhic-stream aggregation, but referred to "a person" as > some real soul/core of existence, an individual and actual, but very odd, > entity, not just a collection and that is associated with a khandhic > aggregation but neither the same as it nor different from it. > They associated with that dynamic aggregate of interrelated dhammas that > we, along with the Buddha, conventionally call a "person," some new sort of > real entity that transmigrates, and literally is an agent of its kamma and > the recipient of the effects of it's kamma. It was viewed as some actual > something that is not a khandhic element, but that possesses rupa, vedana, sa~n~na, > sankhara, and vi~n~nana, and which thus corresponds to one of the sorts of > "self" listed by the Buddha in the Sammanupassana Sutta (SN 22.47). As I see > it, they adopted an atta-perspective that is rightly considered a > pseudo-Dhammic view. Well, I did some research on the Internet and I can't find this type of description anywhere. Where did you come across this information? Is it from a book? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Gosh, I don't recall. I've read about them for years from many sources. I know that one source was David Kalupahana. One second - I'm gonna ck some books of his I have. (Tick tock, tick tock, ...) Okay: On p.127 of his book "A History of Buddhist Philosophy, Continuities and Discontinuities," he writes of "the Vatsiputriyas who propounded the view that there is a 'real person' (santam pudgalam) who is neither substance (dravya), like material form (rupa) nor a mere designation (praj~napti), like milk (ksira), this latter being no more than an aggregate of substances." That's all he gives there, but I've seen much more elsewhere. --------------------------------------------------------- As far as what I read, the Puggalavadins just believed in the existence of the person (the name means "belief in person"); they didn't believe in a soul or anything of the sort. They believed that there was a person which was a conglomeration of the five aggregates. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so - not a mere aggregation. ---------------------------------------------------------- They didn't believe the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha and disagreed with most of the commentaries by Buddhaghosa. They also believed in a bardo state, as there is evidence of such a state in the suttas. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. ----------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I think the description fits most of those who are called "Theravada" today. Those who don't believe in a person existing are usually called abhidhammaikas today (or something of the sort). ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't believe the personalists viewed a person as a mere aggregate. It was something neither different from nor the same as that. It comes darn close to being like a cross between an astral double and the Hindu atman. ------------------------------------------------------------- Also, Howard, do you believe that people exist? Just answer straight out. You can't believe that they do and don't exist- that doesn't make any sense. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You're right - in fact that "neither here nor there" position is exactly the position of the personalists! I've already said that I do consider people to exist. No hedging - they exist. But what ARE they? People are instances of what I call "aggregations," which I have defined elsewhere. They exist and are not merely imagined but are empty of own-being in an even stricter way than the namas and rupas of which they are composed. Moreover, it is an error to think of a person as an individual rather than a collection. And what can we really do with collections? We cannot LITERALLY see them, hear them, touch them, or smell them. To speak of doing so is merely a convention. We can, however, cognize them. They are mind-door objects only, and it is only the dhammas of which they are composed that can literally be known through the other sense doors. If by my saying more than "Yes, they exist," you will say that I have not answered "straight out," well, you'll just have to make do ;-). I don't believe in giving partial answers that obscure my full belief and understanding. ------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James ============================= With metta, Howard #81562 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment. nilovg Dear TG and Alex, Op 22-jan-2008, om 18:07 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > How many times do we read in the Suttas the Buddha telling us "the > aim of > his teaching is to understand reality appearing at the present > moment"? Answer > ... never. -------- N: When the Buddha teaches the four noble Truths, he did not teach theory, or mere words. He taught about the actual dukkha now. This is the falling away of the dhamma now. We have to relate it all to the present moment, otherwise his teaching is in vain for us. He spoke countless times about the four noble truths, and these relate to our life now, except nibbaana, that can only be realized when the Path has been developed. Alex, I will not discuss now the Abhidhamma, since a lot has been written here about it. See old posts. Best is to see what it contains, the books themselves. Did you read any? Nina. #81563 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:19 am Subject: Re: What is Free Will? (Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism?) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 1/22/2008 10:20:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi. alex - > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Prediction is one thing, and being random is another. > ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> If something can be accurately predicted, then it isn't random. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, but the converse is false. ----------------------------------------------------------- > Similar here with a standing person example. > > Another comment: After he did a step you may be able to figure out > why he did it and find causes, but always afterwards. Furthermore it > is not only what he did, BUT WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, HAD CONDITIONS BEEN OTHERWISE. > ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> But the thing is, with EXACTLY same conditions he could have steped in front, or few inches in a different direction. There are cases when one can act in this or that way. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not believe that is so. --------------------------------------------------------- In Quantum mechanics sub atomic particles can behave in many unpredictable ways, and scientists begining to talk about probabilities rather than fixed 100 certainties. Heard of Copenhagen interpretation? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. --------------------------------------------------------- Also remember that Kamma can be lessened (remember salt in a water metaphor Buddha as taught) and some things apparently aren't due to Kamma. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Like what. I think that all experience that arises ultimately rests on the kamma of some sentient being or other. In any case, non-kammic conditions are still conditions. -------------------------------------------------------- Lots of Metta, Alex ============================ With metta, Howard #81564 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:36 am Subject: Re: Alleged Slowing Down of Mind States (Re: [dsg] Respnse to Re: my parody .... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/22/2008 12:49:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard again , ( Alex, Robert ,and ..., ) I did not read your previous message , sorry .. though it points obviously to the same misunderstanding. you wrote: In my opinion, mind states do not slow down while meditating. The idea is incoherent, in fact. Slow with respect to what? . D: slow /calm down the activity , the speed , in scientific terms the frequency the mind works in brain waves .. there are 4 categories of mind states ,the so-called beta, alpha, theta and delta brain waves ranging from to 40 down to 1,5 cycles per second... beta is our usual busy state of action, alpha the relaxed one ( ie. contemplative, meditative) , theta (day)dreaming and delta deep sleep. That is undisputed as far as I know. H: The states of mind that are "observing" are part of the very same flow of states that are "observed." D: I think when you recall your meditation practise you will see it in way that the mind turns from a state of major body/speech/thought activity to the more passive state of observing ....calming action/performance in favor of 'contemplate /listen/examine' .. that shows another frequency H: What happens while meditating that is erroneously described as the mind slowing down is that calm and clarity and attention and mindfulness all increase enormously, and thus it is FAR easier to see what is what D: there is no calm and clarity in a body/mind agitated .. and this I understand is clearly emphazised in both the Maha Satipatthana and Anapanasati Sutta as quoted. Over to you .. what do I miss ? ;-) with Metta Dieter ===================================== I think that what you miss is what meditators typically mean when they speak of the mind slowing down. They literally mean that there is a subjective sense similar to that of seeing a film slowing down. I recall Joseph Goldstein, founder of the Insight Meditation Society, writing of the mindstream as like a sequence of film frames, with the frames "passing by" more slowly as meditation proceeds. But the mind that is observing and the mind that is observed is the same mind. There is no observer standing back, looking at the film. The film itself is doing the looking! The sense of slowing is a misinterpretation of merely being able to observe more easily due to heightened clarity. With metta, Howard #81565 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:45 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? A Clarification dhammanusara Hi Sarah & James, - I apologize for a typo in the earlier post -- it is a critical error that must be corrected. >> T: Thank you very much. I assume that you imply that you didagree > with him. BTW the rest of your post (copied and pasted below) is > supposed to be the reply to James' opinion. Unfortunately, without > his name being mentioned, it sounds as if you were replying to me ! The word 'didagree' should be changed to 'disagree'. Thank you very much. Tep === #81566 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:20 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet HI James > Also, Howard, do you believe that people exist? Just answer > straight out. You can't believe that they do and don't exist- that > doesn't make any sense. I don't think you should make these kind of demands when dealing with deep aspects of Dhamma. It's not so simple. A search turned up that F. Scott Fitzgerald quote you made. It was from a couple of years ago,you were discussing with Sarah about balancing the tipitaka. It doesn't get explicitly at the issue at hand, but an appreciation of Abhidhamma, which you are encouraging here in proper moderation, must surely mean an appreciation that people don't exist in reality. So I encourage you to not rush to decisions on this point because of the heated demands of DSG. (Also, I see in BB's note to a sutta in SN 22 that the puggi...you know those guys...were considered atman-ists by the mainstream.) Anyways, I like this exchange: > James: Yes, we must consider all three baskets of the Tipitaka- all > at once- or the meaning of the Buddha's message is lost. > Unfortunately, in this post, you have presented the Vinaya through > the looking glass of the Abhidhamma and have lost its meaning. You > are not balancing the meaning from the suttas, the Abhidhamma, and > the Vinaya- you are weighing more heavily the meaning from the > Abhidhamma. .... S: Without the understanding we gain from the Abhidhamma, we would just read the Vinaya or anything else to be about people and situations and rules, rather than about the Dhamma. ..... >I like this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald and I think it > applies here, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability > to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain > the ability to function. Ph: I think when it comes to Dhamma a "first-rate intelligence" can't be demanded from people on the spot. I don't know if Howard has responded to your "just answer straight out", but I would recommend that you reconsider this sort of demand - it's not very first-rate, in my opinion. Metta, Phil #81567 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:16 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet Hi again James > As > Mara asked the nun: Who made this human being? Who is this human > being's maker? Who is the human being? Who is the human being that > ceases? Ph: As we know, BB uses the word "puppet" rather than "human being" but that doesn't necessarily change anything. > Mara was expressing atta-view: That a human being is created > by something, that it is a permanent something, and that it is > something that ends. The nun tells Mara that no such human being > exists.However, she didn't say that human beings don't exist at all! Ph: She says "This puppet (human being) is not made by itself, nor is this misery made by another. It has come to be dependent on a cause/with the cause's breakup it will cease." I see your point, it certainly sounds like she refers to the condionality of something that exists, rather than referring to conditionality in order to deny the existence of it. Thanks for pointing that out James.... > That would be illogical as we know that they do. Speak for yourself... ;) Metta, Phil > #81568 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:39 pm Subject: Outline of Purification of View V.5 lbidd2 Hi all, What if we fail? 15. But if he has discerned materiality in one of these ways, and while he is trying to discern the immaterial it does not become evident to him owing to its subtlety, then he should not give up but should again and again comprehend, give attention to, discern, and define materiality only. For in proportion as materiality becomes quite definite, disentangled and quite clear to him, so the immaterial states that have [materiality] as their object become plain of themselves too. 16. [various similes] 17. For in proportion as materiality becomes quite definite, disentangled and quite clear to him, so the defilements that are opposing him subside, his consciousness becomes clear like the water above the [precipitated] mud, and the immaterial states that have that [materiality] as their object become plain of themselves too. ... Larry: "he should not give up but should again and again comprehend, give attention to, discern, and define materiality only." This is a 'prompt' that is intended to prompt a prompted consciousness (sankhara citta). One can also prompt oneself to give attention again and again. Not every prompt is successful, but when it is it results in a prompted consciousness, in this case an attending plagued by afflictions which gradually becomes clear insight (pa~n~naa), like muddy water that settles down and becomes clear and thus able to discern even the most subtle mental state. For those whose vehicle is pure insight materiality comes first in the Path of Purification. In Satipatthana the object is what suites the personality type. Larry #81569 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:04 pm Subject: Citta in Buddha Dhamma. truth_aerator Hello I've found this, Few excerps, -- 1. Citta is the only thing which is said to obtain the state of "non- clinging" (anupada) "This is immortality, that being the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling (anupada) after anything" [MN 2.265]. 2. Citta is the only thing which is said to obtain the state of being "taintless" (anasava) [DN 2.35, MN 1.501, MN 3.20, SN 3.45...etc etc]. 3. Citta is the only thing which is said to obtain/is gathered in "the realm of immortality": "he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436]. "This is immortality, that being the liberated citta" [MN 2.265]. [AN 1.282] "He gathers the mind inside the immortal realm". 5. Citta is the only thing which is differentiated from the five aggregates (rupa/vedana/sanna/sankhara/vinnana): "Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436, AN 4.422]. [SN 3.234] The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi "Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis." [MN 1.511] "For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness." 15. The citta is the only thing which is deemed "the highest absolute": [MN 1.298] "Emancipation of the mind is the highest absolute." [MN 1.298] "Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind, the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind is the highest supernal." 17. The citta is the only thing which is deemed to achieve `freedom from becoming (bhava)'. All thing "as become must pass. The borne, the become, the made, the create has no other fate than to pass just as they have arises". The philosophical implication that the citta can transcend causation/becoming cannot be denied. "My mind (citta) is emancipated from desire (kama), emancipated from becoming (bhava), emancipated from nescience/ignorance (avijja), `Emancipation! Emancipation alas!'…there exists no fruit more exquisite and perfect that this." [DN 1.84] http://www.attan.com/17.html --- Lots of Metta, Alex #81570 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. philofillet HI DC, Tep and all > > > > DC: The Pali word that is translated to English as "fool" in the > above is "baalo". Oxford Dictionary gives the following meaning, > to fool: (noun) a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly > person. This appears to be most probably ok in ordinary discussions. > But we use it in a much restricted sense--a baala is one he indulges > in 'akusala kammas.' Or an evil-doer. > > T: Interesting, DC. I used to think of fool/baalo as silly & > unsophisticated person, but never as an evil doer !! > ............ > The best example in the suttanta is my personal favourite sutta, AN III, 2. "By three things the fool can be known: by bad conduct of body, speech and mind. By three things the wise persona can be know:by good conduct of body, speech and mind." Of course, "bad conduct...of mind, good conduct of mind" can be interpreted in a very broad way, so people can say that if there is?@ subtle clinging to self (not speaking here of unforgivably strong self-interest) behind an apparently good deed, it is in fact a bad deed (akusala) technically speaking. I wouldn't say that, but as you know, some people might...the definition of kusala in some circles is supra-strict....therefore a lot of wise actions we would wish to see in the light of this sutta are indeed, technically speaking, foolish. I like hearing from people with that point-of-view. Interesting to reflect on, and also easy to let go of (ignore?) when the reflecting is done. :) Metta, Phil #81571 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:45 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? truth_aerator Hello all, Few more thoughts. When it comes to "full bodied determinism" there are few issues that need to be sorted: 1) Did the Buddha teach it? 2) Is it appropriate to teach it? If so. When, if ever? I'd like to focus on #2. It is very dangerous and irresponcible to teach people this, even if it is true. Why? Because some people will use this as an excuse not to produce effort "as if ones turban was on fire" to put out the flames of greed/anger/delusion and to submit to the "conditions". Furthermore, some people could say that "It was the fault of conditions" that I've killed, raped, tortured and maimed people. Don't blame me, there isn't actually me or them, just the conditions. Nobody was killed, raped or tortured - it was all the play of the aggregates and conditionality... Do you see how bad, irresponcible, Adhammic & immoral this sounds? It is much more beneficial to DEVELOP a "healthy" sense of self that does good deeds, develops the Citta, energetically develops panna, "egotistically" tries to be as good as that Arahant monk etc. Even if there is a prely deterministic conditons, the above statements will be actually helpful. After all, it is no wonder that Buddha called his followers "Sekha" (one in training), except for Arahant who have completed the work. There is a lot to be developed and the fact that there are wholesome & unwholesome acts disproves the 100% pure determinism. I mean, how could an action be skillful or unskilful if it is 100% determined and was supposed to happen anyway, without any effort? Effort is something that isn't 100% deterministic. I mean we don't say that "a truck is trying very hard, is producing lots of effort moving that heavy load at high speeds". Same is here. The fact that effort has to be developed, and the fact that certain things have to be developed shows that there IS freedom of will, which while isn't toatally free, nevertheless has an area in which to work. Lots of Metta, Alex #81572 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. dhammanusara Hi Phil (& DC), - Thank you for sharing your thought about a "wise man" with me. Ph: > Of course, "bad conduct...of mind, good conduct of mind" can be interpreted in a very broad way, so people can say that if there is a subtle clinging to self (not speaking here of unforgivably strong self-interest) behind an apparently good deed, it is in fact a bad deed (akusala) technically speaking. T: Yes, that definition is too broad. I found the following definition of a "great man" from AN 4.35 to be very precise -- and I like it better. ........... AN 4.35: "I declare a person endowed with four qualities to be one of great discernment, a great man. Which four? "There is the case, brahman, where he practices for the welfare & happiness of many people and has established many people in the noble method, i.e., the rightness of what is admirable, the rightness of what is skillful. "He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought. "He attains — whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now. "With the ending of mental fermentations — he remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having directly known & realized them for himself right in the here-&-now. [end quote] ............. T: The phrases "thinks any thought he wants to think, wills any resolve he wants to will" and "mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought" indicate the perfectly trained mind of an arahant-- a mind that is deterministic. The "want" and "will" are freed from tanha and ditthi. The mind no longer behaves erratically, yet it is not "controlled". Clearly, there is no "self" in this case, yet great deeds are accomplished. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > HI DC, Tep and all > ... ... I wouldn't say that, but as you > know, some people might...the definition of kusala in some circles > is supra-strict....therefore a lot of wise actions we would wish to > see in the light of this sutta are indeed, technically speaking, > foolish. I like hearing from people with that point-of-view. > Interesting to reflect on, and also easy to let go of (ignore?) when the reflecting is done. :) > > Metta, > > Phil > #81573 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? A Clarification sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Actually I only asked for your thought on James' opinion about Khun > Sujin's philosophy (or teaching). > > --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Do you agree with James' summary of Khun Sujin's "philosophy" below? > > I do not think James' last sentence is what Khun Sujin teaches, > > i.e. "determinism means just listen to the Dhamma and hope for the > > best". > ... > >S: First on your quote above: > > >The Buddha neither determinism nor control. Hope is lobha, > so 'hoping for the best' is also not the Buddha's teaching. .... ****** ... > T: Thank you very much. I assume that you imply that you didagree > with him. BTW the rest of your post (copied and pasted below) is > supposed to be the reply to James' opinion. Unfortunately, without > his name being mentioned, it sounds as if you were replying to me ! .... S: Well, actually, I was replying to you because you were the one who asked for my opinion on it! James and I pretty well understand each other and we pick our 'friendly discussions' carefully! Unless he directly asks me for a comment, I leave his 'summaries' and any misunderstandings or side swipes/clarifications alone. Otherwise, I'd never get a surf:)). I agree, however, that it would have been clearer if I'd added "J" before each of his comments for clarity, so apologise for not doing this. I perfectly understand that you don't wish anyone to attribute these comments to you, lol!! ... > >> S: So what's your comment, Tep:-))??? > ......................... > > T: It is like an old record that has been played over and over > again. ... S: That's exactly why I hadn't responded to James. But you asked for that old record to be played one more time:-). Satisfied? Metta, Sarah ========= #81574 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To all DSG members sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I like this one: without a comrade, after abandoning contact with the crowd, and in > the sense of being withdrawn (or secluded) from craving, through > tranquillity of mind.> ... S: Yes, and this is the practice - living alone, companionless at this moment through the development of satipatthana, living alone with dhammas appearing, one at a time, without craving. No other way! .... > One lives alone with nama and rupa when there is a moment of > mindfulness and understanding, no disturbance by crowds of people. > When people shout at you what is there? Intruth there are no people, > there is hearing, there is sound, only nama and rupa. One can truly > live alone. ... S: Your comment about 'no disturbance by crowds of people' and 'no people....sound' reminds me of a comment I heard KS making on the set of recordings we're currently editing: KS: "Who has dosa is disturbed, not the one who doesn't have (it)" S: She was also talking on the tape about how each word should be clearly comprehended, such as 'meditation', 'suffering' and 'paramattha dhamma or absolute reality'. I think this is the practice, the meditation: to understand what reality is now. Without coming back to seeing now, visible object now, hearing now, disturbance now and so on, there will never be any development of understanding or bhaavanaa. Metta, Sarah p.s. > The discussions are certainly not limited to laypeople, and also in > April there will be some in Bgk, as Sarah will tell you. > As to outside Bgk, this has practical reasons. One would have to > consider the mealtimes for a monk and also his seat , a seat suitable > for a monk, etc. The reason is not at all that it would be limited > only to laypeople. ... S: Yes, I had already mentioned that we'd request extra discussions in Bkk. We're not the hosts or organisers at KK and I explained it wouldn't be appropriate for us to invite bhikkhus on this 'thiaw'(trip). ============= #81575 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:40 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. philofillet Hi Tep > T: The phrases "thinks any thought he wants to think, wills any > resolve he wants to will" and "mastery of the mind with regard to the > pathways of thought" indicate the perfectly trained mind of an > arahant-- a mind that is deterministic. The "want" and "will" are > freed from tanha and ditthi. The mind no longer behaves erratically, > yet it is not "controlled". Clearly, there is no "self" in this case, > yet great deeds are accomplished. Thank you for the sutta. It's interesting in Anguttara Nikaya, suttas that refer to the noble ones are side by side with suttas aimed at householders (who of course can become noble ones, potentially) and it is quite easy to tell which is which. So the sutta I quoted with its very general terms and this one aimed at the arahant as you say...we can reflect on them all. I join Robert (I forget his last initial, not K) in being very eager for Bhikkhu Bodhi to finish his AN project! Has anyone heard when it might be? Metta, Phil #81576 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:09 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. philofillet Hello again Tep and all > Ph: > > Of course, "bad conduct...of mind, good conduct of mind" can be > interpreted in a very broad way, so people can say that if there is a > subtle clinging to self (not speaking here of unforgivably strong > self-interest) behind an apparently good deed, it is in fact a bad > deed (akusala) technically speaking. I was thinking some more about this. I'm putting words into people's mouths, which isn't nice, but if they were to say something like this, they would be wrong. The only forms of wrong view which are considered akusala kamma pattha are natthika dittha (denials of the results of kamma) ahetuka ditthi ((denial of both kamma and result) and akirya ditthi (denial of the efficacy of kamma). (This from p.400 of Survey of Paramattha Dhammas) Sakkaya ditthi must eventually be eliminated, of course, but it does not constitute "bad conduct of mind." Metta, Phil #81577 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment. TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2008 1:01:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: When the Buddha teaches the four noble Truths, he did not teach theory, or mere words. He taught about the actual dukkha now. This is the falling away of the dhamma now. We have to relate it all to the present moment, otherwise his teaching is in vain for us. He spoke countless times about the four noble truths, and these relate to our life now, except nibbaana, that can only be realized when the Path has been developed. Alex, I will not discuss now the Abhidhamma, since a lot has been written here about it. See old posts. Best is to see what it contains, the books themselves. Did you read any? Nina. ............................................ Hi Nina Two people can read the same thing and get different things out of it. For example, when I read the Suttas, I don't see the stress on "now" that you seem to. The Buddha talks much about suffering of the past, present, and future. He talks much about impermanence of the past, present, and future. He talks about nonself concerning the past, present, and future. What you've written above represents an extremely narrow interpretation IMO. If I were to believe what you write, I would think that he ONLY taught about "seeing NOW." This would certainly misguide me as to what the Buddha actually taught and mislead me away from the overall sensibility of the Buddha's teachings. In fact, I'd say your near obsession with "now view" is a result of theoretical and dogmatic attachment. So, you see, from my perspective I see it the other way around. Most schools of Buddhism that developed after the Buddha's time tended to focus in on one aspect or another of that teaching; that they felt was the most important. This, in my view, has the affect of disturbing a comprehensive vision of what the Buddha was aiming for. I see virtually all the Buddha's teachings in the Suttas to be near equal in importance, depending on one's development/level. They all have the aim of detaching the mind and overcoming suffering. I DO NOT see them as having the aim of "seeing realities in the present." Rather, the Buddha taught us to know "truths," not "realities." Along with the four Noble Truths, he taught important factors as impermanence and nonself. The elements and aggregates which are impermanent, afflicting, and nonself, are all relative. They are not actual separate realities that can be pointed to. One can identify formations, yes. But these formations are not "realities," they are relativities. As a "relativity," they don't actually exist in and of themselves. They are empty of "their own" content. And attempting to identifying this or that "reality" is a process that encourages a delusional view by mentally establishing "self existing things"... and thwarts "conditionality insight" which actually does the opposite by "turning the mind away" from these phenomena. Although both you and I identify phenomena in our practice of mindfulness; you identify them as realities. I, on the other hand, consider the identifying (a necessary "evil") as an act of delusion, and the phenomena being identified as completely empty and relative and no more substantial than echoes or shadows...if that much. :-) As such, I believe your identifying tends to "build up" whereas my identifying tends to "knock down." TG #81578 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 4. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Connie, Phil* & all, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > All the objects that appear through the six doors should be fully > known; when they are understood as elements devoid of self, there can > be detachment from them. Since we have accumulated ignorance from > life to life, understanding cannot develop rapidly, without there > being the right conditions for it. We need to listen again and again > and be reminded to be aware of all dhammas that appear. .... S: Yes, the listening/reading and carefully considering is very important. I also just read extract 73 of 'Sisters' (#81468) about Sumedhaatherii. She developed faith 'through the instruction of the Doctrine' by the wise. Without hearing and considering the Dhamma deeply and by understanding its meaning, confidence will never grow. Doubts will never be eradicated. >"Trained in the Buddha's teaching (Buddha-saasane) means: trained - restrained in body, speech, and mind - in the teaching (saasane) of the Buddha (Buddhaana.m) that turns away defilements through the substitution of opposites by properly paying careful attention to the discourses such as "Thus it is set going, thus it is ended. This is virtuous conduct, this is concentration, this is wisdom." Listen, both of you means: listen to my speech you two. She approached her mother and father and spoke; that is the implication.'< ... S: Just as she had listened and paid careful attention to what she had heard, understanding precisely what virtue is, what concentration is, what wisdom is, so she instructed her parents. .... > We read in the “Dhammapada” (translated by Ven. Narada), verses 76-77 : > > Should one see a wise man, who, like a revealer of treasures, points > out faults and reproves, let one associate with such a wise person; > it will be better, not worse, for him who associates with such a one. > Let him advise, instruct, and dissuade one from evil; truly pleasing > is he to the good, displeasing is he to the bad. .... S: This reminds me of a good comment we read recently (in the Perfections corner) about how it's better to have compassion for others to help them see the danger of committing evil than afterwards when they are reaping the results from their deeds and it's too late. ... >Even > though we understand the truth intellectually, deep in our hearts we > cling to the idea of self. The Buddha taught against the stream of > common thought. ... *S: Yes and he taught the danger of all kinds of wrong view, including sakkaya-ditthi. There may not be akusala kamma-patha all/most/much of the time, Phil, but that doesn't mean the deep-rooted idea of self is not harmful. It has to be seen for what it is! Metta, Sarah ======= #81579 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:52 pm Subject: Thank you Nina pannabahulo Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your generosity and kindness in posting those excellent books; I received them this morning. I am sorry to write this personal letter on the DSG group bit I have searched for your offline e-mail and cannot find it anywhere. To tell you the truth I am close to giving up on the DSG altogether.I am also very ubsure about travelling to Bangkok as I don't think I can gain much from the seminars given that they are terminology dominated. Sarahs's commnt that the DSG are not hosting the event to take place outside Bangkok has somewhat clarified things there. Sukin also phoned me this morning which made me realise I have a friend down there who is willing to explain - in plain and simple language - what Ajan Suchin is teaching. What I will almost certainly end up doing is go to the Saturday group on 16 Feb before the seminars start.That way I can be sure of being able to ask some of the questions I have.And then I will decide whether or not to stay for the 3 day seminar. Your AIDL makes perfect sense to me; the seminars do not.I hope that I will be able to meet you in april - despite the initial setback with KK With my deepest thanks, metta and every best wish, Pannabahulo #81580 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:10 pm Subject: To Sarah pannabahulo Dear Sarah, Thank you for the further information as to why monks cannot attend the KK sessions.I was hoping to meet Nina and her husband but must just hope that that is still posible.I admit that I was very saddened over the KK issue;but it makes me realise that there is a massive divide between monks and nuns on the one hand, and lay people on the other,even over issues relating to the sharing of Dhamma. As I have just written to Nina: "To tell you the truth I am close to giving up on the DSG altogether.I am also very unsure about travelling to Bangkok as I don't think I can gain much from the seminars given that they are terminology dominated. Sarahs's commnt that the DSG are not hosting the event to take place outside Bangkok has somewhat clarified things a bit more - although I still don't understand why the hosts should be so inconvenienced by a monk.But that is obviously the way it is.Anatta. Sukin also phoned me this morning which made me realise I have a friend down there who is willing to explain - in plain and simple language - what Ajan Suchin is teaching. What I will almost certainly end up doing is go to the Saturday group on 16 Feb before the seminars start.That way I can be sure of being able to ask some of the questions I have. And then I will decide whether or not to stay for the 3 day seminar.Your AIDL makes perfect sense to me; the seminars do not". I am also vey confused as to what you mean by: "I think this is the practice, the meditation: to understand what reality is now. Without coming back to seeing now, visible object now, hearing now, disturbance now and so on, there will never be any development of understanding or bhaavanaa" I would greatly appreciate some clarification on this one when you have time. With metta, Pannabahulo #81581 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:17 pm Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. kenhowardau Hi Phil (Tep and all), ----- <. . .> Ph: > Of course, "bad conduct...of mind, good conduct of mind" can be interpreted in a very broad way, so people can say that if there is?@ subtle clinging to self (not speaking here of unforgivably strong self-interest) behind an apparently good deed, it is in fact a bad deed (akusala) technically speaking. --------------- We all talk about good and bad activities. Abhidhamma students, however, also know that really, any activity (in the conventional sense) actually occurs over the course of trillions of cittas. Some of those cittas will be wholesome, some unwholesome, some vipaka and some purely functional. Therefore, to say that any conventional activity was wholesome or unwholesome would be a gross generalisation (albeit a common one). ---------------------------- Ph: > I wouldn't say that, but as you know, some people might...the definition of kusala in some circles is supra-strict.... ----------------------------- No, the definition is pretty much the same for everyone. Lust, hatred and ignorance are unwholesome whilst non-lust, non-hatred and non- ignorance are wholesome. Some people - the Abhidhamma students - know that those characteristics actually apply to very brief moments of consciousness, but the general understanding of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness is the same for everyone, I think. ------------------------------------------- Ph: > therefore a lot of wise actions we would wish to see in the light of this sutta are indeed, technically speaking, foolish. ------------------------------------------- No, the Abidhammikas would say they were neither wise nor foolish. They are conventional - mere concepts - and, as such, they have no real (ultimate) characteristics of any kind. --------------------- Ph: > I like hearing from people with that point-of-view. Interesting to reflect on, and also easy to let go of (ignore?) when the reflecting is done. :) ---------------------- Hmmm, how about reflecting on the Abhidhamma? :-) Ken H #81582 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.4 sarahprocter... Hi Larry & all*, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > 14: Another discerns 'materiality' in his person briefly thus: 'Any kind > of materiality whatever all consists of the four primary elements and > the materiality derived from the four primary elements' (M.i,222), and > he likewise discerns the mind base and a part of the mental data base as > 'mentality'. Then he defines mentality-materiality in brief thus: 'This > mentality and this materiality are called "mentality-materiality" '. > > Larry: Mental data base (dhammayatana) consists of subtle matter > (sexuality, heart base, life, and nutriment) and the cetasikas. Thus it > is part mentality and part materiality. [I believe in some contexts it > consists of all mental objects but that would entail an unnecessary > repetition of dhammas in this context.] .... S: Dhammayatana (mental data base) consists of all subtle rupas - i.e all rupas other than the 7 rupas experienced through the senses and the five sense bases. In other words, 16 subtle rupas, cetasikas and in some contexts nibbana. It never includes 'all mental objects', i.e all arammana experienced through the mind. .... > Also notice in this "brief" definition we have shifted from defining > "all" kinds of nama and rupa to defining "any" nama and rupa. ... S: Just to stress a point which Nina picked up on as well: The purification through insight, the understanding and distinguishing of namas and rupas, involves the comprehension of "any" nama or rupa which appears at the present moment. Metta, Sarah *All, Larry has kindly invited (hmm, read 'gently pressured') me to run a set of posts on the next chapter/visuddhi ("Purification of Overcoming Doubt"). If he kindly invites you to lead one of the other chapters, please consider it a way of sharing his merit:). Also, if anyone would like to volunteer to assist him in this, I know he'll be glad to hear from you. You just need a copy of Visuddhimagga and a few ideas about what you consider 'practice' to be..... Metta, Sarah #81583 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Ven P., Just briefly, thanks for your kind understanding. --- pannabahulo wrote: > Thank you for the further information as to why monks cannot attend > the KK sessions. ... S: I just said it wouldn't be appropriate for us (Jon, Nina or myself)as guests to extend the invitation to monks. It would be up to the hosts. You'll certainly be able to meet Nina and Lodewijk at the Foundation. .... >I admit that I was very saddened > over the KK issue;but it makes me realise that there is a massive > divide between monks and nuns on the one hand, and lay people on the > other,even over issues relating to the sharing of Dhamma. ... S: Naturally, not all lay activities are suitable at all for monks. Even when we are sharing Dhamma together, the Vinaya has to be very carefully considered. Likewise, monks have gatherings and functions which lay-people don't attend. When you referred to a comment of B.Bodhi's on Monasteries and sila with regard to sharing the Dhamma in the West, I also thought of this. Respect for the Vinaya is essential. You will have plenty of opportunity to raise any of your questions at the Foundation with AS on Dhamma/dhammas as there always is for any other visitors from afar. Please don't be concerned about this. This time, you'll have your points/questions well-prepared! .... > I am also vey confused as to what you mean by: > > "I think this is the practice, the meditation: to understand what > reality is now. Without coming back to seeing now, visible object > now, hearing now, disturbance now and so on, there will never be any > development of understanding or bhaavanaa" > > I would greatly appreciate some clarification on this one when you > have time. ... S: Thank you very much for this good question/request. Yes, please ask us anytime to clarify/simplify/express in more detail anytime. It is indeed the Dhamma and such dhammas I'm most interested in discussing as this is the practice, as I see it. Right understanding is the first and foremost factor of the 8-fold Path. It is right understanding of namas and rupas which is to be developed. In another thread, Larry is quoting and discussing what 'ditthi-visuddhi' (Purification of View) is. It's made clear that it is purification of view with regard to understanding *any nama or rupa which appears now*. This is the practice, the development of satipatthana, the basis for the development of insight. So what is nama? What is rupa? These are the questions we have to consider carefully and really understand, not just by a book definition. Seeing now, at this very moment as we talk, is nama. It is the reality which experiences visible object. There is no self, no person involved at all. It's an element. Visible object which is seen now is a rupa. Again, there is no 'thing' in it. There is no computer, no watch, no person involved. It is the element which is seen only. This may sound technical and theoretical, but it's pointing to the practice at this very moment. Without any words or special attention of any kind, there can be the direct understanding and awareness now of any nama or rupa which appears without any selection, labelling, slowing down or idea of any position or technique. If it weren't possible, the Buddha wouldn't have taught it! Please let me know if this needs further clarification. With respect, Metta, Sarah ======= #81584 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Nina nilovg Venerable Bhikkhu Pannabahulo, Op 23-jan-2008, om 7:52 heeft pannabahulo het volgende geschreven: > To tell you the truth I am close to giving up on the DSG altogether. ------ N: Thank you for your kind letter. I am glad you received the books already. If you have any questions, we can all profit, so please, do not give up on dsg. It is a very good idea to ask questions on dsg. I also profit from questions, and I do not mind when people disagree, it is an opportunity to learn and consider things for myself. If you find the amount of posts too overwhelming I would say it is not necessary to read them all. Or you could take the Yahoo option: no mail or daily digest. Then there is always a possibility to ask questions when you feel like it. Although with your limited internet possibilities it may be hard to still read messages. As to K.K. there is a limited amount of bungalows, two under one roof. The Vinaya gives the rule, as I learnt, that if a bhikkhu would stay under one roof with a woman, even in another room, he has to sit up all night, he is not allowed to lay down. In the Foundation there is on weekends also an hour on the Vinaya where it is studied with experts. I hope this helps you not to feel distressed or feel excluded. That is the last thing we want. Lodewijk and I would like very much to meet you in April and we hope that you can make it. Lodewijk is very silent at discussions, but if you address questions to him it is an opportunity for him to speak. He is eightytwo and he has serious trouble hearing and cannot follow what people say very well. Lodewijk says that he is very much looking forward to meet you. With respect, Nina. #81585 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? .. baalo or pandita? .. philofillet HI Ken > We all talk about good and bad activities. Abhidhamma students, > however, also know that really, any activity (in the conventional > sense) actually occurs over the course of trillions of cittas. Some > of those cittas will be wholesome, some unwholesome, some vipaka and > some purely functional. Therefore, to say that any conventional > activity was wholesome or unwholesome would be a gross generalisation > (albeit a common one). Ph: Yes, this is good to remember. Good to reflect on, on occasion. But for me, it is more important to look at conventional activities and reflect on whether they are wholesome or not. As I was saying to James, I think it is possible to play with both kinds of understanding (that of momentary cittas, and that of conventional activities) and benefit from both. But the latter takes precedence. You see, you and I disagree quite clearly about whether the Buddha wanted us to see things in terms of momentary cittas right off the bat. You see every sutta being about understanding the present reality, the momentary nama and rupa involved. I disagree. The Buddha only taught the teachings that were particular to the Buddha when minds were good and ready for it. There is a very, very clear sutta to that effect in AN, "The Householder Ugga" (AN VIII,21): "With trusting heart, I then waited upon the Blessed ONe. And the Blessed ONe then gave me a gradual instruction, namely, a talk on giving, on virtue, on teh heavens, on the danger, vanity and impurity of sensual pleasures and on the advantages of renunciation. When the Blessed One saw that my mind was prepared, susceptible, free of hindrances, elevated and lucid, he then revelaed to me the Dhamma instruciton particular to the Buddhas, namely suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path. After that when we both had time for it, he taught me some Abhidhamma and we went for a surf." (OK, strike the last sentence.) Seriously, when you insist, as you have, that beginners should begin to know from the word go that there is nothing but nama and rupa you are doing what the Buddha himself wouldn't do, even to those who were fortunate enough to be getting the Dhamma straight from his mouth. I've gone off topic, but this is something for you to consider, I think. I know you've seen the sutta I quoted and have been told this sort of thing before, so I am sure you have a way to explain it. (Probably "I would never dare to interpret a sutta without the assistance of a commentary." - my answer to that is if even suttas addressed to householders cannot be understood without commentaries, the Buddha is not the great teacher we think him to be - and he *is*, so there! :) > > ---------------------------- > Ph: > I wouldn't say that, but as you know, some people might...the > definition of kusala in some circles is supra-strict.... > ----------------------------- > > No, the definition is pretty much the same for everyone. Lust, hatred > and ignorance are unwholesome whilst non-lust, non-hatred and non- > ignorance are wholesome. Some people - the Abhidhamma students - > know that those characteristics actually apply to very brief moments > of consciousness, but the general understanding of wholesomeness and > unwholesomeness is the same for everyone, I think. Yes, you're right. Perhaps we could say that some people talk of the extreme rarity of kusala, of all kinds of co-arisings being necessary for it. Or perhaps the difference comes in the chanda matter. You say attachment, I say wholesome chanda, or something like that. But there is no doubt in my mind that a Dhamma activity such as reflecting on a sutta, or meditating, or discussing dhamma, or - most importantly in my books - abstaining from a bad deed *is still kusala whether there is clinging to self or not* whereas I assume you would disagree. If kusala is not possible when there is clinging to self then kusala would indeed be incredibly rare because there is always clinging to self for us. So my idea of kusala is not as pure as yours. Yours is probably technically more correct, and that's fine. I get along as I must, with lots of clinging to self involved. As I said to Sarah the other day, trying to be free from clinging to self is like trying to stay dry by thinking hard about being dry when one is plunk in the middle of a nice hot bath, or something like that! Nice touching bases with you, Ken. Let's do so on occasion, but I can't discuss at length with you because I just can't be as much of a purist as you. Actually, I can't discuss at length with anyone, so don't take it personally, please. I must continue to flit in and out of here. Metta, Phil #81586 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.5 nilovg HI Larry, Op 23-jan-2008, om 1:39 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > For those whose vehicle is pure insight materiality comes first in the > Path of Purification. In Satipatthana the object is what suites the > personality type. ------- N: Being aware first of rupa or only of rupa: but what is rupa? It is different from nama. Rupa does not know anything, whereas nama cognizes an object. Rupa cannot be understood without also understanding nama. Nobody can make only rupa appear. For teaching purpose the text gives a certain order. Again, we have to be very careful when we read the Visuddhimagga lest we have misunderstandings. At the beginning of each para we see: Another defines it by eighteen elements, another defines it by tewlve aayatanas, Another defines it by the five khandhas, etc. We should not take this in a theoretical way, as if someone is thinking about it only. It all depends on what appears to the sati. As you quote: So, this happens naturally. There are nama-dhatu and rupa dhatu, nama elements and rupa elements. What is the meaning of dhatu: devoid of self. Nobody can direct what dhatu appears now. As we have seen from your quotes, realities are explained as khandhas, dhatus, aayatanas. I listened to a Thai mp3, and it was stressed that we should not cling to names when we read all this. Realities are being taught that appear in daily life and when we listen and study there can each time be a little more understanding of the present reality. Then we are well on the way. Nina. #81587 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:11 am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 1, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Alone with Dhamma Pilgrimage in India, October 2005. Chapter 1 Alone with Dhamma “We live alone in the world”, this was one of the striking points Acharn Sujin explained to us during our pilgrimage in India with hundred and twenty Dhamma-friends from Thailand and elsewhere. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, 144, Kindred Sayings on Sense, § 165, Abandoning Wrong View, translated by Ven. Bodhi) that the Buddha said: “Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees the eye as impermanent, wrong view is abandoned. When one knows and sees forms as impermanent... eye- consciousness as impermanent... eye-contact as impermanent... whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition... as impermanent, wrong view is abandoned. It is when one knows and sees thus that wrong view is abandoned.” The Buddha spoke thus with regard to all dhammas appearing through the six doorways. When a person dies we may think about the impermanence of life, but this is not the realization of the truth of impermanence, the truth that each reality that arises because of its appropriate conditions falls away. The Buddha teaches us what life really is: it is one moment of experiencing an object through one of the six doorways, the doorways of the senses and the mind-door. Visible object, sound, these are dhammas appearing at this moment, but we are ignorant of the truth. Acharn Sujin said that we live alone in the world, that we believe that there are many people around us, but that this is thinking. It is hard to accept this truth. Citta thinks of relatives and friends who exist. However, in the ultimate sense, a person is citta, cetasika and rúpa. Citta is consciousness, cetasikas are the mental factors arising with the citta, and rúpa are physical phenomena. Seeing is a citta, hearing is another citta and thinking again another citta. Citta and the accompanying cetasikas arise and then fall away immediately and also the rúpas of which the body consists arise and fall away. Understanding that in the ultimate sense a person is impermanent mental phenomena and bodily phenomena does not mean that there cannot be kindness and compassion for others. On the contrary, the Buddha exhorted us to develop all kinds of kusala and to assist our fellowmen. However, at the same time we can develop understanding of what life really is: the experience of one object through one of the six doors. When there is less clinging to ‘my personality’ we shall be more concerned for other people’s welfare. ******** Nina. #81588 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ascetical practices. was: Lessons in Detachment, sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Nina,(Howard*) You were discussing the Bodhisatta's ascetical practices in his last life, I believe. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > S: Or was it a case of wrong > > striving arising and leading to the behaviour described? > ------- > N: We do not know the ways of thinking of the Bodhisatta, this is > different from the way we think. I do not know the answer. I read > somewhere that the way he suffered from the ascetical practices was a > result of past kamma. .... S: I remember this interesting point came up in India and K.Sujin was stressing that she didn't believe wrong view wasn't involved and that as you say, he suffered from past kamma. Later, as I recall, she mentioned there was still some slight silabbataparamassa leading to such striving. Not the Middle Way at such times, but she wouldn't classify this as wrong view. I understood it wasn't the kind of wrong view which might arise now, taking the seen for being a computer, for example. ... > I read in the (Ch XXVI, p. 411): the Bodhisatta, having gone to the extreme of austerities thought, > 'But this is not the Way to Awakening', and walking for almsfood in > villages and market-towns so as to eat substantial nutriment, he > obtained it. Then his thirty-two glorious marks were restored and his > body was golden-coloured.> ... *S: Conditions for kusala vipaka again. Some might say that the intention to walk for almsfood was the 'cause' for the kusala vipaka, but of course past kamma was the main course. Acccumulated wisdom at this time and the various cittas involved were supporting conditions by natural decisive support condition, as I see it. Thanks for discussing this point further. Metta, Sarah ========= #81589 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti vs patipatti - take 3,853 sarahprocter... Hi KenH, Phil, Sukin & all, Phil, it's great to see you challenging Ken H and others here. Thanks also for all the good humour along the way:-)) I really thought Ken H put these points very well in one response, so hope you don't mind me repeating them for others: --- kenhowardau wrote: >KH: I don't know the significance of counting, do you? Counting what? > Anyway, that is not the important part. The counting must be done > with kusala consciousness, mustn't it? If I was to count with greed > or annoyance, or ignorance, would that do me any good? If it did do > me any good then wouldn't that prove the efficacy of religious rite > and ritual? <...> > Have you done any of those things, Phil? If not, why not? Is it > because you have no respect, or you are disobedient etc? Not > interested in mental development? No, it isn't any of those things. > It is because you are sensible enough to know that those methods are > not meant for you. > > They are for people who have accumulated the inclinations for jhana > development. For such people, the methods are not rites or rituals, > they are their natural inclinations. Having heard the methods from > their teacher, they naturally follow them to the best of their > ability (just as naturally as you or I might pick up a book). <...> S: Sukin, I also particularly appreciated your post (#81460) on the Middle Way. As you summarise: "The Middle Way *is* to know the way things are." Thanks guys! Metta, Sarah ====== #81590 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Okay: On p.127 of his book "A > History of Buddhist Philosophy, Continuities and Discontinuities," he writes > of "the Vatsiputriyas who propounded the view that there is a 'real person' > (santam pudgalam) who is neither substance (dravya), like material form > (rupa) nor a mere designation (praj~napti), like milk (ksira), this latter being > no more than an aggregate of substances." That's all he gives there, but I've > seen much more elsewhere. James: Thanks for providing this information. Unfortunately, I don't understand it. ;-)) > > > Also, Howard, do you believe that people exist? Just answer > straight out. You can't believe that they do and don't exist- that > doesn't make any sense. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You're right - in fact that "neither here nor there" position is exactly > the position of the personalists! James: Really? Just haven't seen that yet. I've already said that I do consider > people to exist. No hedging - they exist. James: Okay, thank you for the straight answer. I thought this was your viewpoint but I was starting to wonder because of this thread. > But what ARE they? People are instances of what I call "aggregations," > which I have defined elsewhere. They exist and are not merely imagined but are > empty of own-being in an even stricter way than the namas and rupas of which > they are composed. Moreover, it is an error to think of a person as an > individual rather than a collection. James: Okay, I am following you okay until you get to this point. I don't see the difference between and "individual" and a "collection". Humans are individual collections of the five aggregates. I don't share your kamma and vice versa. I have had different lifetimes than you and vice versa. > And what can we really do with collections? We cannot LITERALLY see > them, hear them, touch them, or smell them. To speak of doing so is merely a > convention. We can, however, cognize them. They are mind-door objects only, and > it is only the dhammas of which they are composed that can literally be known > through the other sense doors. James: This description, to me, is getting dangerously close to saying that people don't exist, only dhammas exist. Are you trying to accomidate all viewpoints: Abhidhamma and Personalists? > If by my saying more than "Yes, they exist," you will say that I have > not answered "straight out," well, you'll just have to make do ;- ). James: No, you answered staight out. Clarifications are fine. ;-)) I don't > believe in giving partial answers that obscure my full belief and understanding. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James #81591 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:49 am Subject: Disturbance (was: To all DSG members) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Han & all, --- sarah abbott wrote: > >N: One lives alone with nama and rupa when there is a moment of > > mindfulness and understanding, no disturbance by crowds of people. > > When people shout at you what is there? Intruth there are no people, > > there is hearing, there is sound, only nama and rupa. One can truly > > live alone. > ... > S: Your comment about 'no disturbance by crowds of people' and 'no > people....sound' reminds me of a comment I heard KS making on the set of > recordings we're currently editing: > > KS: "Who has dosa is disturbed, not the one who doesn't have (it)" .... S: After writing this, I also remembered the following reminder on patience and disturbance in an extract from "Perfections" which Han recently posted: >"As we read, patience is “the unimpeded weapon of the good”: akusala can be destroyed when one is righteous. When patience arises we have no disturbance, because khanti, patience, cannot harm righteous people. “Patience is the unimpeded weapon of the good in the development of noble qualities, for it dispels anger, the opposite of all such qualities, without residue". "< S: I find the reminder helpful that "when patience arises we have no disturbance". So very true and helpful to remember! Metta, Sarah ======= #81592 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:57 am Subject: Re: 1.Re: [dsg] Pariyatti vs patipatti - take 3,853 sarahprocter... Hi James & all, I was interested in the following: --- buddhatrue wrote: > Then the householder Nakulapita, delighting in & approving of the > Blessed One's words, rose from his seat and ¡X bowing down to the > Blessed One and circumambulating him, keeping him to his right ¡X > went to Ven. Sariputta and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat > to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Sariputta said to > him, "Your faculties are clear & calm, householder, your complexion > pure. Have you had the opportunity today of listening to a Dhamma > talk in the presence of the Blessed One?" <...> > "When this was said, the Blessed One said to me, 'So it is, > householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, & encumbered. > For who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true > health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should train > yourself: "Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be > unafflicted." That is how you should train yourself.' That's how I > was sprinkled by the Blessed One with the deathless ambrosia of a > Dhamma talk." > > "But why didn't it occur to you to question the Blessed One > further: 'In what way is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind? > And in what way is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind?' > > "I would come from a long way away to hear the explication of these > words in Ven. Sariputta's presence. It would be good if Ven. > Sariputta himself would enlighten me as to their meaning." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html .... > James: You see, this elderly householder became calm and happy just > from listening to the Dhamma from the Buddha; however, the > householder didn't really understand what he just listened to! > Sariputta had to explain it to him! It takes more than just > listening to penetrate the Dhamma. ... S: Couldn't another conclusion be that 'it takes more than listening to penetrate the Dhamma, it takes a lot more listening, more elaboration, more consideration and more understanding to really penetrate the Dhamma'? A good sutta to discuss, thanks James. Metta, Sarah ======== #81593 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:15 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > Ph: I think when it comes to Dhamma a "first-rate intelligence" > can't be demanded from people on the spot. I don't know if Howard > has responded to your "just answer straight out", but I would > recommend that you reconsider this sort of demand - it's not very > first-rate, in my opinion. > James: I think it is sweet the way you jump to everyone's defense. It shows you have a lot of compassion! :-) I wanted to get a straight answer, otherwise it would take several posts to get to the point. And now Sarah, Nina, Jon, etc. can be happy with the fact that I treat everyone the same- rude! ;-)) Metta, James #81594 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Outline of Purification of View V.1 sarahprocter... Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Does one > discern rebirth linking which is essentially a function of a kind of > consciousness? If so, how so? ... S: Patisandhi citta doesn't arise now so it can't be the object of panna. However, through the developed understanding of the rise and fall of cittas now, we can understand how it's no different at birth -just another citta arising and falling away. .... > > Sarah: "I'd like to stress that this vipassana wisdom refers to the > direct > understanding of dhammas and their characteristics through insight, not > a thinking/analytical/book knowledge or pariyatti level knowledge." > > Larry: I agree but "learning and questioning about those things that are > the 'soil' ", in other words book knowledge of the abhidhamma, is an > important preliminary to insight. ... S: Like Nina, I'd like to stress the importance of understanding Abhidhamma as part of our day right now, rather than stressing 'book knowledge'. We can read and memorise the entire Patthana and not have even a beginning of pariyatti if there's no comprehension of namas and rupas appearing now as anatta. Apologies for replies in the wrong order.....blame it on Phil who taught me an artistic aproach to responding after I mentioned to him my previously methodical approach:-)) Metta, Sarah ========== #81595 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet Hi James > James: I think it is sweet the way you jump to everyone's defense. It > shows you have a lot of compassion! :-) I wanted to get a straight > answer, otherwise it would take several posts to get to the point. And > now Sarah, Nina, Jon, etc. can be happy with the fact that I treat > everyone the same- rude! ;-)) Thanks for the compliment, though as we know wanting to have things nice and smooth here can just be a lot of aversion demanding settlement. No,I wasn't talking about manners. I've always found you likeable, even when I used to bitch at you. I was talking more about the principle of not insisting to settle deep matters too fast. It's something I've always felt here, back when I was complaining about "dojo busters", and still now. I think there is a tendency in these kind of forums to try to settle matters too fast, to carve out our views too clearly. I'm not a psychic, but I care about you and sense that you are pushing too deeply into a kind of view that rejects Abhidhamma, rejects the valuable aspects of what people like A. Sujin have to say. Like that Fitzgerald quote suggests, to get at the truth we have to tune into seemingly conflicting ways of seeing things, ever so gradually. It's not easy to listen to A. Sujin and pick out the valuable teachings from all the mistaken ones, for example. It's not easy to try to get through to understanding that the seemingly contradictory teachings of "no James" and James are both true. It takes time, can't be demanded in a tell-me-what-you- think-now way. (In my opinion,but Howard obviously didn't think so, and that's cool.) BTW, do you remember what the context of that Fitzgerald quote was in the book you left in Egypt? Did you say it was a Dhamma- related book? I wouldn't be that surprised if it was talking about paramattha and conventional truths. Do you remember? Sorry to bug you about this but I'm going to. I might even make that Fitzgerald quote my signature thang... ...also, do you now disagree with what you wrote in that post to Sarah back then, that there is value in Abhidhamma? Just say yes or no - do you reject Abhidhamma absolutely? Give me an answer, goddamit! Metta, Phil #81596 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sutta Presenting the "No Person/No Actor/ No Agent" Perspective of the Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Another delayed reply to #81175 --- upasaka@... wrote: > I think the following sutta is one of the clearest expositions of > impersonality in the Sutta Pitaka. > SN 12.12 > Phagguna Sutta > To Phagguna > > Translated from the Pali by > Nyanaponika Thera <...> > Source: From _The Four Nutriments of Life_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel105.html) , ... S: I've had this wheel for ages and was delighted to look at it again in your post. .... > "There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, > and > for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, > > coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional > thought; > fourthly, consciousness." ... S: This is straight Abhidhamma in the Sutta. Ahara paccaya (nutriment condition). ... > After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted > One as > follows: > "Who, O Lord, consumes_1_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html#n-1) > the nutriment consciousness?" > "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that > 'he > consumes.'_2_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html#n-2) > If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be > appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the > question > will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'_3_ .... S: And so on. Some accuse us of nit-picking when we pick up on the equivalents of 'Who consumes', 'who acts' and so on, but here we have the Buddha patiently (in a sutta!) expalaing that it's not appropriate to consider someone as having sense-impressions, someone feeling, someone craving and so on. Just dhammas performing their various functions in the cycle of samsara. I appreciate the way the Buddha stresses the importance of formulating the questions correctly. Helpful notes too. The first one says: 1) "...The commentators say that this monk believed that he understood the three other kinds of nutriment but concerning consciousness he had conceived the notion that there was a "being" (satta) that takes consciousness onto himself as nutriment. 2) "Comy: "I do not say that there is any being or person that consumes (or eats)."-- upasaka@... wrote: 3)"Comy: "That means: 'For what (impersonal) state (or thing; katamassa dhammassa) is the nutriment consciousness a condition (paccaya)?'" The term dhamma, in the sense of an impersonal factor of existence, is here contrasted with the questioner's assumption of a being or person performing the respective function...." **** S: Thanks again, Howard. I like your subject heading too! Metta, Sarah ======= #81597 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:07 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 21 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 457. "Devesupi upapatti, asassataa bhavagate aniccamhi; na ca santasanti baalaa, punappuna.m jaayitabbassa. 455. "Even rebirth among the devas is non-eternal. [It is birth] in an impermanent existence. But fools are not afraid of being reborn again and again. Bhavagate aniccamhiiti sabbasmi.m bhave anicce devesu upapatti na sassataa, eva.m santepi na ca santasanti baalaa na uttasanti na sa.mvega.m aapajjanti. Punappuna.m jaayitabbassaati aparaapara.m upapajjamaanassa. 455. [It is birth] in an impermanent existence means: since every existence is impermanent, rebirth among the devas is not eternal. Even though this is so, they are not afraid. Even though this is so, fools are not afraid, they are not frightened, they do not experience a profound stirring. Of being reborn again and again (puna-ppuna.m) means: arising again and again (aparaapara.m). 458. "Cattaaro vinipaataa, duve ca gatiyo katha~nci labbhanti; na ca vinipaatagataana.m, pabbajjaa atthi nirayesu. 456. "Four lower realms and two [higher] realms are obtained somehow or other, but for those who have gone to a nether realm, there is no going forth [as an ascetic] in the hells. Cattaaro vinipaataati nirayo tiracchaanayoni pettivisayo asurayoniiti ime cattaaro sukhasamussayato vinipaatagatiyo. Manussadevuupapattisa~n~nitaa pana dveva gatiyo katha~nci kicchena kasirena labbhanti pu~n~nakammassa dukkarattaa. Nirayesuuti sukharahitesu apaayesu. 456. Four lower realms (vinipaataa) means: hell, rebirth as an animal, the ghost realm, rebirth as an Asura - thee four are the lower realms (vinipaata-gatiyo) of an upleasant body. But the two realms known as birth among men and among devas are obtaine, somehow or other, with difficulty and trouble because it is difficult to do meritorious actions. In the hells means: in the lower realms devoid of happiness. 459. "Anujaanaatha ma.m ubhayo, pabbajitu.m dasabalassa paavacane; appossukkaa gha.tissa.m, jaatimara.nappahaanaaya. 460. "Ki.m bhavagate abhinandi, tena kaayakalinaa asaarena; bhavata.nhaaya nirodhaa, anujaanaatha pabbajissaami. 457. "Permit me, both of you, to go forth in the teaching of the Ten-Powered One. Having little greed, I shall strive for the elimination of birth and death. 458. "What [have I to do] with existence, with delight, with this unsubstantial worst of bodies? For the sake of the cesation of craving for existence, pemit me. I shall go forth. Appossukkaati a~n~nakiccesu nirussukkaa. Gha.tissanti vaayamissa.m bhaavana.m anuyu~njissaami, kaayakalinaa asaarena bhavagate ki.m abhinanditenaati yojanaa. Bhavata.nhaaya nirodhaati bhavagataaya ta.nhaaya nirodhahetu nirodhattha.m. 457. Having little greed (appossukkaa) means: without greed (niru-ssukkaa) for other duties. I shall strive means: I shall endeavour, I shall be diligent in mental development. 458. What [have I to do] with existence, with delight, with this unsubstantial worst of bodies? That is the implication [of the preceding verse]. The cessation (nirodhaa) of craving for existence (bhava-ta.nhaa-ya) means: the cause of the cessation (nirodha-hetu), for the sake of the cessation (norodh'-attha.m), of craving (ta.nhaaya) connected with existence (bhava-gataaya). .. to be continued, connie #81598 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: I think there is a tendency in > these kind of forums to try to settle matters too fast, to carve out > our views too clearly. James: I am not trying to "simplify" anything just to be expedient. I really do believe that the teaching of "no person" is wrong. I don't think that it's a higher dhamma or any other such nonsense. The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, though boring to some, are the highest Dhamma you are going to get!! It's not easy to try to get through to understanding that > the seemingly contradictory teachings of "no James" and James are > both true. James: No, they cannot both be true. There cannot both be a person and not be a person. There either is or there isn't a person. And the Buddha taught that believing in "no person" is wrong view: "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings [[[no James, no Nina, no Lodewijk, no Phil, etc.]]]; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html I don't think it could get any more direct than that! > BTW, do you remember what the context of that Fitzgerald quote > was in the book you left in Egypt? Did you say it was a Dhamma- > related book? I wouldn't be that surprised if it was talking about > paramattha and conventional truths. Do you remember? Sorry to bug > you about this but I'm going to. I might even make that Fitzgerald > quote my signature thang... James: No, sorry, I don't exactly remember the title of the book. I think it was a book on Zen. Zen speaks of understanding two opposing viewpoints of duality and non-duality. Not really related to the Abhidhamma issue. > > ...also, do you now disagree with what you wrote in that post to > Sarah back then, that there is value in Abhidhamma? Just say yes or > no - do you reject Abhidhamma absolutely? Give me an answer, > goddamit! James: LOL! No, I don't reject Abhidhamm absolutely. I believe there is value in knowing the details of wholesome and unwholesome mind states. But, I don't find much value in anything else presented to me thus far from the Abhidhamma (I can't read it myself so it's hard to say). And, I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma so it should be of lesser status than the other two Pitakas- and it should never be used as a reason for stating that beings (humans, devas, pets, etc.) don't exist. > > Metta, > > Phil > Metta, James #81599 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:34 am Subject: Re: Full bodied determinism? philofillet Hi James > view. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html > > I don't think it could get any more direct than that! Yes, pretty direct indeed. Thanks for the reminder. > > BTW, do you remember what the context of that Fitzgerald quote > > was in the book you left in Egypt? Did you say it was a Dhamma- > > related book? I wouldn't be that surprised if it was talking about > > paramattha and conventional truths. Do you remember? Sorry to bug > > you about this but I'm going to. I might even make that Fitzgerald > > quote my signature thang... > > James: No, sorry, I don't exactly remember the title of the book. > I think it was a book on Zen. Zen speaks of understanding two > opposing viewpoints of duality and non-duality. Not really related > to the Abhidhamma issue. Ph: O.K > > ...also, do you now disagree with what you wrote in that post to > > Sarah back then, that there is value in Abhidhamma? Just say yes > or > > no - do you reject Abhidhamma absolutely? Give me an answer, > > goddamit! > > James: LOL! No, I don't reject Abhidhamm absolutely. I believe > there is value in knowing the details of wholesome and unwholesome > mind states. But, I don't find much value in anything else > presented to me thus far from the Abhidhamma (I can't read it myself > so it's hard to say). And, I don't believe the Buddha taught the > Abhidhamma so it should be of lesser status than the other two > Pitakas- and it should never be used as a reason for stating that > beings (humans, devas, pets, etc.) don't exist. Ph: Again O.K. I also tend to believe the historical evidence that makes is pretty clear that the Buddha didn't teach Abhidhamma in the form we have it, but it feels like it's in line with the kind of teaching found in SN 35, 22, 12, especially...and goes at things at a different angle, a helpful angle. It's not in the tipitaka just because some over-analytical monks wanted to put their stamp on things, I don't think - there is a reason for it to be there. OK, I'll let you go. You can see that I'm just ducking out. Time for another one of my little breaks. Metta, Phil