#83400 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Jon, - > > I missed your posts. You might have been too busy, or not motivated > enough to partcipate in most discussions like you did in the past. > Ironically, I seem to have less time in semi-retirement for posting than I had when working full-time ;-)). > T: Even when the "seeing consciousness' is excluded, still I have no > clue how to experience a visible object not as a person or a thing. > Yet I know how to contemplate 'this is not mine; this is not my > self', and it works every time to reduce frustration and sadness. > ............ > The understanding that sees visible object as visible object is not something that occurs when and how we think it should ;-)) And a prerequisite for its occurrence is an appreciation that that is part of the development of the path. > T: Let me try to explain why I think it is important to be aware of > our capability to perceive the world of beings. It is simply for the > clear communication purpose. If we fail to make it clear, we would > not be able to understand what kind of "realities" the other person > is referring to. ;-)) > There are two different situations: what we actually perceive > (through seeing, hearing, ...), while we still have clinging, versus > what we think we should train the mind to perceive in order to > abandon vipallasas (see Vipallasa Sutta: Perversions; AN 4.49). > ....................... > I think the distinction you are making, and it's a distinction I agree needs to be made, is between (a) the world as perceived by us and (b) the world as said by the Buddha to exist in the ultimate sense (as we understand the teachings). Obviously, the world as currently perceived by us is of little interest or value to discuss. It is (b) that is the subject of discussion on this list, together with the path to the realisation of the truths about the world as it is in the ultimate sense. But at the same time, we do not claim to be anything other than a (mostly) deluded worldling! > T: It is not possible to answer whether or not it is possible to know > if a worldling may have moments of "kusala consciousness accompanied > by panna", since there are two questions that I have been unable to > answer: > > 1. How fast do those moments arise and fall away? The worldlings are > unable to catch those moments of realities at the paramattha level. > So, how can he know whether he really have such moments? > 2. Because of overwhelming arisings of akusala cittas and their > vipakas, how could any puthujjana be "free of all ignorance and wrong > view" even for a moment ? > ....................... > There is a limit to what can be verified now by direct experience. But we can consider the present moment on the basis of the way we understand things to be as taught by the Buddha, as a kind of working hypothesis. That is to say, we can conceive of the possibility of something described in the teachings, without either accepting or rejecting the matter. > T: So, according to your book, the consciousness can be free of all > ignorance, at least in principle. But can you give a few real-world > examples to verify the book statements? > We can only say that it seems possible (feasible?) that things are that way. Verification may require more highly developed panna. But it goes without saying that we cannot expect verification of something in advance of the development of the necessary panna by which it can be verified!! Thus the importance of having a correct intellectual understanding of things first. > T: How could he, a worldling like me, verify your statement, > i.e. "not all of his moments of consciousness are infested with > ignorance or wrong view"? > I suppose the beginning of verification would be to begin to know the different characteristics of the different dhammas. Gradually the characteristic of ignorance and wrong view may be known. Easier said than done, though! But even if the statement itself cannot necessarily be verified, the fact of it's being the teaching of the Buddha can be confirmed by a study of the texts. Jon #83401 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Alex) - In a message dated 2/28/2008 11:18:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Alex, I have experienced most but not all of the elements of abhidhamma. I think if you looked carefully you would see that you have also. If it is too complicated, just think of it as 5 khandhas. Some people want to know everything in great detail. Others are satisfied with simple explanations. Larry ================================ Much of the detailed structure that is claimed in Abhidhamma, most specifically the alleged temporal sequence of discrete citta-quanta and the sharp arisings and cessations claimed for cittas, cetasikas, and rupas, I cannot be at all certain of having directly experienced. The details of the process of cittas laid out in the commentaries, a (to me) aesthetically lovely scheme, are also beyond my experience and knowledge. What I *have* experienced, no more Abhidhammic than Dhammic, is conditionality, unsatisfactoriness, and radical ("microscopic") impermanence with regard to the ungraspable paramattha dhammas. As regards these last, by which I mean nothing other than 5-aggregate phenomena, I believe we *all* experience them. We all experience body-door sensations: hardness, warmth, movement, fluidity, sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and we all experience mental states and operations. We experience them, but usually without much clarity. However, with sufficient calm attention in place, we can distinguish them, observe their fleeting nature, their not providing satisfaction, and even pick up on conditional relations holding among them, most especially the conditionality associated with impulse-activity of impersonal will and many of the other of the relations laid out in the Buddha's description of dependent origination. For example, the relational sequence contact > feeling > recognition > proliferation has become increasingly evident to me, the feeling conditioning recognition being the most subtle link. (We tend to think it should be recognition > feeling rather than feeling > recognition. But both hold. After the cognitive and affective proliferation ending the 4-link chain I mention above, contact then reoccurs, this time mind-door contact, and the same sort of chain, contact > feeling > recognition > proliferation, occurs at this new level. So, the recognition in the first 4-link chain leads in steps to the feeling in the subsequent 4-link chain.) With metta, Howard #83402 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/28/2008 11:59:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (PS to Larry), ----------- <. . . > H: > It's not you at all, but the perpetual "sparring" and rehashing of the same stuff. ----------- You have my sympathies. :-) Occasionally I feel the same way, especially when my rehashing isn't appreciated. But most of the time I can't get enough of it. I am a bit like the Ancient Mariner who was condemned to telling his story over and over again. Or maybe I'm more like someone who sat for an exam in which the paper read: '"There is only the present moment." Discuss. Time allowed: the rest of your life!' :-) ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No disparagement meant at all by this, Ken, but that not being able to get enough of it can sometimes be a kind of compulsive clinging. I think it's good to be able to relax our tightly clenched fists and to adopt an attitude of "Maybe not so." It matters much more what we can come to "see" than what we believe, it seems to me. --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- <. . .> Howard: > That's fine, and certainly is your right. Sometimes I may just not reply - though most likely, despite my better judgement, I'll get "pulled in," and we'll get into round 1,000,000 or so of our lightweight championship boxing competition in the WDDA (World Dhamma Disputation Association). --------------------------------------------------------- I should be the last one to talk about people not replying. I really admire the way you and some others here are able to keep up with so many threads. I get left behind, and most of my posts have lost their relevance before I can finish writing them. So, just be glad I am not better organised! :-) ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! One of the blessings bestowed upon me! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------------- Ken H PS: Larry, sorry for being so late with the next Vism. instalment. Just wait till I get myself organised! K =============================== With metta, Howard #83403 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:19 am Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... A Pali Lesson? .. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: SN38(8) Volition (1) Cetanaasutta.m (Bh. Bodhi, trans): "At Saavatthi: 'Bhikkhus, what one intends (ceteti), and what one plans (pakappeti), and whatever one has a tendency towards (anuseti): this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness (aaramma.nameta.m hoti vi~n~naa.nassa .thitiyaa). When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness (Aaramma.ne sati pati.t.thaa vi~n~naa.nassa hoti). When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. "If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards anything, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness...Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. "But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering." 1) What is 'basis'? T: "1. The basis here is 'aarammana' which means "support, help, footing, expedient, anything to be depended upon as a means of achieving what is desired, i. e. basis foundation" [PTS Dictionary]." Scott: The Buddha is showing that the object is the base of consciousness. This is Abhidhamma in the suttas. I think that this refers to Aarammana Paccaya (Object Condition) as clarified in Pa.t.thaana: "(i)Visible object-base is related to eye-concsiousness element and its associated states by object condition. (ii)Sound-base is related to ear-consciousness element and its associated states by object condition. (iii)Odour-base is related to nose-consciousness element and its associated states by object condition. (iv)Taste-base is related to tongue-consciousness element and its related states by object condition. (v)Tangible object-base is related to body-consciousness element and its associated states by object condition. (vi)Visible-object base, sound-base, odour-base, taste-base, tangible-object base is related to mind-element and its associated states by object condition. (vii)Taking any state as object, these states, consciousness and mental factors arise; those (former) states are related to those (latter) states by object condition." Scott: In Note 112 (p.758), Bh. Bodhi includes the Commentarial material related to the above: "...This becomes a basis (aaramma.nam eta.m hoti): These various states such as volition become a condition; for here the word aarama.na is intended as condition (paccaya...)" 2) How is 'basis' a 'support for establishing consciousness'? T: "2. This 'support for establishing consciousness' is volitional formations that produce kamma and dukkha according to Paticcasamuppada." Scott: Well, as shown above, I think it is the mental factor cetana (volition) that is being discussed. This mental factor is one of the states related to aarama.na by object condition. As set out in Pa.t.thaana, the object is the base for the arising of the related element and consciousness. Here too, I think, it is Conditional Relations as described in Pa.t.thaana, not Dependent Origination, that is being elaborated. There are differences in the way these particular methods explain things. Here, it is conditional relations being discussed. Dukkha would then refer to the characteristic inherent in each conditioned dhamma. The Commentarial clarification (p.758) is: "For the maintenance of consciousness (vi~n~naa.nassa .thitiyaa): for the purpose of maintaining the kammic consciousness. When there is condition there is support for the establishing of consciousness (pati.t.thitaa vi~n~naa.nassa hoti), i.e., for the establishing of kammic consciousness [Spk-p.t: it has a capacity to yield fruit in one's mental continuum]." 3) How are what one intends (ceteti), plans (pakapeti), or 'whatever one has tendency towards' (anuseti) seen as 'bases for the maintenance of consciousness'? T: "3. The Dependent Origination explains volitional formations that consist of cetesi, pakappeti, and anuseti." Scott: This verb 'cetesi' is in relation to the mental factor (cetasika) cetanaa (volition). Dhammasa"nga.ni shows cetanaa to be "The volition, purpose, purpose, purposefulness, which is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection..." Pa.t.thaana describes Kamma Condition as: "(i)Faultless and faulty kamma is related to resultant aggregates and kamma-produced matter by kamma condition. (ii)Volition is related to its associated states, and matter produced thereby, by kamma condition." Scott: The Abhidhamma provides material which clarifies the sutta and shows that what is being discussed is from the vantage point of 4) What do ceteti, pakapeti, and anuseti refer to? T: "4. Their meanings are as follows: ceteti = intend, to think, to reflect, to be of opinion pakappeti = to arrange, fix, settle, prepare, determine, plan anuseti = to obsess, to fill the mind persistently." Scott: As noted, this refers to cetanaa, and the tendency of the fruit of kamma to carry on in the mental continuum. Anuseti, as clarified by the Commentaries, refers to the anusaya: "...whatever one has a tendency towards (anuseti) implies the underlying tendencies (anusaya) under the headings of conascence and decisive-support conditions for twelve (unwholesome) volitions." T: This sutta is about volitional formations that supports (as paccaya for) the establishing/stationing of cittas. It is explained by the Dependent Origination as you know it : when patisandhi citta comes to be, the consequence is thus a renewed becoming(bhava) and the whole mass of dukkha. In order to cut off the "basis" that supports the establishing of consciousness, one must stop the volitional formations (i.e. intending, planning, or having a tendency toward anything). Scott: This sutta is an example of one of the many suttas in which the Buddha is expounding the principle which are found within the Abhidhamma. I don't think that your latter statement is quite how I interpret the sutta. When cetanaa no longer produces fruit, the basis is cut-off. T: Thank you for responding to my request. But why do you think 'the questions cannot be answered in any correct or satisfactory or precise way without recourse to Abhidhamma' ? Scott: Oh, because I am satisfied with the Abhidhamma clarifications of the way in which things are and see no contradiction with the suttas. Without Abhidhamma clarification, imprecise and incorrect interpretations abound. I'd like corrections and amendments to be offered in areas I have not been accurate. Sincerely, Scott. #83404 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau Hi Tep, --------- <. . .> T: If you disagree with me that the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas, then it follows that you believe He taught realities/existence of dhammas in the Suttas. Only when you disagree, then my request is you prove your point. ------- OK, I will try to answer in another way. But I don't see what was wrong with my first attempt: the very idea that the Buddha taught about things that did not really exist seems completely ridiculous. You must agree with me, surely! (?) If someone is claiming that the things the Buddha taught did not really exist then, surely, the onus is on that person to prove his extraordinary claim! So, what did the Buddha teach in the suttas? Some things that come to mind are dukkha (conditioned dhammas), tanha (the cause of dukkha), nibbana (the cessation of dukkha) and magga-citta (the path leading to the cessation of dukkha). Are these things absolute realities, Tep? Yes of course they are. They are not ideas and theories. They are paramattha dhammas. I won't continue listing things the Buddha taught. Perhaps, instead, you could mention some of things he taught that, to your mind, seem to be non-existent. -------------- <. . .> T: The only thing in your reply that gladdened me is the sutta quote from SN 22.94. BTW Do you know why it was not translated by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu? ------------- I believe Ven T is on a mission to prove his unique and original theory (that the Buddha believed in self). Other people - not just me - have noticed that he is rather selective in the suttas he publishes. ------------------- T: > I admit that this sutta quote really shows that the Buddha did talk about the khandhas as being real. ------------------- As I said before (rightly or wrongly) I don't think many people would have needed to hear this sutta. There should be no doubt that the things the Buddha taught were absolutely real. But there were some respected teachers who taught ultimate nothingness. And so, I suppose, some people needed to hear the Buddha to spell out the obvious - "Yes, the khandhas really do exist!" But that's just my understanding of the sutta: I don't remember having seen any commentaries on it. ----------------------- T: > Then why have you and Howard kept on arguing about reality and existence of the dhammas, since who knows when? ----------------------- As you know, it is not just Howard who is reluctant to see a teaching of ultimate reality in the Abhidhamma. In suspect a large majority of Buddhists reject the Abhidhamma to some extent. Don't you? I do have a theory on why people are reluctant to recognise dhammas as ultimatly real, existing. things. But maybe I should leave that for another time. Ken H #83405 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/29/2008 6:00:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 29-feb-2008, om 3:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But what I find a much more interesting question is "In terms of > suffering and its end, why would it matter whether there is one > object at a time or > more?" - that is, "What does it matter as regards the ultimate goal > of the > Dhammic life?" And that same question arises in my mind with regard > to all the > other issues that you point to in the rest of this post. The > tilakkhana - > they matter! The four noble truths - they matter! Dependent > origination and > conditonality - they matter! But the rest seem like ... well, they > seem like some > of the most unimportant simsapa leaves on the trees. ------- N: It is good you consider what really matters. But just one point here I like to touch on: "why would it matter whether there is one object at a time or more?" - I think it does matter. It leads to detachment from taking realities for self, for person. Take seeing and defining what one sees. Should visible object not be known as just that which appears through eyesense? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, as opposed to "the visible appearance of some entity". But whether one or more sense-doors are operative at the same time - I opt for one! - is irrelevant. ------------------------------------------------------ Otherwise we believe that a person can really be seen. And also, visible object is rupa, different from nama. The stages of insight could not arise if the difference is not known. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Nina, I find your comments here to be missing the issue at hand. (Sorry. :-) ------------------------------------------------------- Nina. ============================ With metta Howard #83406 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/29/2008 6:44:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: Dear Venerable Pannabahulo, Reading your post I thought about what the reaction of 'meditators' on DSG would be. I've only quickly looked through the several responses. But from what I got out of that, predictably the suggestions offered by that particular camp was basically to the effect of encouragement for "what can and should be done". On the other hand, also as expected, the other side, namely Nina and Mike, drew your attention to the importance of understanding the present moment. =============================== I'm "a meditator" [I just LOVE that putting into quotes! (not)]. Did you have problems with my post to Bhante, message # 83358? Sukin, why don't you consider engaging in a few less confrontational discussions and less talk of "camps"? I sure think that less confrontation on DSG would be useful to one and all. With metta, Howard #83407 From: "connie" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Vism.XVII,243 nichiconn Path of Purity, pages 684-5 In detail the grasping in sense-desires is the firmness of craving, already described as being of one hundred and eight kinds, for visible objects and so on; the grasping of views is wrong views having ten bases. As it has been said: "What therein is the grasping of speculative opinion (views)? 'There is no such thing as alms, or sacrifice ... there are in the world no recluses or brahmins who have reached the highest point, who, having understood and realized by themselves alone both this world and the next, make known the same' - all this sort of speculation .. this shiftiness of grasp is what is called the grasping of speculative opinion (views)." {Ibid. §1215. See Buddhist Psychological Ethics, p.300.} Perversion as to the opinion that holiness is by means of rite and ritual is the grasping of rite and ritual. As it has been said: "What therein is the grasping of rite and ritual? The theory, held by recluses and brahmins outside our doctrine that holiness is got by rules of moral conduct and by rites [570] - this kind of opinion ... this inverted grasp is called the grasping of rite and ritual." {Ibid. pp.239-240.} The theory of individuality with the twenty bases is the grasping of a theory of the self. As it is said, "What therein is the grasping of a theory of the self? When in this world the ignorant, average man who ... is not trained according to the doctrine of good men, regards the self as bodily shape ... then this inverted grasp is called the grasping of a theory of the self." {Ibid. pp. 236-239.} Such is here the brief and full accounts of states. #83408 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates sukinderpal Hi Howard, ================ > > Reading your post I thought about what the reaction of 'meditators' on > DSG would be. I've only quickly looked through the several responses. > But from what I got out of that, predictably the suggestions offered by > that particular camp was basically to the effect of encouragement for > "what can and should be done". On the other hand, also as expected, the > other side, namely Nina and Mike, drew your attention to the importance > of understanding the present moment. > > =============================== > I'm "a meditator" [I just LOVE that putting into quotes! (not)]. Did you > have problems with my post to Bhante, message # 83358? > Sukin, why don't you consider engaging in a few less confrontational > discussions and less talk of "camps"? I sure think that less > confrontation on > DSG would be useful to one and all. > > With metta, > Howard > ======================= S: The thought did occur to me and I even compared my style to that of Mike's and that of other's. The conclusion was that their's doesn't work either anyway and perhaps it needs more than one way of expressing the same ideas to get the point across. ;-) Of course that wasn't an attempt at justifying even when I hoped that instead of objecting to it, people should just concentrate on the topic of discussion and not bother with how I express myself. Believe me Howard, every time I say what I say, not only about meditators, but also when I express my disapproval of 'other' teachers, my main intention is to invite discussions, discussions about Dhamma. And I see no point in discussing about people, let alone get any pleasure from criticizing them. So Howard, we can discuss Dhamma if you like, leaving out any reference to camps. And BTW, my letter to Ven. Pannabahulo was in part connected to the conversation I had with him on the telephone a day or two before. So you probably have a better picture now? ;-) Metta, Sukin #83409 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:52 am Subject: Fwd: [dsg] Perseverance, attention to Dan. nilovg A post from Dan. Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Dan Dalthorp > Datum: 29 februari 2008 4:38:28 GMT+01:00 > Aan: Nina van Gorkom > Onderwerp: Antw.: Fwd: [dsg] Perseverance, attention to Dan. > > Hi Nina, > It is great to hear from you. Thank-you for writing! > > And it is also good to see that the seven years' > discussion with Howard about "bhaavanaa" and > "meditation" continues with the same energy and > patience on all sides. > > Oh, do I miss you all at DSG! > > How are things going with you? > > -Dan > #83410 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:54 am Subject: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, We do not define all the time what is seen, we do not think all the time, “this is a tree, this is a tree”. There are also moments of just seeing, no thinking. We may believe that we see a particular object, like a tree, but is there not also colour at the background? We do not have to think of tree or background, but all that is visible can be seen. Seeing is not focussing on specific colours such as red or blue. When our eyes are open many different colours appear through eyesense and there is no need to enumerate or define all these colours. They just appear through the eyesense and after that we pay attention to the shape and form of things and we know that this is a person and that an animal or tree. A person is not seen. It is impossible that a person impinges on the eyesense, how could he contact eyesense? But to apply this knowledge is difficult, because we are used to believing that we see people and things all the time. Insight can only very gradually be developed. When we are hearing we may think of the sound of traffic, but we do not think all the time, “this is the sound of traffic”. There are also moments of just hearing, hearing of what impinges on the earsense, of sound. Earsense is rúpa, it is ready for impact of sound, just sound, nothing else, so that hearing can arise. Sound is rúpa, hearing is nåma, they have different characteristics. Earsense is the physical base for hearing and it is also the doorway for the experience of sound. Hearing arises at the earbase. Many processes of citta occur extremely fast. When we are in conversation with others we communicate by means of the words we speak. When we hear sounds and then recognize different syllables that form up words, many ear- door processes arise and in between many mind-door processes of cittas that remember meanings. Saññå does its task of marking and remembering the object, so that we can remember a whole sentence, sequences of them and understand the meaning of what is spoken. When someone speaks to us, there are moments of just hearing and moments of understanding of what has been said. When we translate words from Thai into English, it seems that we can do this immediately, without thinking, but in reality there are many different cittas arising in sense-door processes and mind-door processes. If there is no hearing of just sound, how could we translate anything? It is the same in the case of reading, we actually translate what is seen into meaning. However, there is also seeing of what appears through the eyesense. Seeing is different from paying attention to the shape and form of the letters. We need perseverance to listen to the Dhamma and carefully consider it, so that we can understand the difference between concepts of people and things, and the conditioned dhammas of our life which are citta, cetasika and rúpa. When there is more understanding of dhammas as objects of satipaììhåna, the difference between concepts and dhammas will be clearer. We can learn the difference between nåma, which includes citta and cetasika, and rúpa. Nåma is the dhamma that experiences an object and rúpa is the dhamma that does not know anything. ****** Nina. #83411 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:40 am Subject: Re: Abh vs. Yogacara , Continuity of consciousness question truth_aerator Dear James and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > James: What I find interesting is the "problem" presented by the > Abhidhamma in that there are times that cittas are not present and > how the Yogacara view of eight different consciousnesses accounts > for this. But I also find the idea of a "storehouse consciousness" > problematic in that it isn't momentary (anicca) but is forever > changing (anicca as well...or is it??). Thoughts anyone? > Metta, > James > Storehouse consciousness a) Is impermanent (eventually it disappears) also like the 8th Jhanic plane (which lasts 84,000 MK) it lasts a long time. Impermanence doesn't have to be instanteneous. Existence in Rupa or Arupa lokas is impermanent, but it lasts a LONG time. b) Is NOT a self. Actually it is a mistake, ignorance, kamma. c) It is like a "place" where Kamma is stored, which is constantly changing as new kamma is seeded there and used kamma is gone. Obviously when overturning of Alaya happens, and mind ceases, this ceases as well. Kinda like when ALL kamma becomes defunct with the passing of an Arahant. In order for effect to happen, it must be caused. If the cause exists only for a mind moment, then it must be explained as to HOW the effect happens later on in the future. For example, "where" does the reserve Kamma "located" in order to later on ripe in Vipaka? Lets say X represents the stream of cittas with cetasikas, C=kamma or cause, E=Kamma Vipaka or Effect CXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXE One citta (with cetasikas) rises and falls. Question, how does E arises as result to C? One way to answer is to say that momentary C somehow "infects" the later cittas and matures when the conditions are right. Imagine dropping a paint into a rushing clear stream of water. Graphically it can be illustrated as: CXcXcXcXcXcXcXcXcXcXcXcE Question to Abhidhammikas. Is this how Theravada views continuity? Can Cittas and Bhavanga citta in them contain kamma that will ripen in due time (Like a rushing stream of water with some paint in it)? Another way is to say that C in the past STILL exists in some way and when the time is right its effect ripens. I suspect this is something that Sarvastivadins had in mind. Another way to answer the dilemma would be to say that MULTIPLE streams are possible, but this seems not to be Ther Abh. view. Even though one stream may cease temporarily (or change), the other contains the causes to fruit later on. Example: Induvidial stream: CXXXX...etc...XXXXEXX Kammic storehouse: PCCCC...etc...CCCCC-- X=citta and or bhavanga stream E=Fruition of Effect P=past version of storehouse C=containing a specific Kamma - = empty of Kamma due to the fact that it has ripened. Lots of Metta, Alex #83412 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi TG > NEWER TG: #1) When folks are separating 89 consciousness, 52 mental > formations, I forget how many rupas? 21? etc. At any rate, when "own > characteristics" is being talked about in regard to these things, it is not impermanence, > affliction, and nonself that is being described. > > > #2) I fail to see how each dhamma can have "its own characteristic" when > all the characteristics are THE SAME for each dhamma as you have indicated > above. Doesn't make sense. So therefore, I have to reject the statement you > made above unless you have a totally and radically different view than say > Nina or Sarah. > There is a point to mention here that has perhaps escaped your attention. Each dhamma has a unique characteristic by which it is distinguished from all other dhammas, eg, that which makes visible object different from sound. It is this unique characteristic that is referred to as its "own characteristic". That is the only connotation of "own": not shared with any other dhamma. The ti-lakkhana are not (to my knowledge) referred to as "own characteristics". > #3) As for this take -- (unalterable, but lasting only for an > infinitesimally short moment of time). Please supply a Sutta reference for this view of > impermanence. But I'm quite sure there isn't one. BTW, this view of > impermanence also falls into line with substantialism theory. I.E., you unwittingly > see these "dhammas" as "existent selves" for brief moments. I know you > won't think so...but I think so. To my understanding, the fleeting nature of dhammas is standard Theravadin orthodoxy. Do you have a different view of the impermanence of dhammas? > You're always a challenge to talk to but that's good fun. > My own thoughts exactly ;-)) Jon #83413 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi Howard To my understanding, dhammas are considered to be "realities" in the sense that they are the same for every sentient being, through all time. Visible object and sound, attachment and aversion; these do not have to be named in order to be known. They just *are*. And as every student of the teachings learns from the outset, these dhammas are conditioned. They arise by conditions, and then fall away immediately. Their arising and falling away is so fast that they appear to be continuous. I do not see how, with this information, incorrect views can arise on account of the choice of "realities" as a translation of the term "dhammas". You say: "... far too many people think that Theravada presents a radical pluralism of alleged separate, self-existent entities, as pointed out by Karunadasa" If that is the case, surely the problem is the accumulated tendency to wrong view, rather than the terminology being used. I have not seen any basis for it being the latter (other than the mere assertion/speculation that it is so). Jon #83414 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/29/2008 1:47:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard To my understanding, dhammas are considered to be "realities" in the sense that they are the same for every sentient being, through all time. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what that "Same for every sentient being" business means. First of all, without telepathic ability, how would one know? Secondly, I do not believe that tastes and sights etc are the same, for example, in insects and in humans. Thirdly, what's this "through all time" business? -------------------------------------------------- Visible object and sound, attachment and aversion; these do not have to be named in order to be known. They just *are*. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Naturally the names are irrelevant. Names are mere convention. Who says differently? -------------------------------------------------- And as every student of the teachings learns from the outset, these dhammas are conditioned. They arise by conditions, and then fall away immediately. Their arising and falling away is so fast that they appear to be continuous. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, huh. ----------------------------------------------------- I do not see how, with this information, incorrect views can arise on account of the choice of "realities" as a translation of the term "dhammas". -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, I've already explained my objections to that usage, and I choose to refrain from it as harmful. You, of course, can do as you wish. Why are you beating this dead horse? It just won't run. ------------------------------------------------------ You say: "... far too many people think that Theravada presents a radical pluralism of alleged separate, self-existent entities, as pointed out by Karunadasa" If that is the case, surely the problem is the accumulated tendency to wrong view, rather than the terminology being used. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it is a misreading of Theravada based on poor communication. Connotation is almost as important as denotation in communication! (Hey, I just love that rhyme and cadence, don't you? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ I have not seen any basis for it being the latter (other than the mere assertion/speculation that it is so). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: So long as a not insignificant number of people misinterpret Theravada based on language use, it is irrelevant whether you see them as foolish or not, and whether you deem such language use as reasonable or not. When I was a teacher, I would use whatever means would work to communicate to people, without insisting on sticking only with speech I deemed "logical." If people misinterpret certain terminology (by your lights), then try other terminology! The aim should be clear communication, not stubborn adherence to fixed ways of speech. ------------------------------------------------------ Jon ========================== With metta, Howard #83415 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 29-feb-2008, om 14:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > Yes, as opposed to "the visible appearance of some entity". But > whether > one or more sense-doors are operative at the same time - I opt for > one! - is > irrelevant. > ------------------------------------------------------ > N: Impossible that eye-door operates at the same time as the ear- > door. One object impinges on one doorway at a time. ------- > Quotes N: Otherwise we believe that a person can really be seen. And > also, visible object is rupa, different from nama. The stages of > insight could not arise if the difference is not known. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Nina, I find your comments here to be missing the issue at hand. > (Sorry. > :-) ------- N: I am sorry you did not get my point, perhaps I did not bring it clearly enough. I gave an example in my Buddhism in Daily Life: someone is at the opera, and likes the singing but dislikes the sight. On account of hearing the sound lobha arises, and on account of seeing visible object dislike arises. How could these arise at the same time? Just one doorway at a time is operating. All these things, taught in the Abhidhamma and also illustrated in the sutta, are basic. Basic to understand oneself. ***** Nina. #83416 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:07 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. 1 vs multiple streams simulteneous truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: I am sorry you did not get my point, perhaps I did not bring it > clearly enough. > I gave an example in my Buddhism in Daily Life: someone is at the > opera, and likes the singing but dislikes the sight. On account of > hearing the sound lobha arises, and on account of seeing visible > object dislike arises. How could these arise at the same time? >>> Of course that greed being opposite to anger, CANNOT arise at the same place and time as anger like brightness and darkness cannot coexist at the same time/place. However it is quite different regarding eye and ear consciousness (Seeing & Hearing) which have separate domains and are non contradictory. >>> Just one doorway at a time is operating. All these things, taught in the Abhidhamma and also illustrated in the sutta, are basic. >>> Not 1 type of consciousness at a time happening... It is much better for anatta view to hold simulteneous 6, or up to 8 consciousness (all dependent on MULTIPLE conditions) happening AT the same time - thus showing lack of Ultimate, Singular consciousness. You know when the Buddha talked about 5 Khandas, one of the points he wanted to drive in was that there are MULTIPLE processess happening EACH of which are interdependently arisen anicca->dukkha and without "The One". When only one consciousness happens at the time, too many questions arise. If one consciousness affect the next one, what happens when an Anagamin enters Nirodha Samapatti? Does this mean that ALL consciousness and everything (except for the body) is wiped clean? How can citta restart from NO cause (remember, the previous cittas are gone)? At the time of Nirodha Samapatti, where is the determination to come out a certain time are located? At the time of Nirodha Samapatti, where is Kamma due to ripen (Habitual, reserve, weighty) located? How can Anagamin Bob enter Nirodha Samapatti and come out still as Bob and not Tom, Dick or Harry? All these problems are EASILY solvable if we assume at least two streams: actual & potential, or 6 to 6+ consciousness. Lots of Metta, Alex #83417 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/29/2008 2:45:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 29-feb-2008, om 14:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > Yes, as opposed to "the visible appearance of some entity". But > whether > one or more sense-doors are operative at the same time - I opt for > one! - is > irrelevant. > ------------------------------------------------------ > N: Impossible that eye-door operates at the same time as the ear- > door. One object impinges on one doorway at a time. ------- > Quotes N: Otherwise we believe that a person can really be seen. And > also, visible object is rupa, different from nama. The stages of > insight could not arise if the difference is not known. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Nina, I find your comments here to be missing the issue at hand. > (Sorry. > :-) ------- N: I am sorry you did not get my point, perhaps I did not bring it clearly enough. I gave an example in my Buddhism in Daily Life: someone is at the opera, and likes the singing but dislikes the sight. On account of hearing the sound lobha arises, and on account of seeing visible object dislike arises. How could these arise at the same time? Just one doorway at a time is operating. All these things, taught in the Abhidhamma and also illustrated in the sutta, are basic. Basic to understand oneself. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, you seem not to be following me. I ALSO believe that only one doorway at a time is operative. I just don't see why it would matter if it were otherwise. What is important is that all sense-door phenomena are impersonal, conditioned, fleeting, unsatisfactory, and painful if clung to, and that is a fact whether the processing is sequential or parallel - to formulate the matter in digital-processing terms. With metta, Howard #83418 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) walterhorn I hope no one will mind if I ask a few very basic questions in connection with this topic. I apologize in advance for undoubted confusion over many of these matters, and will certainly not mind if it is deemed profitless to try to answer such questions in this context. But here goes: 1. I take it that what is suggested here is that a baby's being born with, for example, spina bifida, results from what perhaps may be called "failures" (though perhaps that's the incorrect term) in a prior life. Would it then be correct to say that it is in some sense the baby's "fault," or, perhaps better, that it was the "fault" of the prior instantiation of this baby? Or what? Are these fair implications to draw from the quoted passage? 2. Does it follow from the suggestions that one OUGHT to think and act in this or that fashion toward, for example, one who is engaging in proper bodily activities but wrong speech, that both our thoughts and actions are within our power to alter? And, if so, does this fact support the theory that one's inability to act or speak rightly are "faults" that may be in a sense "punished" by one's situation in his/her next life (by, for example, being born with clubbed feet)? 3. If there is no mind or ego--those being concepts that reflect errors in seeing the world--exactly what is it that is reborn in the babies mentioned above? There are, presumably, no memories of the former life, no mental or physical "stuff" that have been retained. If there is no I or ego, how can we begin to understand what it is that is said to be reborn? Another way to put this, perhaps, is: What are the identity criteria one may use to say that someONE is "reborn"? Again, I am very much enjoying the passages and exigeses that are appearing here and apologize if this is an inappropriate place or time to put my obviously elementary questions. I understand too how broad (or even in an upleasent sense immense) they are. In any case, I will certainly take no offense if they are completely ignored. Best, W --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han, > Thank you very much. > Op 24-feb-2008, om 9:21 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > Here, I would like to quote a passage from The Essence > > of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr. Mehm Tin Mon. > > > > Quote: [Lobha is a strong desire for sensuous objects > > or jhaana happiness. It will never give up this > > intrinsic nature of desiring however much one may > > possess. Even the whole wealth on earth cannot satisfy > > the desire of lobha. > ------ > N: I am delighted you quote from this good book. The monkey simile we > find in the sutta, but he gives more details which I like. > And this, so true: firmly > by lobha to sense-objects as well as to their > possessions. They cannot renounce the world and their > worldly possessions including wives or husbands, sons > and daughters. So they are being caught up by old age, > disease and death, life after life.> > As to: this fact, lobha, ditthi and maana are collectively called `papanca > dhamma.'>, very good, this is in the Commentaries. It is also said > that these 'slow down' , they keep us in the cycle. > Han: support the cittas and the cetasikas associated with > it and also the cittaja-ruupa and > patisandhi-kammaja-ruupa, by means of > hetu-paccayasatti.> > To resume: satti is force. The hetu-paccaya, rootcondition is its force. > Nina. #83419 From: "colette" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:05 am Subject: "Capital Idea" Gomez Adams ksheri3 Hi Howard, I seriously believ that you had difficulty translating my post and that, within the admittance of ignorance, you placed hidden supports for your opposite position to my position. As I said, I am still overjoyed that you took the time to relate your confusion to me, HOWEVER, here in this post you clearly show your devotion to the PAST. Now if I'm gonna hold you to Nargarjuna then we're in for a roucus time in the sandbox, Alex can be the referee since he seems to grasp Nargarjuna better than us both, maybe it's his Kagyu characteristics showing thru. Just to send the first grain of sand hurling across the cosmos: What is this continual repetition of yours to be being appologetic? I mean it seems that you're sorry that anything in the past has existed or transpired. can I have a ruling here: Is it appropriate to bring in the concept of "going", "the goer" and "the gone"? To answer my own question to you Howard I'll suggest that your concept of the past is completely dependent on CLINGING which sets up this entire script for Dependent Origination. Once people were always clamoring to me about my use of Western magickal traditions in a Buddhist context since i have something of a reputation in that area, but they kept saying: "Let it go" and I would have loved to have replied to them that I have let it go but it's still there and has not changed, the people that have made that happen have not changed what they made happen, in fact they have made it even worse since they continually rub salt into the wound as if salt was the Eastern European way of suggesting friendship. I let the past be the past but others, in their infinate wisdom of greed and avarice simply refuse to allow the past to be the past UNLESS it makes them look good or gives them credit for being a superior breed of DNA. gots ta go. toodles, colette #83420 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Capital Idea" Gomez Adams upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 2/29/2008 4:35:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Howard, I seriously believ that you had difficulty translating my post and that, within the admittance of ignorance, you placed hidden supports for your opposite position to my position. As I said, I am still overjoyed that you took the time to relate your confusion to me, HOWEVER, here in this post you clearly show your devotion to the PAST. Now if I'm gonna hold you to Nargarjuna then we're in for a roucus time in the sandbox, Alex can be the referee since he seems to grasp Nargarjuna better than us both, maybe it's his Kagyu characteristics showing thru. Just to send the first grain of sand hurling across the cosmos: What is this continual repetition of yours to be being appologetic? I mean it seems that you're sorry that anything in the past has existed or transpired. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: If I believe I have acted improperly and have hurt someone, the result is that I regret it, I want to try to remove some of the hurt, and I apologize. It is an attempt to make up for causing harm. Should I apologize for *that*? ;-) BTW, are you taking up psychoanalysis these days? LOL! -------------------------------------------------------------- can I have a ruling here: Is it appropriate to bring in the concept of "going", "the goer" and "the gone"? ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? ----------------------------------------------------------- To answer my own question to you Howard I'll suggest that your concept of the past is completely dependent on CLINGING which sets up this entire script for Dependent Origination. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You wouldn't have any clue in that regard, Colette. For the record, I would prefer not being second guessed and undergoing remote analysis. I don't presume to know your motivations and the bases for your actions. I'd appreciate it if you would accord me the same respect. ------------------------------------------------------ With metta, Howard #83421 From: han tun Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) hantun1 Dear Walter (and Nina and others), At the outset, I wish to thank you very much for your keen interest in these Patthaana series. > Walter: I hope no one will mind if I ask a few very basic questions in connection with this topic. I apologize in advance for undoubted confusion over many of these matters, and will certainly not mind if it is deemed profitless to try to answer such questions in this context. But here goes: Han: I am writing these series not because I am an expert on the subject, but because I hope to gain more understanding of this difficult subject if I write and obtain valuable contributions from other members. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can manage, and Nina and others will fill in or correct me if my answers are wrong or inadequate. -------------------- > Walter: 1. I take it that what is suggested here is that a baby's being born with, for example, spina bifida, results from what perhaps may be called "failures" (though perhaps that's the incorrect term) in a prior life. Would it then be correct to say that it is in some sense the baby's "fault," or, perhaps better, that it was the "fault" of the prior instantiation of this baby? Or what? Are these fair implications to draw from the quoted passage? Han: It is the Law of Kamma that is inter-related with the Law of Causal Relations (Patthaana).Both of these Laws are impersonal. We cannot say of ‘fault’ or ‘punishment’ or ‘rewarding. It is simply that if there is the cause there is the effect. The baby must have done some wholesome deeds and unwholesome deeds in his/her past life. Because of the wholesome kamma he/she is reborn as a human being. But because of the past unwholesome kamma he/she has the spina bifida. --------------------- > Walter: 2. Does it follow from the suggestions that one OUGHT to think and act in this or that fashion toward, for example, one who is engaging in proper bodily activities but wrong speech, that both our thoughts and actions are within our power to alter? And, if so, does this fact support the theory that one's inability to act or speak rightly are "faults" that may be in a sense "punished" by one's situation in his/her next life (by, for example, being born with clubbed feet)? Han: I do not quite understand your question. As regards, ‘faults’ and ‘punishment’ as I have said, we should not look it in that way, because the Law of Kamma is very much impersonal. -------------------- > Walter: 3. If there is no mind or ego--those being concepts that reflect errors in seeing the world--exactly what is it that is reborn in the babies mentioned above? There are, presumably, no memories of the former life, no mental or physical "stuff" that have been retained. If there is no I or ego, how can we begin to understand what it is that is said to be reborn? Another way to put this, perhaps, is: What are the identity criteria one may use to say that someONE is "reborn"? Han: It is connected with the subject of anatta or no-self. To be honest, I myself am not very good at it. I have said many times in this forum, that sometimes I feel that “I” exist, sometimes I think what others (proponents of anatta) said are correct, in that there is no ego or self. This is one area which I am absolutely not sure of myself. -------------------- > Walter: Again, I am very much enjoying the passages and exigeses that are appearing here and apologize if this is an inappropriate place or time to put my obviously elementary questions. I understand too how broad (or even in an upleasent sense immense) they are. In any case, I will certainly take no offense if they are completely ignored. Han: Your questions are very good questions, Walter. If I cannot produce satisfactory answers it is my insufficiency. Perhaps, Nina or other members can explain these things much clearer than me. Thanking you for your kind interest, Respectfully, Han #83422 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. lbidd2 Hi Howard, Howard: "Much of the detailed structure that is claimed in Abhidhamma, most specifically the alleged temporal sequence of discrete citta-quanta and the sharp arisings and cessations claimed for cittas, cetasikas, and rupas, I cannot be at all certain of having directly experienced. The details of the process of cittas laid out in the commentaries, a (to me) aesthetically lovely scheme, are also beyond my experience and knowledge." Larry: I don't recall reading anything about "discrete citta-quanta and sharp arisings and cessations [of cittas]". Consciousness does arise and cease but not with a hatchet. As for citta process, I haven't experienced the process itself but I do know what adverting, investigation, determination, javana, and registration are. In fact I was thinking the other day that short term memory problems may be due to insufficient or weak registration. Certainly you aren't obliged to find these processes helpful in understanding experience but _some_ people do. Some people even gradually acquire a sense of egolessness simply by immersing themselves in this doctrine. Why doubt? Larry #83423 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Hi Larry and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: Consciousness does arise and cease but not with a hatchet. As for citta process, I haven't experienced the process itself . >>> Can someone explain HOW does citta arise? Or even better, how does one mind moment condition the next? If two events can't overlap in time and space - then we have a paradox. The effect (the next citta) depends on the cause to DISAPPEAR first in order to arise. Exactly how does one mind moment carries the information to the next mind moment? >>>>> In fact I was thinking the other day that short term memory problems may be due to > insufficient or weak registration. >>> As I understand it, the experiences associated with strong emotions ARE remembered MUCH better and more vividly than bland experiences, plain psychology . Lots of Metta, Alex #83424 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/29/2008 7:15:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard: "Much of the detailed structure that is claimed in Abhidhamma, most specifically the alleged temporal sequence of discrete citta-quanta and the sharp arisings and cessations claimed for cittas, cetasikas, and rupas, I cannot be at all certain of having directly experienced. The details of the process of cittas laid out in the commentaries, a (to me) aesthetically lovely scheme, are also beyond my experience and knowledge." Larry: I don't recall reading anything about "discrete citta-quanta and sharp arisings and cessations [of cittas]". Consciousness does arise and cease but not with a hatchet. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's not the impression given on DSG, Larrry. --------------------------------------------------------- As for citta process, I haven't experienced the process itself but I do know what adverting, investigation, determination, javana, and registration are. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I do know what *I* mean by 'adverting' - it is "a turning of attention towards." If that is what is meant in Abhidhamma, then I do know it, directly. I also know what I mean by 'investigation', which is clear, nonconceptual examination of details. I also understand experientially the "mental push" that I THINK 'javana' refers to. As for registration, if it corresponds to what I informally call "something really registering," then I know that too. Unfortunately, I find these terms as given in Abhidhamma to be too fuzzy for me to tell for sure whether I experience is what is referred to by them or not. Every time I come up with what I think is being talked about, someone here will tell me, "no, that's just conventional stuff!" --------------------------------------------------------------- In fact I was thinking the other day that short term memory problems may be due to insufficient or weak registration. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Makes sense to me. --------------------------------------------------------- Certainly you aren't obliged to find these processes helpful in understanding experience but _some_ people do. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I find it all fascinating, most especially what I directly observe by introspection. But what I find actually *helps* me is observing the tilakkhana and conditionality. I do *not* find the issue, for example, of one object at a time or more than one relevant to my well being. For those who do, though it mystifies me, I think that's really great, and I'm happy for them. ------------------------------------------------------ Some people even gradually acquire a sense of egolessness simply by immersing themselves in this doctrine. Why doubt? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I haven't seen it yet. ;-) I don't think that immersing oneself in this doctrine is sufficient to acquire a sense of egolessness by a long shot, nor do I believe the Buddha to have taught that it was. So, why *not* doubt? There's no law that says one should doubt nothing at all. What I do *not* doubt is that the eightfold noble path and its cultivation of wisdom and relinquishment is the way to awakening. My confidence in that is very strong, probably unshakable. ----------------------------------------------------- Larry ============================ With metta, Howard #83425 From: han tun Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:28 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (96) 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 read in the “Gradual Sayings”, Book of the Fives, Ch IX, §5, “He cannot endure” that the Buddha said: “Monks, possessed of five qualities, among his fellows in the godly life (brahma cariya), an elder becomes neither dear nor pleasant nor respected nor praised. He cannot endure forms, sounds, smells, tastes and touches. Monks, possessed of these five qualities, an elder becomes neither dear nor pleasant nor respected nor praised. By the opposte qualities, a person who can endure forms (visible objects), sounds, smells, tastes amd touches, will become, among his fellows in the godly life, dear, pleasant, respected and praised.” The Buddha did not teach Dhamma only to monks, but also to all his followers who developed paññå. He taught Dhamma so that one can see that the truth is the truth: someone who is dear, pleasant, respected and who should be praised is a person who can endure visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes and touches. Some people do not consider and think of patience and endurance, they have not accumulated patience. We can see the danger of impatience when someone who is happy himself and without trouble, cannot stand another person’s happiness. We read in the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fives, §5, “Begrudging” (macharí) [1] about the five kinds of avarice (macchariya) of a miser: “With regard to avarice as to dwelling (aavaasa), he cannot bear to see someone else in that dwelling, with regard to avarice as to family (kula), he cannot bear to see someone else visiting that family, with regard to avarice as to gain (laabha), he cannot bear someone else to obtain something, with regard to avarice as to praise (va.n.na), he cannot bear that people praise the good qualities of others, with regard to avarice as to Dhamma, he does not want to explain the theory of the Dhamma to someone else.” This shows the importance of patience. If sati arises which is non-forgetful of kusala, one is able to have endurance. We should know what the Scriptures say about the excellence of patience and the disadvantage of impatience. Note [1] Macchariya is avarice. There are five kinds explained in the Scriptures: avarice concerning dweloing (aavaasa), family (kula), that is the family which gives requisites to a monk, gain (laabha), the requisites he receives, praise (va.n.na) and Dhamma. To be continued. Metta, Han #83426 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Larry) - In a message dated 2/29/2008 7:40:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Larry and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: Consciousness does arise and cease but not with a hatchet. As for citta process, I haven't experienced the process itself . >>> Can someone explain HOW does citta arise? Or even better, how does one mind moment condition the next? If two events can't overlap in time and space - then we have a paradox. The effect (the next citta) depends on the cause to DISAPPEAR first in order to arise. Exactly how does one mind moment carries the information to the next mind moment? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I seems to me that you are looking for substantial connection. You are searching for some substantial underlying mechanism/ The "accumulations folks" seem to also be doing that. But I do not believe that is the Buddha's teaching, and i think it is a fruitless search. The Buddha didn't teach underlying, substantial mechanisms. He taught matter-of-fact, this/that conditionality. When a condition for a dhamma occurs, it is right then and there, a condition for that dhamma. Once *all* the requisite conditions have occurred, and they may well occur far apart in time from each other in some cases, then, automatically and irrevocably, the dhamma arises. There is nothing further to be said. It is the way things work. There is no carrying across of anything. Just as with rebirth, this is condition for that - period. How, in fact, could it be otherwise? A sentient being (a.k.a. namarupic stream) has had no beginning - so each mind state has been conditioned by infinitely many prior mind states. Could a mind state hold infinite "information"? ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> In fact I was thinking the other day that short term memory problems may be due to > insufficient or weak registration. >>> As I understand it, the experiences associated with strong emotions ARE remembered MUCH better and more vividly than bland experiences, plain psychology . Lots of Metta, Alex ========================= With metta, Howard #83427 From: han tun Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (13) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of (1). Root condition (hetu-paccaya). Out of the six roots we have studied lobha, and dosa. Today we will take up moha. “Moha” What is moha? An extract from A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma. Quote: [Moha is a synonym for avijjaa, or ignorance. Its characteristic is mental blindness or unknowing (a~n~naana lakkhanaa). Its function is non-penetration, or concealment of the real nature of the object (aalambasabhaavacchaada rasa). It is manifested as the absence of right understanding or as mental darkness (andhakaara upatthaanaa). Its proximate cause is unwise attention (ayoniso-manasikaara padatthaanaa). It should be seen as the root of all that is unwholesome.] End Quote. [a~n~naana = ignorance, avijjaa. aalambasabhaavacchaada = aalambana + sabhaava + acchaadanaa. aalambana = object. sabhaava = real nature. acchaadanaa = covering, hiding, concealment. andhakaara = blindness, darkness ayoniso-mansikaara = unwise attention.] -------------------------------- An extract from Dr. Mehm Tin Mon’s The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma. Quote: [Moha is the ignorance of the true nature of sense-objects. All living and non-living things are made up of naama and ruupa (mind and matter) which are endowed with the four common characteristics of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), anatta (non-self) and asubha (loathsomeness). As moha veils our mental eyes and shields us from seeing the true nature of things, we cannot see the extremely rapid and incessant arising and dissolving of naama and ruupa and the consequent four characteristics mentioned above. When we cannot see the true nature of things, we get confused and take the opposite characteristics to be true. So we see things as nicca (permanent), sukha (pleasant), atta (self or person) and subha (beautiful). On account of this wrong vision of moha, a chain of undesirable consequences including sufferings and miseries arises one after another. Thus moha is like the director of a movie film; it directs everything but we are not aware of it as we cannot see the director on the movie screen. It is indeed the primary root of all evils and sufferings in the world. Moha is the leader of all the immoral cetasikas. Moha and its three compatriots - lack of moral shame (ahirika), lack of moral dread (anottappa), and restlessness (uddhacca) – associate with all immoral consciousness. So they are known as “akusala-saadhaarana.” Because moha is opposed to insight or wisdom, it is known as avijjaa. Moha clouds our knowledge with regard to kamma and consequences and the Four Noble Truths.] End Quote. When Dr. Mehm Tin Mon described the Dependent Origination, he had the following to say about moha or avijjaa. Quote [There are eight important objects (departments) which are covered by avijjaa so that their true nature is not known. These are: (1) dukkha sacca, (2) samudaya sacca, (3) nirodha sacca, (4) magga sacca, (5) the past khandha- and aayatana-groups, (6) the future khandha- and aayatana-groups, (7) the front end and the rear end of the present khandha- and aayatana-groups, and (8) Paticcasamuppaada causal relations which include kamma and its consequences.] End Quote. We will study some more about moha in the next post. Metta, Han #83428 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. lbidd2 Hi Alex, Alex: "Can someone explain HOW does citta arise? Or even better, how does one mind moment condition the next?" Larry: See if you can see for yourself. In your own experience how does sensing condition feeling? How does feeling condition desire? How does desire condition craving? You don't have to explain in words but little by little you might actually see this happening. Larry: "In fact I was thinking the other day that short term memory problems may be due to insufficient or weak registration." Alex: "As I understand it, the experiences associated with strong emotions ARE remembered MUCH better and more vividly than bland experiences, plain psychology." Larry: I was thinking of things like misplacing my keys or putting the sheets where the towels go. It's an old guy thing. Larry #83429 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:31 pm Subject: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma dhammanusara Dear Nina (and other friends), - In the Dhammasangani section 663 sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha and vinnana-khandha are called the dhammas that are associated with the three kinds of feelings. In other words, they are 'sukhavedana- sampayutta dhamma', 'dukkhavedana-sampayutta dhamma', and adukkha-m-sukhavedana-sampayutta dhamma'. Further, in section 665 the four nama-aggregates, excluding ruupa- khandha, i.e. vedana-khandha, sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha and vinnana-khandha, are called resultant dhammas (vipaka-dhamma). These dhammas are resultant of both kusala and akusala. http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka3/v.php?B=34&A=5746&Z=6041 Questions: Is the "mind" (in the conventional usage) equivalent to the three nama khandhas without vedana (i.e. sanna-khandha, sankhara- khandha and vinnana-khandha)? Why is ruupa not included in the vipaka- dhamma classification? I am not sure if vipaka here implies kamma vipaka, or something else. Thanks. Tep === #83430 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:45 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Dear Tep & Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > ------------------- > T: > I admit that this sutta quote really shows that the Buddha did > talk about the khandhas as being real. > ------------------- > ----------------------- > T: > Then why have you and Howard kept on arguing about reality and > existence of the dhammas, since who knows when? > ----------------------- ------- SN22.95 – Foam : "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick -- this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. --- Ultimate Reality, Being Ultimately real (smells AtmanBrahman to me) yeah right... Lots of Metta, Alex #83431 From: han tun Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (96) hantun1 Dear Nina, The Text: [The Buddha did not teach Dhamma only to monks, but also to all his followers who developed pa~n~naa. He taught Dhamma so that one can see that the truth is the truth: someone who is dear, pleasant, respected and who should be praised is a person who can endure visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes and touches.] Han: In modern-day perspective, I would like to add: “----- a person who can endure power and wealth.” BTW, (va.n.na) was translated as ‘praise’ in the Text. In the Burmese books va.n.na macchariya is translated as avarice as to beauty, he cannot bear that other people are beautiful. And we usually use the word ‘praise’ as the English translation of pasansaa in eight loka-dhamma. What do you think about this? Respectfully, Han #83432 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. lbidd2 Hi Howard, Howard: "Well, I do know what *I* mean by 'adverting' - it is "a turning of attention towards." If that is what is meant in Abhidhamma, then I do know it, directly. I also know what I mean by 'investigation', which is clear, nonconceptual examination of details. I also understand experientially the "mental push" that I THINK 'javana' refers to. As for registration, if it corresponds to what I informally call "something really registering," then I know that too. Unfortunately, I find these terms as given in Abhidhamma to be too fuzzy for me to tell for sure whether I experience is what is referred to by them or not. Every time I come up with what I think is being talked about, someone here will tell me, "no, that's just conventional stuff! " Larry: That's the way I understand citta process also. As for the terminology being too fuzzy, I thought that's what you _liked_! No hard edged solutions. But I wouldn't say DSG is the last word in abhidhamma interpretation. It is mostly 'by the book' with some obvious exceptions and a lot of my own interpretations are rather fanciful. Being corrected now and then is probably all to the good, even if it only points out my own clinging to views. Howard: "I find it all fascinating, most especially what I directly observe by introspection. But what I find actually *helps* me is observing the tilakkhana and conditionality. I do *not* find the issue, for example, of one object at a time or more than one relevant to my well being. For those who do, though it mystifies me, I think that's really great, and I'm happy for them." Larry: I understand "one at a time" to be the basic procedure of satipatthana. The idea is basically an aid to concentration and nudges one in the direction of simplicity. I think it might be possible to be aware of two things at the same time, but as far as I can see it would be something on the order of a feat (sidi). It's fun to experiment. See if you can see and hear at the same time;-) But I agree that understanding citta process isn't insight and neither is understanding every detail of dependent arising. I don't think the Visuddhimagga makes that claim. Hopefully Ken will get himself organized and we can get on with the study of what actually is insight. Howard: "I don't think that immersing oneself in this doctrine is sufficient to acquire a sense of egolessness by a long shot, nor do I believe the Buddha to have taught that it was. So, why *not* doubt? There's no law that says one should doubt nothing at all. What I do *not* doubt is that the eightfold noble path and its cultivation of wisdom and relinquishment is the way to awakening. My confidence in that is very strong, probably unshakable." Larry: Well, doubt might be a good practical aid but ultimately it is a hindrance to peace of mind. It is almost second nature for most of us but I think it has to be let go of as a knee jerk reaction. I see it as a way of defending "me and mine". Larry #83433 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/29/2008 10:03:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Larry: Well, doubt might be a good practical aid but ultimately it is a hindrance to peace of mind. It is almost second nature for most of us but I think it has to be let go of as a knee jerk reaction. I see it as a way of defending "me and mine". ============================== Doesn't it matter WHAT one doubts? Some things should be strongly doubted. Some should be absolutely rejected. Some should be viewed simply as not known one way or the other - which is weak doubt. There is no particular virtue in belief, per se, and no particular problem with doubt, per se. There should be confidence in what one has come to see *earns* confidence, and not until then. Lots of folks lack doubt about lots of things - and a lot of that certainty is the cause of a great deal of woe throughout the world. True believers ... in Hitler, in Ayatollah Khomeini, in Jim Jones and his Kool Aid, well, I guess they all had "peace of mind" from their lack of doubt - for a while anyway! The bottom line is that until one really knows the facts and has a genuine basis for confidence, doubt, in the sense of lack of certainty, is sane and good! Some of the dumbest people in the world are the most certain! With metta, Howard #83434 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry - I forgot a postscript: "Please just don't ask me if I'm sure!" ;-)) With metta, Howard #83435 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:02 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear KenH (Howard, James, Alex) - In summary you made the following important points in the message #83404: KH: 1. .. "the very idea that the Buddha taught about things that did not really exist seems completely ridiculous. You must agree with me, surely! (?)" 2. The dhammas the Buddha taught in the suttas are absolute realities or "absolutely real" (your examples : dukkha, tanha, nibbana, magga- citta). 3. The khandhas and other dhammas are "ultimatly real, existing things". T: Yes, I agree with you in regard to these three points. Of course, all the dhammas that the Buddha taught are real in the sense that they always exist in the worlds (realms, bhavas) regardless of whether or not there were Buddhas who arose (before Him) and more Buddhas will arise (in the future) to discover them and teach them to humans, devas and brahmas. Because the Gotama Buddha and his Dhamma are both real, it follows that the 8 ariya puggalas are also real and can be found in the worlds. I also wrote several posts on such reality (real at the worldling level and at the ultimate reality level where only the ariyans can really experience) here at DSG. The fact that there are real Buddhas and real dhammas is not the issue that I had in mind when I wrote that the Buddha "never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas". Then you showed me the word "real" in SN 22.94, Cetana Sutta. Yes, I admitted that the Buddha talked about the khandhas as being real -- they have to be real. But, please note carefully, He did not teach reality or existence of the dhammas, because that was not the Teaching issue -- not the "kind of issue" that DSG members (like you and Howard) have discussed over and over again. The Buddha's issue behind my statement ("the Buddha never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas") is that He taught the four truths of the ariyans (ariya-sacca) and the practice of the Dhamma (for example: the eightfold noble path, satipatthana, samatha & vipassana) for the true knowing and seeing of the dhammas (such as the five khandhas) "the way they really are" (yathaabhuutam pajaanaati) for Total Release. The following quote is about the first ariya-sacca that is to be known truly "according to reality", and that is the real issue the Buddha taught : ' idam dukkham ti yathaabhuutam pajaanaati ' [MN 10, DN 22] A bhikkhu understands: 'This is suffering,' according to reality. (Soma Thera's translation) [ Tep: the 2nd, 3rd and 4th truths also follow the same format.] Sincerely, Tep === #83436 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:23 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear Alex (and KnH), - Thank you for the comment after referring to another sutta to support your point that khandhas are NOT real. I will show you that they are real - - just read on. > T: > I admit that this sutta quote really shows that the Buddha did > talk about the khandhas as being real. > ------------------- > ----------------------- > T: > Then why have you and Howard kept on arguing about reality and > existence of the dhammas, since who knows when? > ----------------------- Alex: (quoting another sutta) ------- SN22.95 – Foam : "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick -- this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. --- Alex: Ultimate Reality, Being Ultimately real (smells AtmanBrahman to me) yeah right... ........................... T: Are you saying that the two suttas contradict each other ?? If the khnadhas were not real, then how could the monk observe them & appropriately examine them? They are real but empty of substance, not worth grasping as 'mine; my self'. The emptiness of the Khandhas is their 'anatta' characteristic, which is seen only by the ariyans who do not have clinging (attavadupadana). In other words, they reject the khandhas with the right view that is free from grasping/clinging. That's why they can see Nibbana, while we can only see the khandhas as a being. Tep === #83437 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 2/29/2008 11:43:47 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG > NEWER TG: #1) When folks are separating 89 consciousness, 52 mental > formations, I forget how many rupas? 21? etc. At any rate, when "own > characteristics" is being talked about in regard to these things, it is not impermanence, > affliction, and nonself that is being described. > > > #2) I fail to see how each dhamma can have "its own characteristic" when > all the characteristics are THE SAME for each dhamma as you have indicated > above. Doesn't make sense. So therefore, I have to reject the statement you > made above unless you have a totally and radically different view than say > Nina or Sarah. > There is a point to mention here that has perhaps escaped your attention. Each dhamma has a unique characteristic by which it is distinguished from all other dhammas, eg, that which makes visible object different from sound. It is this unique characteristic that is referred to as its "own characteristic"referred to as its "own characteris of "own": not shared with any other dhamma. The ti-lakkhana are not (to my knowledge) referred to as "own characteristics"c ......................................................... NEWEST TG: You wrote this Jon in your last post to me.... When discussing dhammas, we need I think to keep in mind the difference between (a) their inherent characteristics (of anicca, dukkha and anatta) Maybe you could explain to me what the heck the difference is between "inherent characteristic" and "own characteristic"???? I may be a simpleton, but aren't you directly contradicting yourself with these two statements? ....................................................................... > #3) As for this take -- (unalterable, but lasting only for an > infinitesimally short moment of time). Please supply a Sutta reference for this view of > impermanence. But I'm quite sure there isn't one. BTW, this view of > impermanence also falls into line with substantialism theory. I.E., you unwittingly > see these "dhammas" as "existent selves" for brief moments. I know you > won't think so...but I think so. To my understanding, the fleeting nature of dhammas is standard Theravadin orthodoxy. Do you have a different view of the impermanence of dhammas? ..................................................... NEWEST TG: This is what I get in trying to discuss points with some of you nice folks. My questions are ignored and I'm answered a counter-question which sidetracks the issue being discussed. To say something last for a "brief moment," and to say that nature is fleeting" (I'll leave out "dhammas") are two different things. You didn't answer my question. My point was the Buddha did not phrase impermanence as you do, and your phrasing supports my contention that your "dhammas view" is a subtle and unwitting view of fleeting "existences/entities/selves." Seems like I'm boxing at shadows. Nobody's home to back up their statements. Oh well. TG OUT #83438 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) walterhorn Thank you for your generous responses, Tep; they're very helpful and much appreciated. I will think further on them. If you don't mind, however, I have a further comment and question at this point. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Han: It is the Law of Kamma that is inter-related with > the Law of Causal Relations (Patthaana).Both of these > Laws are impersonal. We cannot say of `fault' or > `punishment' or `rewarding. It is simply that if there > is the cause there is the effect. The baby must have > done some wholesome deeds and unwholesome deeds in > his/her past life. Because of the wholesome kamma > he/she is reborn as a human being. But because of the > past unwholesome kamma he/she has the spina bifida. > > Han: I do not quite understand your question. As > regards, `faults' and `punishment' as I have said, we > should not look it in that way, because the Law of > Kamma is very much impersonal. > I can see that impersonal causes could result in the baby's birth defects. And (though it is somewhat counter-intuitive to me) I can understand how such causes may somehow be connected with activities that took place at a prior time, in connection with someone we would normally take to be another (likely unrelated) person. After all, causation is a strange, wonderful (and in this case I suppose horrible) thing. That is all, admittedly, quite hard for me to believe, but I nevertheless think I can understand it. -------------------- > > > Walter: 3. If there is no mind or ego--those being > concepts that reflect errors in seeing the > world--exactly what is it that is reborn in the babies > mentioned above? There are, presumably, no memories of > the former life, no mental or physical "stuff" that > have been retained. If there is no I or ego, how can > we begin to understand what it is that is said to be > reborn? Another way to put this, perhaps, is: What are > the identity criteria one may use to say that someONE > is "reborn"? > > Han: It is connected with the subject of anatta or > no-self. To be honest, I myself am not very good at > it. I have said many times in this forum, that > sometimes I feel that "I" exist, sometimes I think > what others (proponents of anatta) said are correct, > in that there is no ego or self. This is one area > which I am absolutely not sure of myself. > Again, thanks. Here, I think I again come to the issue from a somewhat different angle than you, but I also have a difficulty-- though I think it's a different one. And here I think I have a complete failure of comprehension. I am fairly comfortable with there not actually being any 'I' or 'ego'--that what I call 'me' is just a bunch of thoughts, feelings, etc. that are concatenated in a particular way (though I don't think I'd be capable of describing the way that is). What I don't understand is how, if that is the case, it can make sense to talk of the poor baby we have discussed being the same person as some prior human (or animal). Put another way, which person is it she has to thank for the unwholesome activities that have made her the way she is? I hope that makes some kind of sense. Any further assistance would again be appreciated. Best, W #83439 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. lbidd2 Hi Howard, Howard: "The bottom line is that until one really knows the facts and has a genuine basis for confidence, doubt, in the sense of lack of certainty, is sane and good! Some of the dumbest people in the world are the most certain!" Larry: I don't doubt it but it seems to me that there is a grasping in both doubt and dogmatic certainty. I was thinking of doubt as habitual skepticism but uncertainty applies too. Everyone who is certain thinks they have a basis for certainty. One who is uncertain may want to gain certainty, to be the best, invulnerable to attack of any kind. Or perhaps the uncertain one may just stick his head in the sand and say "I don't know". Neither approach is really open to the present moment. Doubt can be banished by clear seeing but I wouldn't call that dogmatic certainty. No doubt there will always be doubts but I'm trying to make a case for not making doubt one's "vehicle". Larry #83440 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) nilovg Dear Walter and Han, Your dialogue is very good and I appreciate it that Han emphasizes so much the impersonality of kamma and vipaaka, no guilt and punishment. I could add a few remarks. Op 1-mrt-2008, om 1:46 heeft Walter Horn het volgende geschreven: > > I can see that impersonal causes could result in the baby's birth > defects. And (though it is somewhat counter-intuitive to me) I can > understand how such causes may somehow be connected with activities > that took place at a prior time, in connection with someone we would > normally take to be another (likely unrelated) person. After all, > causation is a strange, wonderful (and in this case I suppose > horrible) thing. That is all, admittedly, quite hard for me to > believe, but I nevertheless think I can understand it. ------- N: It is hard to understand, I know. We may think: is this not injust? Result occurs completely in conformity with the kamma that produces it. Birth is very sorrowful. When we consider being in the cycle of birth and death we understand that birth is dukkha. We are never sure about our future birth, unless we have attained enlightenment and will not have an unhappy rebirth. But we are fortunate that the Buddha showed us the way out of the cycle, though it is a long way. > -------------------- > > > > > Walter: 3. If there is no mind or ego--those being > > concepts that reflect errors in seeing the > > world--exactly what is it that is reborn in the babies > > mentioned above? ------ N: Nama and rupa are born, conditioned by kamma. No person travels from the previous life to the present life. ------- > W: There are, presumably, no memories of > > the former life, no mental or physical "stuff" that > > have been retained. If there is no I or ego, how can > > we begin to understand what it is that is said to be > > reborn? Another way to put this, perhaps, is: What are > > the identity criteria one may use to say that someONE > > is "reborn"? > > > > Han: It is connected with the subject of anatta or > > no-self. To be honest, I myself am not very good at > > it. .. ------- N: I appreciate Han's answer, very sincere. Who is good at it? Only those who are enlightened. -------- > > W:...What I > don't understand is how, if that is the case, it can make sense to > talk of the poor baby we have discussed being the same person as > some prior human (or animal). Put another way, which person is it > she has to thank for the unwholesome activities that have made her > the way she is? -------- N: It was a good deed that caused rebirth as a human, in the human plane, where there are possibilities to gain understanding. The handicap may have been caused in the womb, later on, by another kamma, akusala kamma. We never can tell whether it is a defect from the first moment of life or later on. All the same you may wonder about the connection of past life and present life. Each citta (moment of consciousness) is succeeded by the next one and all accumulated conditions are thus going on from past to present, from life to life. That is why kamma of the past can condition result later on. Its force is carried on from life to life. Not only kamma, also good and bad inclinations are going on from life to life. Nina. #83441 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 2:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (96) nilovg Dear Han, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 3:47 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > The Text: [The Buddha did not teach Dhamma only to > monks, but also to all his followers who developed > pa~n~naa. He taught Dhamma so that one can see that > the truth is the truth: someone who is dear, pleasant, > respected and who should be praised is a person who > can endure visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes and > touches.] > > Han: In modern-day perspective, I would like to add: > “----- a person who can endure power and wealth.” > > BTW, (va.n.na) was translated as ‘praise’ in the Text. > In the Burmese books va.n.na macchariya is translated > as avarice as to beauty, he cannot bear that other > people are beautiful. And we usually use the word > ‘praise’ as the English translation of pasansaa in > eight loka-dhamma. -------- N: Va.n.na has several meanings, PTS: colour, appearance, splendour, praise. This passage comes after the Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya, and here the word: to be respected is used in my PTS edition. it depends on the context what meaning one selects, I think. Nina. #83442 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 2:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Hi Howard, Alex, Larry. Op 1-mrt-2008, om 2:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: I ALSO believe that only one doorway at a time is operative. I just don't see why it would matter if it were otherwise. What is important is that all sense-door phenomena are impersonal, conditioned, fleeting, unsatisfactory, and painful if clung to, and that is a fact whether the processing is sequential or parallel - to formulate the matter in digital-processing terms. ------- Larry: Larry: I understand "one at a time" to be the basic procedure of satipatthana. The idea is basically an aid to concentration and nudges one in the direction of simplicity. ------ N: Yes, correct. Very basic for satipatthana, awareness of this reality appearing now, at the present moment. When hardness appears it can be known as a rupa-element, and then no other reality appears. --------- H: Howard: I find it all fascinating, most especially what I directly observe by introspection. But what I find actually *helps* me is observing the tilakkhana and conditionality. I do *not* find the issue, for example, of one object at a time or more than one, relevant to my well being. ...What I do *not* doubt is that the eightfold noble path and its cultivation of wisdom and relinquishment is the way to awakening. My confidence in that is very strong, probably unshakable." ------- N: The cultivation of the eightfold Path, satipatthana, it all amounts to awareness and understanding of the dhamma appearing now. One dhamma, not two or more. Otherwise no understanding of tilakkhana. Take understanding of the arising and falling away, of impermanence, this is understanding of only one dhamma appearing now. How could we say: direct understanding of the arising and falling away of seeing at the same time as the understanding of the arising and falling away of visible object? When these are taken together there is confusion, taking them for self and permanent. ------- Alex: Or even better, how does one mind moment condition the next? If two events can't overlap in time and space - then we have a paradox. The effect (the next citta) depends on the cause to DISAPPEAR first in order to arise. Exactly how does one mind moment carries the information to the next mind moment? ----- N: There is accumulation, and this is because of the fact that each citta that falls away conditions the next one. You can notice that each individual has a particular character, life style, style of writing. You have a special style, different from others. That is because of accumulated tendencies. ------- A:If one consciousness affect the next one, what happens when an Anagamin enters Nirodha Samapatti? ------ N: when he emerges, the last citta before he entered Nirodha Samapatti conditions the first citta at emerging, by way of proximity condition. Nina. #83443 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (96) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your clarification. Respectfully, Han #83444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma nilovg Hi Tep, It is clear on the Thai web what section you refer to. The numbers are different in my English edition: 984-987. Op 1-mrt-2008, om 3:31 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Further, in section 665 the four nama-aggregates, excluding ruupa- > khandha, i.e. vedana-khandha, sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha and > vinnana-khandha, are called resultant dhammas (vipaka-dhamma). These > dhammas are resultant of both kusala and akusala. > http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka3/v.php?B=34&A=5746&Z=6041 > > Questions: Is the "mind" (in the conventional usage) equivalent to the > three nama khandhas without vedana (i.e. sanna-khandha, sankhara- > khandha and vinnana-khandha)? Why is ruupa not included in the vipaka- > dhamma classification? ------- N: There are in the text classifications of groups of three , tika.m. In 984 (your 663) there is the classification of dhammas associated with happy feeling. Therefore, in this classification, feeling itself is excepted. We have to consider: which khandhas are *associated with* feeling. What we call mind or mental, are the four naama-kkhandhas, feeling included. Ruupa can be produced by kamma (one of the four factors, the others being citta, heat and nutrition), but the term vipaaka is reserved for the mental result of kamma. ------- > > T:I am not sure if vipaka here implies kamma vipaka, or something > else. -------- N: Vipaaka is the mental result of kamma, such as seeing, or rebirth- consciousness. We can use the word vipaaka, and no need to say: kamma vipaaka. Kamma vipaaka may be confusing, people may wonder: is it kamma and vipaaka at the same time? Nina. #83445 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) hantun1 Dear Nina and Walter, I thank you very much, Nina, for your comments, which I hope will be useful for Walter. [It definitely is useful for me.] Dear Walter, one benefit I obtain by writing on a subject which I am not familiar with, is that I receive such questions that you have asked, which make me read more the related literature. This time also, after you asked me those questions I am now reading the following two articles. Kamma and Rebirth (Nyanatiloka) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch2 Does Rebirth Make Sense? by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_46.html I would also like to request you to read these two articles and let me know what you think about these. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Walter and Han, > Your dialogue is very good and I appreciate it that > Han emphasizes so > much the impersonality of kamma and vipaaka, no > guilt and punishment. > I could add a few remarks. #83446 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:51 pm Subject: Middle Way Ontology & Relinquishment (Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes..) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/29/2008 11:02:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: KH: 1. .. "the very idea that the Buddha taught about things that did not really exist seems completely ridiculous. You must agree with me, surely! (?)" 2. The dhammas the Buddha taught in the suttas are absolute realities or "absolutely real" (your examples : dukkha, tanha, nibbana, magga- citta). 3. The khandhas and other dhammas are "ultimatly real, existing things". T: Yes, I agree with you in regard to these three points. ============================== And I agree with the first point. The namas and rupas that constitute the five aggregates are real; they are not merely imagined! What is the aim, however, of additionally saying that they are "absolute realities," that they are "absolutely real," that they are "ultimately real, existing things," especially when the Buddha went to such great lengths to avoid the extremes of absolutism? But merely unimagined isn't good enough for you, Ken, it seems. Why? I believe this type of talk is based in clinging. I see it as based on and inculcating a substance and entity view that fears relinquishment, running from the middle-way content of such suttas as the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Kalaka Sutta, and most especially the Phena Sutta in which the Buddha describes all the paramattha dhammas as empty, void, and without substance, and the Uraga Sutta in which he even describes them as all unreal, by which, by the way, I do *not* take him to mean "nothing at all." We should strive toward the reality that is "at the middle," avoiding the absolutist extremes of substantial self-existence and of nihilistic non-existence, for that "middle" is the thrust of the Buddha's ontology, and that is the perspective that leads to relinquishment. With metta, Howard #83447 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/1/2008 2:10:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard: "The bottom line is that until one really knows the facts and has a genuine basis for confidence, doubt, in the sense of lack of certainty, is sane and good! Some of the dumbest people in the world are the most certain!" Larry: I don't doubt it but it seems to me that there is a grasping in both doubt and dogmatic certainty. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. And grasping at anything is grasping at straws. To cling to doubting - to cling to scepticism as some sort of lifeline comes out of fear and discouragement, and it amounts to desperately hanging onto a raft with holes in it's bottom. But there is a sane, non-clinging middle way that can be expressed by "Perhaps so. I think so (or I don't think so), but I don't know yet." ------------------------------------------------------ I was thinking of doubt as habitual skepticism but uncertainty applies too. Everyone who is certain thinks they have a basis for certainty. One who is uncertain may want to gain certainty, to be the best, invulnerable to attack of any kind. Or perhaps the uncertain one may just stick his head in the sand and say "I don't know". -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Being satisfied with "I don't know" strikes me as a saluting of ignorance. It is another very poor perspective. Far, far better is the Buddha's dictum "Come and see". -------------------------------------------------- Neither approach is really open to the present moment. Doubt can be banished by clear seeing but I wouldn't call that dogmatic certainty. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nor would I. ----------------------------------------------- No doubt there will always be doubts but I'm trying to make a case for not making doubt one's "vehicle". ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That case requires no testimony for me! Were I on the jury, I would find in favor of the plaintiff making the case that you are representing. ----------------------------------------------- Larry ======================= With metta, Howard #83448 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) walterhorn Thank you, Han and Nina for your helpful responses. I'll read the the two articles you kindly linked and report back. In particular I hope to see whether I can find further explication of these remarks of Nina's: "Each citta (moment of consciousness) is succeeded by the next one and all accumulated conditions are thus going on from past to present, from life to life. That is why kamma of the past can condition result later on. Its force is carried on from life to life. Not only kamma, also good and bad inclinations are going on from life to life." What still puzzles me is how (or perhaps I should say 'whether') it is actually this person (or animal, etc.) who can be correctly said to be the precursor of that person. Again, I see that a particular force or kamma or inclination may have its effects from life to life, that, as we might say, tiny bits of consciousness never completely dissipate by carry forward from person to person; but why then would not, for example, the baby in my example be said to be the reincarnation of one particular prior individual, rather than a re-assortment of kamma, etc., from perhaps thousands of precursors? As I indicated in an earlier post, if there is no ego, no 'person stuff' beyond these individual seeings, feelings, impulses, and so on, I can't seem to fathom what it means to say when we assert that Jones may be the reincarnation of Smith. Perhaps the readings will make that clearer for me. Again, many thanks for the patient answers. Best, W PS: Han, I apologize for calling you 'Tep'! #83449 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Alex & Larry) - In a message dated 3/1/2008 5:51:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Alex, Larry. Op 1-mrt-2008, om 2:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: I ALSO believe that only one doorway at a time is operative. I just don't see why it would matter if it were otherwise. What is important is that all sense-door phenomena are impersonal, conditioned, fleeting, unsatisfactory, and painful if clung to, and that is a fact whether the processing is sequential or parallel - to formulate the matter in digital-processing terms. ------- Larry: Larry: I understand "one at a time" to be the basic procedure of satipatthana. The idea is basically an aid to concentration and nudges one in the direction of simplicity. ------ N: Yes, correct. Very basic for satipatthana, awareness of this reality appearing now, at the present moment. When hardness appears it can be known as a rupa-element, and then no other reality appears. --------- ================================= Were there being but one sense-door object at a time in fact helpful to practice, that would be great, because I happen to believe that the one-at-a-time view *is* correct. And while I'm not persuaded of the claim of helpfulness, I'm open to the possibility. In any case, if the one-at-a-time position is true, which I do believe is the case, whether it is helpful or not is rather inessential, for facts are facts, no matter auspicious or inauspicious. With metta, Howard #83450 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) dhammanusara Hi Walter (and Han), - I think your reply was meant for my good friend Han, not me. Tep #83451 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Middle Way Ontology & Relinquishment (Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes..) dhammanusara Hi Howard (and Ken H, Alex, James), - First of all, let me thank you for the following caution which shows a careful contemplation on your part. >H: The namas and rupas that constitute the five aggregates are real; they are not merely imagined! What is the aim, however, of additionally saying that they are "absolute realities," that they are "absolutely real," that they are "ultimately real, existing things," especially when the Buddha went to such great lengths to avoid the extremes of absolutism? But merely unimagined isn't good enough for you, Ken, it seems. Why? T: Although you address the questions to Ken, but since I agree (in principle, not every detail) with him I think I should also respond. Ken's thought on reality is not exactly the same as mine since I maintain that there are real-world realities seen and embraced by the worldlings, and there are ultimate realities that the ariyans see with right wisdom (This is not mine, not what I am, not my "self".) ................. >H: We should strive toward the reality that is "at the middle," avoiding the absolutist extremes of substantial self-existence and of nihilistic non-existence, for that "middle" is the thrust of the Buddha's ontology, and that is the perspective that leads to relinquishment. T: Yes, the middle way(path) that stays clear from extreme views involving existence/non-existence that lead to confusion/delusion about self. Right Questioning about Self/Not-self : ------------------------------------------------ 'Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within?' 'Any kind of form whatsoever, Raadha, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near -one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' '" (And so for any kind of feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness.) 'When one knows and sees thus, Raadha, then in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within.' "Then the Venerable Raadha ...became one of the arahants." [ SN22:71, Raadha Sutta] ........................... Tep: That has been the real issue of the real Dhamma that I call relevant, worthy of discussion here at DSG and anywhere else, not any other issues about existence/non-existence and ontological meaning of realities such as the nature of beings. Regards, Tep == #83452 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 13:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > And while I'm not persuaded of the claim of > helpfulness, I'm open to the possibility. > In any case, if the one-at-a-time position is true, which I do believe > is the case, whether it is helpful or not is rather inessential, > for facts are > facts, no matter auspicious or inauspicious. ------ N: Originally you said My answer is: it does matter, because if it were otherwise no Path could be developed. But it is the truth. Nina. #83453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Perseverance in dhamma, Ch 3, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 3. The Best of Sights. The Sutta selected for our sutta reading and discussion in the Foundation building was the Bhaddaji Sutta Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fives, Ch 17, § 10). We read that Ånanda, when he was dwelling near Kosambí, in Ghosita Park, asked Bhaddaji: “Good Bhaddaji, what is the best of sights, what the best of sounds, what the best of joys, what the best of conscious states, and what the best of becomings?” “There is Brahmå, sir, who is overcomer, by none overcome, he is seer of whatever may be, with power and dominion; who sees him of the Brahmås, that is the best of sights. There are devas of radiant splendour, in whom joy flows and overflows, who ever and again utter a cry of: ‘Joy, oh joy!’ who hears that sound- it is the best of sounds. There are the all-lustrous devas, rejoicing just in quiet, who feel joy- that is the best of joys. There are the devas who go to the sphere of nothingness [1] theirs is the best of conscious states. There are devas who go to the sphere of neither consciousness nor unconsciousness [2] theirs is the best of becomings”. We read that Ånanda said : “When, while one looks, the cankers are destroyed- that is the best of sights. When, while one listens, the cankers are destroyed- that is the best of sounds. When, while one rejoices, the cankers are destroyed- that is the best of joys. When, while one is conscious, the cankers are destroyed- that is the best of conscious states. When, while one has become, the cankers are destroyed- that is the best of becomings.” This sutta explains that the attainment of arahatship is superior to all other experiences, even to the attainment to the highest stages of immaterial jhåna, arúpa jhåna, which are the sphere of nothingness and the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. When all defilements are eradicated at the attainment of arahatship, there will be no more rebirth, no more “becoming” and this is to be preferred to any kind of “becoming”. The Commentary to this Sutta, the “Manorathapúraní”, explains that arahatship can be attained immediately after seeing, no matter whether a desirable or undesirable object is seen. It explains that when a monk has seen visible object through the eyes, he begins to apply insight and that the attainment of arahatship can be said to arise consecutively after seeing. It states that it is the same in the case of hearing. -------- 1. The third stage of immaterial jhåna, arúpa-jhåna. 2. The fourth stage of arúpa-jhåna ****** Nina. #83454 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/1/2008 9:28:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 13:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > And while I'm not persuaded of the claim of > helpfulness, I'm open to the possibility. > In any case, if the one-at-a-time position is true, which I do believe > is the case, whether it is helpful or not is rather inessential, > for facts are > facts, no matter auspicious or inauspicious. ------ N: Originally you said if it were otherwise.> My answer is: it does matter, because if it were otherwise no Path could be developed. But it is the truth. Nina. =============================== Nina, you do not assert that you believe it to be true, but instead say outright "But it is the truth." And you know that HOW, Nina? I believe it to be true as well, but you assert it as fact. How do you know that to be fact? Such certainty without knowledge is troubling to me. In MN 95, the Buddha teaches about safeguarding truth. There is recorded the following: _____________________________ "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. ..." -------------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #83455 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:04 am Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. dhammanusara Hi Scott (Nina and all), - Your reply is a good-but-biased description of what you call "Abhidhamma in the suttas". You wrote, "I think that this refers to Aarammana Paccaya (Object Condition) as clarified in Pa.t.thaana" should be carefully studied by other DSG friends. Why should they? Because it is a very good example that shows how a biased sutta interpretation comes about through a strong influence by the Abhidhamma thinking! You've forgotten that the Abhidhamma is supposed to be used to enhance the discourses in the Suttanta-pitaka, not to overule them. The the Pa.t.thaana is an excellent categorization and description of the various kinds of paccaya (conditions). On the other hand, the wonderful Paticcasamuppada explains conditional co-arising of the dhammas (starting with avijja and continuing to birth) that lead to the whole mass of dukkha as defined by the 1st of the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, Pa.t.thaana only complements the Paticcasamuppada -- not replaces it like you think : Scott: Well, as shown above, I think it is the mental factor cetana (volition) that is being discussed. This mental factor is one of the states related to aarama.na by object condition. As set out in Pa.t.thaana, the object is the base for the arising of the related element and consciousness. Here too, I think, it is Conditional Relations as described in Pa.t.thaana, not Dependent Origination, that is being elaborated. There are differences in the way these particular methods explain things. Here, it is conditional relations being discussed. Dukkha would then refer to the characteristic inherent in each conditioned dhamma. T: Dukkha is seen as the consequence of conditional co-arising (dependent origination) of the dhammas that are the links of Paticcasamuppada. Pa.t.thaana expands each link by adding detailed information about the conditions. Complementing, not replacing. Please advise, if you think I am wrong. Thanks. Tep === #83456 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 8:53 am Subject: Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma dhammanusara Dear Nina, - I appreciate your excellent answers that open another door to more understanding. >N: What we call mind or mental, are the four naama-kkhandhas, feeling included. T: In the aruupa jhaana where there is neither vedana nor sa~n~naa, is there a mind in the conventional sense? If there is no mind, then what kind of being is the monk at that moment? ........ >N: Ruupa can be produced by kamma (one of the four factors, the others being citta, heat and nutrition), but the term vipaaka is reserved for the mental result of kamma. T: Thank you. That is clear now; vipaka is the mental result of a kamma, while ruupa is the bodily tesult of the kamma. Cetana(volition) is kamma, the Buddha said. Does that mean cetana can produce a ruupa? Please give one example. Tep === #83457 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Nina) - In a message dated 3/1/2008 11:54:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: T: Thank you. That is clear now; vipaka is the mental result of a kamma, while ruupa is the bodily tesult of the kamma. Cetana(volition) is kamma, the Buddha said. Does that mean cetana can produce a ruupa? Please give one example. ============================= What about moving your hand, Tep? Air element conditioned by intention. (Apologies for butting in.) With metta, Howard #83458 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi All The Buddha said -- "When by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away, and cessation of forms...sounds...odors...flavors...tangibles...of mind-objects, one sees it as it actually is with proper wisdom that (the above) both formally and now are all impermanent, suffering, subject to change, ..." (The Buddha, MN, Sutta 137) Although, one might argue that the term "change" might not indicate a gradual alteration of phenomena, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to argue that "fading away" does not represent continuous and gradual changing. If we combine this, with the Buddha's often recurring phrasing of "persisting while changing," it becomes increasingly clear that the Buddha presented impermanence as a continuous alteration of states. In these cases. the Buddha is talking about elements, not about adze-handles, rotting ships, receding mountains, etc. ...though IMO, the mechanics of impermanence would be the same in either case. When the Buddha speaks in detail about impermanence, it is shown that it is continuous change. It is not shown to be momentary moments of phenomena or "dhammas" that appear, exist as "something with their own characteristic" for a brief moment, and then disappear. Sure, the Suttas often abbreviate impermanence into the short-hand -- "arising and ceasing." But the Suttas that go more into detail on impermanence reveal the continuous alteration of phenomena, not a -- now you see it, now you don't -- process. The terminology like "fading away" and "persisting while changing" show this to be the case. Furthermore, as in the above Sutta, this changing and fading away is said to be the proper insightful was to see impermanence. The Buddha also shows in the quotes below that "change is related to conditionality" ... “…conditioned states are impermanent, they are unstable…â€? (The Buddha . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha (LDB), (Digha Nikaya), pg. 290, A King’s Renunciation, Mahasudassana Sutta, #17) “…whatever is born, become, compounded, is subject to decay – it cannot be that it does not decay.â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 272, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) “…all compound things are impermanent…â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 263, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) “Monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathagata (Buddha), this causal law of nature, this orderly fixing of things prevails, all phenomena are impermanent.â€? (The Buddha . . . Book of the Gradual Sayings (GS), (Anguttara Nikaya), vol. 1, pg. 264-265) The above passage states that -- it is a causal law of nature that all phenomena are impermanent. This explicitly states that impermanence is part of causal law. The quote below overtly reiterates this… “Whatever is knowledge of the law of cause, that is also knowledge of that which is by nature perishable, transient, fading away, and tending to cease.â€? (The Buddha . . . Kindred Sayings, vol. 2, pg. 121-122) “Pleasant feelings are impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, bound to decay, to vanish, to fade away, to cease – and so too are painful feeling and neutral feeling.â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 227, The Great Discourse on Origination, Mahanidana, #15) “…whatever is conditioned and volitionally produced is impermanent, subject to cessation.â€? (Attributed to the Buddha by his chief attendant Ven. Ananda . . . The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, (MLDB), (Majjhima Nikaya), pg. 455, The Man from Atthakanagara, Atthakanagara Sutta, #52) “All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 605 – 606, To Dighanakha, Dighanakha Sutta, #74) “…all conditioned things are of a nature to decay – strive on untiringly.â€? (The Buddha . . . LDB, pg. 270, The Buddha’s Last Days, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, #16) “Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…â€? (The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. 5, pg. 4) “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma;* one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.â€? (Attributed to the Buddha by Venerable Sariputta -- [The Buddha’s chief disciple in terms of insight] . . . MLDB, pg. 283, The Simile of the Elephants Footprint (Greater), Mahahatthipadopama Sutta, #28.) TG #83460 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma dhammanusara Hi Howard, - I hope the question wasn't too easy for you. > T: Does that mean cetana can produce a ruupa? Please > give one example. > > > ============================= > What about moving your hand, Tep? Air element conditioned by intention. > (Apologies for butting in.) > > With metta, > Howard > T: This Beginner's Abhidhamma corner is your corner too ! So please feel free to join us anytime you may wish. It is an easy example that fits the Beginner's Abhidhamma very well, Howard. Thanks. Tep === #83461 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:03 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Dear Tep and KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear Alex (and KnH), - > > Thank you for the comment after referring to another sutta to support your point that khandhas are NOT real. I will show you that they are real -just read on. > > > T: I admit that this sutta quote really shows that the Buddha did > talk about the khandhas as being real. > > ------------------- > > ----------------------- > > T: > Then why have you and Howard kept on arguing about reality and existence of the dhammas, since who knows when? > > ----------------------- > > Alex: (quoting another sutta) > > ------- > SN22.95 – Foam : > > "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a > mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick -- > this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe > them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever > sees them appropriately. > --- > > Alex: > Ultimate Reality, Being Ultimately real (smells AtmanBrahman to me) > yeah right... > ........................... > > T: Are you saying that the two suttas contradict each other ?? > If the khnadhas were not real, then how could the monk observe them & appropriately examine them? They are real but empty of substance, not > worth grasping as 'mine; my self'. > >>> In the dreams you CAN see shapes & colours, and even sometimes feel feelings (atleast the neutral kind). Rupa (shape & colour) is a perception that has to be accompanined by 7 universal cetasikas. Anyhow, is that dream real or not? Are those contact, feeling, perception, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty found in dreams REAL or NOT? After all, cognitive process DOES happen in the dreams. The truth of Buddha's statement I believe should be this: "Form (and every other khanda) is Impermanent (like a dream perhaps), fragile like china dishes, dependently arisen, and ultimately beyond FULL control and anatta." Since the Form (Rupa) is misery, we should NOT elevate it to a position of being "Ultimate". Well we can call it Ultimate, but Ultimate SUFFERING rather than 'reality' which has a very 'questionable' meaning. Lots of Metta, Alex #83462 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:11 am Subject: Re: Perseverance in dhamma, Ch 3, no 1. dhammanusara Dear Nina, - Thank you for the sutta review. The venerable Ånanda said : When, while one rejoices, the cankers are destroyed- that is the best of joys. Questions: 1. For a sekha what dhammas does he rejoice and how does he do it such that the cankers are destroyed? 2. What are the dhammas that an Arahant rejoices? Tep === #83463 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear Alex (and Ken H), - I hope you do not think of the following response as arguments of a debate. It should be thought of as a Dhamma discussion. > Alex: > In the dreams you CAN see shapes & colours, and even sometimes feel > feelings (atleast the neutral kind). Rupa (shape & colour) is a > perception that has to be accompanined by 7 universal cetasikas. > > Anyhow, is that dream real or not? Are those contact, feeling, > perception, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty found in dreams > REAL or NOT? After all, cognitive process DOES happen in the dreams. > T: Since SN22.95 is not about meditation/vipassana of the aggregates in a dream, the above questions are irrelevant. And so I still maintain that the khandhas are real albeit being impermanent, a suffering, and empty of ownership (i.e. NOT my form, my feeling, etc.). > A: > The truth of Buddha's statement I believe should be this: > "Form (and every other khanda) is Impermanent (like a dream perhaps), fragile like china dishes, dependently arisen, and ultimately beyond FULL control and anatta." > T: I agree with such interpretation except "like a dream". ............ > A: Since the Form (Rupa) is misery, we should NOT elevate it to a > position of being "Ultimate". Well we can call it Ultimate, but > Ultimate SUFFERING rather than 'reality' which has a > very 'questionable' meaning. > T: That is for our good friend Ken to reply. Tep === #83464 From: "Raymond Hendrickson" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:28 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... bitakarma > > Dear Alex (and KnH), - > > ........................... > > > > T: Are you saying that the two suttas contradict each other ?? > > If the khnadhas were not real, then how could the monk observe them > & appropriately examine them? They are real but empty of substance, > not > worth grasping as 'mine; my self'. > > > >>> > Alex says: > In the dreams you CAN see shapes & colours, and even sometimes feel > feelings (atleast the neutral kind). Rupa (shape & colour) is a > perception that has to be accompanined by 7 universal cetasikas. > > Anyhow, is that dream real or not? Are those contact, feeling, > perception, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty found in dreams > REAL or NOT? After all, cognitive process DOES happen in the dreams. > > > The truth of Buddha's statement I believe should be this: > "Form (and every other khanda) is Impermanent (like a dream perhaps), > fragile like china dishes, dependently arisen, and ultimately beyond > FULL control and anatta." > > Since the Form (Rupa) is misery, we should NOT elevate it to a > position of being "Ultimate". Well we can call it Ultimate, but > Ultimate SUFFERING rather than 'reality' which has a > very 'questionable' meaning. > > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > ----------------------------------------------- I think that if we look at the paragraph before the one that started this discussion, Alex's point about the truth of the Buddha's teachings around impermanence is supportive. Here it is: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling....Perception....volitional formations.....Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist" Just a reminder of the initial quote..... > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree > upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is > is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in > the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the truth about the impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general statement about wether or not they exist. #83465 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you for your replies. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > N: Very basic for satipatthana, awareness of this reality appearing now, at the present moment. When hardness appears it can be known as a rupa-element, and then no other reality appears. >>>> What about wholesome citta that cognizes this rupa?!!!! It has to be there AT THAT TIME in order to COGNIZE this rupa! After all, rupa doesn't feel itself , citta does. > ------- N: The cultivation of the eightfold Path, satipatthana, it all amounts to awareness and understanding of the dhamma appearing now. >>>> What is aware? Citta of course. Can it be aware of momentary non- existant object? No. So two phenomenon MUST occur AT THE SAME MOMENT. Rupa AND citta (along with its cetasikas) which cognizes the same rupa. Nina, your statement about understanding Dhamma appearing now is partly correct. What about Maranasati? Recollection of the Buddha or his disciples? Recollection of the Devas? Furthermore, if ONE citta occurs at a time, then can it be aware of itself? Can it have "self" awareness? > > Alex: Or even better, how does one mind moment condition the next? If two events can't overlap in time and space - then we have a paradox. The effect (the next citta) depends on the cause to DISAPPEAR first in order to arise. Exactly how does one mind moment carries the information to the next mind moment? > ----- > N: There is accumulation, >>> Where precisely is it stored at EACH "mind moment"? Where is this accumulation stored when one mind moment ceased and another didn't yet appear? >>> and this is because of the fact that each citta that falls away conditions the next one. You can notice that > each individual has a particular character, life style, style of > writing. You have a special style, different from others. That is > because of accumulated tendencies. >>> Where precisely is these accumulated tendencies stored when a)one is consious b) one was hit with a hammer to the head and is unconsious c) One is in nirodha-samapatti. > ------- > A:If one consciousness affect the next one, what happens when an > Anagamin enters Nirodha Samapatti? > ------ > N: when he emerges, the last citta before he entered Nirodha > Samapatti conditions the first citta at emerging, by way of proximity condition. >>> Dear Nina, but that citta which conditions the emerging is no longer existent! How can something NON-EXISTENT, Now Gone, condition the arising of a citta after emerging from Nirodha Samapatti? Time travel? Inter time communication? So dhammas DO exist in the past? I am afraid that this is a stumbling block for momentary, 1 citta at a time doctrine. Lots of Metta, Alex #83466 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 15:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina, you do not assert that you believe it to be true, but instead > say > outright "But it is the truth." And you know that HOW, Nina? I > believe it to > be true as well, but you assert it as fact. How do you know that to > be fact? > Such certainty without knowledge is troubling to me. In MN 95, the > Buddha > teaches about safeguarding truth. There is recorded the following: > _____________________________ > "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of > the truth? > To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama > about the > safeguarding of the truth." > > "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' > safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite > conclusion that 'Only > this is true; anything else is worthless.' ------- N: Second Book of the Abhidhamma, Book of Analysis, Analysis of Knowledge, 762, 763: <'Have different bases, have different objects' means: the base and object of eye consciousness is (one thing); the base and object of ear consciousness is another; the base and object of nose consciousness is another; the base and object of tongue consciousness is another; the base and object of body consciousness is another. 763. Do not experience each other's object means: Ear consciousness does not experience the object of eye consciousness... etc. > (quoted by Scott before). See countless suttas: when he experiences an object with the eye, attachment arises... when with the ear...with the nose, etc. How could there be two cittas, and two objects experienced at the same time. Your sutta quote about someone who clings: this alone is true... does not pertain to the Buddha Dhamma. Of the Buddha's teachings one can safely say: this is the Truth. Nina. #83467 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 12:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Hi Raymond (Alex), - You commented : >Raymond: Just a reminder of the initial quote..... > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in > the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the truth about the impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general statement about wether or not they exist. ............. Tep: Right. The Buddha never taught a theory on existence/non- existence or reality. Tep (#83451): Yes, the middle way(path) that stays clear from extreme views involving existence/non-existence that lead to confusion/delusion about self. That has been the real issue of the real Dhamma that I call relevant, worthy of discussion here at DSG and anywhere else, not any other issues about existence/non-existence and ontological meaning of realities such as the nature of beings. Sincerely, Tep === #83468 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/1/2008 2:52:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 15:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina, you do not assert that you believe it to be true, but instead > say > outright "But it is the truth." And you know that HOW, Nina? I > believe it to > be true as well, but you assert it as fact. How do you know that to > be fact? > Such certainty without knowledge is troubling to me. In MN 95, the > Buddha > teaches about safeguarding truth. There is recorded the following: > _____________________________ > "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of > the truth? > To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama > about the > safeguarding of the truth." > > "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' > safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite > conclusion that 'Only > this is true; anything else is worthless.' ------- N: Second Book of the Abhidhamma, Book of Analysis, Analysis of Knowledge, 762, 763: <'Have different bases, have different objects' means: the base and object of eye consciousness is (one thing); the base and object of ear consciousness is another; the base and object of nose consciousness is another; the base and object of tongue consciousness is another; the base and object of body consciousness is another. 763. Do not experience each other's object means: Ear consciousness does not experience the object of eye consciousness... etc. > (quoted by Scott before). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, you quote what others have said. ----------------------------------------------- See countless suttas: when he experiences an object with the eye, attachment arises... when with the ear...with the nose, etc. How could there be two cittas, and two objects experienced at the same time. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't believe there can. I do not KNOW it. -------------------------------------------- Your sutta quote about someone who clings: this alone is true... does not pertain to the Buddha Dhamma. Of the Buddha's teachings one can safely say: this is the Truth. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: One can safely say that you believe it to be and that I believe it to be - quite strongly. (Others feel the same about the Prophet Mohammed.) Some day I hope to KNOW. I cannot claim that knowledge now. It seems that you can. ------------------------------------------------ Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #83469 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 8:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... TGrand458@... Hi Alex, Rhendrickson, Howard, All, In a message dated 3/1/2008 12:30:39 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rhendrickson1@... writes: I think that if we look at the paragraph before the one that started this discussion, Alex's point about the truth of the Buddha's teachings around impermanence is supportive. Here it is: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling....PerceptiFeeling....Perception...Feeling....Perception.. permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist" Just a reminder of the initial quote..... > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree > upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > Feeling ...Perception. Feeling ...Perceptio Feeling ...Percepti is > is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in > the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the truth about the impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general statement about wether or not they exist. .................................................................. NEW TG: I agree with this analysis. IMO, the Buddha deals very scantly with ontological matters of existence or non-existence. When he does, he indicates both positions are wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that the Buddha's teaching is non-ontological. Buddhism is the middle-way in more ways than one, and ontology cannot define it or pin-point it. Phenomena are seen as empty of (their own) existence and empty of non-existence from an "ultimate truth" perspective. The Buddha said "Empty is the world." It is empty of anything that could be considered "itself." Phenomena do appear, but they appear more like "echoes" or "shadows" or "resultants" than as anything substantially unique. To indicate any "one thing" as actually existing; is to be ignorant of the dynamic conditionality-matrix that is combining and forging the support of ever changing experiences of phenomena. One can be mindful of an experience by paying attention to that experience and realizing that such an experience is empty of anything "of-itself" ... and be understanding, in general, of the conditional circumstances that have merged to form that experience. This isn't mindfulness of "realities" ... it is mindfulness of "the reality" that phenomena are empty, selfless, coreless, impermanent, transient, fleeting, fading away, changing, afflicting, oppressive, and disastrous. This is a huge, huge difference! TG #83470 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, NEW TG ;-), and Alex & Ray (it IS Ray, right?) - In a message dated 3/1/2008 4:39:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: NEW TG: I agree with this analysis. IMO, the Buddha deals very scantly with ontological matters of existence or non-existence. When he does, he indicates both positions are wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that the Buddha's teaching is non-ontological. Buddhism is the middle-way in more ways than one, and ontology cannot define it or pin-point it. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with you, TG, that he says both positions are wrong, but I disagree with you to the extent that I consider noting the middle-way mode of existence of dhammas to fall under ontology, as it pertains (exactly) to the matter of existence. And the Buddha's observing and reporting this truly amazing existential nature of dhammas was, IMO, one of the most remarkable and admirable contributions to the welfare of the world ever made! ------------------------------------------------ Phenomena are seen as empty of (their own) existence and empty of non-existence from an "ultimate truth" perspective. The Buddha said "Empty is the world." It is empty of anything that could be considered "itself." Phenomena do appear, but they appear more like "echoes" or "shadows" or "resultants" than as anything substantially unique. To indicate any "one thing" as actually existing; is to be ignorant of the dynamic conditionality-matrix that is combining and forging the support of ever changing experiences of phenomena. One can be mindful of an experience by paying attention to that experience and realizing that such an experience is empty of anything "of-itself" ... and be understanding, in general, of the conditional circumstances that have merged to form that experience. This isn't mindfulness of "realities" ... it is mindfulness of "the reality" that phenomena are empty, selfless, coreless, impermanent, transient, fleeting, fading away, changing, afflicting, oppressive, and disastrous. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: As I see it, this is correct, important, and very well said. ------------------------------------------------------ This is a huge, huge difference! TG =========================== With metta, Howard #83471 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/1/2008 4:12:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I agree with you, TG, that he says both positions are wrong, but I disagree with you to the extent that I consider noting the middle-way mode of existence of dhammas to fall under ontology, as it pertains (exactly) to the matter of existence. And the Buddha's observing and reporting this truly amazing existential nature of dhammas was, IMO, one of the most remarkable and admirable contributions to the welfare of the world ever made! .................................................. Hi Howard I agree with you on Buddhist ontology and I stand corrected. Buddhist ontology deals with the process or mechanics of phenomena, that which we know of as "conditionality," and therefore allows insight to "see through" the false facade of phenomena and know things/phenomena as they really are...as conditioned, impermanent, afflicting (when in relationship to consciousness), and nonself. As well as empty, coreless, fleeting, transient, and like foam, like bursting bubbles, like a mirage, without a core, like a trick, and so on. TG #83472 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:24 pm Subject: What is citta (cetasika or rupa particle) made off? Dhamma theory & math truth_aerator Hello all, I was thiking for quite some time and reading some CMA. Any natural number >0 is divisible. 0 is the smallest indivisible number. Abh commentary claim that citta lasts (58 billionth of a second or 1/58,000,000,000). http://www.bddronline.net.au/bddr14no1/abhi082.html Now, that number IS further divisible. For example that duration is made of 10 parts each lasting 1/580,000,000,000) or 580 billionth of a second, or 100 parts each lasting 5,800 billionth of a second... And even those numbers can be divided ad infinitum! Thus the duration of each Dhamma cannot be the mathematically the Ultimate, undivisible Reality. If you say that citta lasts 0 seconds (the only number that CANNOT be further divided), then this also doesn't make sense. Even infinity of such 0 duration cittas would still make the whole process = ZERO, ZILCH, NOTHING. 0 x infinity = 0 . Furthermore the same sort of argument can be applied to size of rupa particles. You may say that division into parts is purely mental, etc, but this isn't so. If we imagine that there are "wholes" without "parts" then we have ridiculous events not evident in experience. Ex: Walking 1 mile in one step. This can't be done. We walk in MANY steps. We can cognize PART of the object with PART of it be obscured, so saying that "parts do not exist" is not tenable. Ex seeing entire universe at once and it at all times without ANY possibility of seeing only a part of it... Thus atomistic theory is anything BUT the "Ultimate Reality". Don't get me wrong, I am NOT against momentarism. Every moment, any of the 5 aggregates are different by that unit of time. However making nice, neat and tight boxes consisting of really really irreducible and Ultimate Units is mathematically flawed. Thank you Buddha for making a much more phenomenological approach: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.01.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.02.than.html These 4 lines are Brilliant summarizing dependent origination and conditionality and the fact of two events happening at the same time. (When this IS, that IS..) Lots of Metta, Alex #83473 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:41 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "The the Pa.t.thaana is an excellent categorization and description of the various kinds of paccaya (conditions)..." Scott: I appreciate your opinion here but I think you are missing the most important aspect of Pa.t.thaana - as well as caterorisation and desctiption, it is an elucidation of dynamics, of 'forces'. This is very important and you oughtn't miss it. One must not simply think of the 24 conditions as a 'list'. These conditions function at times simultaneously and in interaction. Conditionality is ongoing and shifting. Seeing the categorical nature of Pa.t.thaana alone is not enough and simply fails to appreciate the depth of the method of exegesis. The relations and forces that are these relation between dhammas are operative in that which Paticcasamuppaada describes, as I will discuss below. T: "...On the other hand, the wonderful Paticcasamuppada explains conditional co-arising of the dhammas (starting with avijja and continuing to birth) that lead to the whole mass of dukkha as defined by the 1st of the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, Pa.t.thaana only complements the Paticcasamuppada -- not replaces it like you think..." Scott: No, you've not read me correctly. Read this again, if you please: Me: "... Here too, I think, it is Conditional Relations as described in Pa.t.thaana, not Dependent Origination, that is being elaborated. *There are differences in the way these particular methods explain things*..." Scott: Rather than stating that Conditional Relations 'replaces' Paticcasamuppaada, I am stating that these two, *as explanatory systems*, differ in their mode of explanation and in that which they are explaining, although there is obviously overlap - a point with which you have already agreed above. As you can see, this is a far cry from saying that one replaces the other. That simply is not what I said in any way, but I think you get the point. Here's a modern opinion which expresses this better than I (U Naarada, Guide To Conditional Relations Part 1, pp. 5-6): "(2)Dependent Origination Method Dependent Origination is the teaching about all that happens in one existence. Therefore, it teaches about: (i) the causes for coming into this present existence. These are ignorance and formations of past existences; (ii) the causes for the change to another existence. This is kamma-becoming which brings about birth, decay and death in another existence; (iii) the present existence. These are consciousness, mentality-materiality, six bases, contact, feeling, craving and attachment...In this Dependent Origination, the primary cause of the round of rebirths is ignorance. And so the causes and effects are here expounded in this manner: Ignorance is the cause and formations are the effect, and so on. "(3)Conditional Relations Method In the Conditional Relations method, all the states are treated with reference to 24 conditions to show how the causes and their effects are related. Here it is expounded that such-and-such a state, as cause, is related to such-and-such a state, as effect, by such-and-such a conditioning force. *Note. The cause and effect expounded in theses [two] methods of teaching must be considered separately, each in its own way. If they are taken together and any inter-relation between them is sought there will be doubt and perplexity..." T: "Dukkha is seen as the consequence of conditional co-arising (dependent origination) of the dhammas that are the links of Paticcasamuppada. Pa.t.thaana expands each link by adding detailed information about the conditions. Complementing, not replacing. Please advise, if you think I am wrong. Thanks." Scott: I don't think you are wrong, just that you misread my statement and are not quite seeing the complexity of conditional relations, which underlies all things, including Paticcasamuppaada, but which, at the level of explanations of cause and effect, is a different sort of explanation. Sincerely, Scott. #83474 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Dear TG and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > NEW TG: I agree with this analysis. IMO, the Buddha deals very scantly with ontological matters of existence or non-existence. When he does, he indicates both positions are wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that the Buddha's teaching is non-ontological. Buddhism is the middle-way in more ways than one, and ontology cannot define it or pin-point it. > Buddha has focused primary on "suffering, the cause, the path and cessation of suffering" 4NT. Furthermore ALL speculative views about ontology are dependently arisen, and thus are condition not independent, imperfect, one sided, flawed, etc. MN18 is an excellent sutta. Also here is interesting passage: --- "Entrenched in name & form, they conceive that 'This is true.' In whatever terms they conceive it it turns into something other than that, and that's what's false about it: changing, it's deceptive by nature. Undeceptive by nature is Unbinding: that the noble ones know as true." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.12.than.html ----- Lots of Metta, Alex #83475 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:22 pm Subject: How does one start Abhidhamma Studies? A brilliant answer by Ajahn Chah truth_aerator Hello all, This quote made my day. I hope it prompts a happy citta to arise in your citta-stream. --- One day, a famous woman lecturer on Buddhist metaphysics came to see Achaan Chah. This woman gave periodic teachings in Bangkok in the abhidharma and complex Buddhist psychology. In talking to Achaan Chah, she detailed how important it was for people to understand Buddhist psychology and how much her students benefited from their study with her. She asked him whether he agreed with the importance of such understanding. "Yes, very important," he agreed. Delighted, she further questions whether he had his own students learn abhidharma. "Oh, yes, of course." And where, she asked, did he recommend they start, which books and studies were best? "Only here," he said, pointing to his heart, "only here." (Kornfield & Breiter 1985:12) --- I wonder who was she? :) Brilliant responce by a brilliant practicing forest monk! "I" couldn't resist posting this... Lots of Metta, Alex #83476 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:42 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Dear Tep and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Alex: > > In the dreams you CAN see shapes & colours, and even sometimes feel > > feelings (atleast the neutral kind). Rupa (shape & colour) is a > > perception that has to be accompanined by 7 universal cetasikas. > > > > Anyhow, is that dream real or not? Are those contact, feeling, > > perception, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty found in dreams > > REAL or NOT? After all, cognitive process DOES happen in the dreams. > > > > T: Since SN22.95 is not about meditation/vipassana of the aggregates > in a dream, the above questions are irrelevant. And so I still > maintain that the khandhas are real albeit being impermanent, a > suffering, and empty of ownership (i.e. NOT my form, my feeling, > etc.). > What I am trying to say is that appearances CAN be deceptive. Just because you see something and think it is real, (a hungry person in a desert due to craving may mistake a mirage for an oasis with water) doesn't make it really really real. Reality is very imprecise word, which has paradoxes. 'Buddhist' thinkers tried to describe reality and so far they haven't come to a same conclussion , I wonder why? It is good that Buddha, being the WISEST teacher who was is and will be, often brought Stress and its Cessation as the point of teaching this or that. Ultimately what matters is to overcome cravings (including for views) and overcome ALL suffering. Ultimately he made sure to emphasis things that matter, the results of this or that action. He fully well knew that all the views are dependently arisen and in the big picture, anicca-dukkha-anatta. Lots of Metta, Alex #83477 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:44 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. dhammanusara Dear Scott, - If you say that I have not fully understood the complexity of Patthana, then you are 100% right. Because I have not yet studied the whole book of the original Patthana. >Scott: I don't think you are wrong, just that you misread my statement and are not quite seeing the complexity of conditional relations, which underlies all things, including Paticcasamuppaada, but which, at the level of explanations of cause and effect, is a different sort of explanation. T: However, by expressing your opinion that the "conditional relations" underly all things, " including Paticcasamuppaada", it is overextending beyond the Buddha's words. In SN 12.61 for example the Buddha stated affirmatively that an instructed disciple who penetrated Paticcasamuppaada would attain Nibbana (total Release) through disenchantment(nibbida) & dispassion(viraga) of the five aggregates. "Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html T: I still have the impression that you've dangerously underestimated Paticcasamuppaada, maybe even much more than Venerable Ananda did. But Ananda was fortunate to have the Great Sage corrected him right away [See DN 15 : Maha-nidana Sutta]. Tep === #83478 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) walterhorn I just wanted to jump back in for a moment to thank Han for the excellent links he provided. They addressed precisely my questions about rebirth (I suppose I'm not the first to have been puzzled by these matters?) and were very precise and illuminating. Best, W > > Kamma and Rebirth (Nyanatiloka) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch2 > > > Does Rebirth Make Sense? by Bhikkhu Bodhi > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_46.html > > #83479 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:06 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "However, by expressing your opinion that the 'conditional relations' underly all things, " including Paticcasamuppaada", it is overextending beyond the Buddha's words..." Scott: Again, Tep, you haven't quite got me correctly. Think about it: If dhammas arise and fall away by conditions, as explained by the method of Conditional Relations, that is conditioning dhammas, conditioned dhammas and the forces that are between them, then these dynamics explain the way in which all dhammas function. For example, wouldn't C.R. explain the dynamics of the coming into a new existence - that is, the conditions and forces which cause the arising of patisandhi citta, for example. And how there are certain mental factors arising with this citta. This whole complex first moment of a new existence in best explained by the C.R. method. The D.O. method doesn't have this fine a focus. T: "...In SN 12.61 for example the Buddha stated affirmatively that an instructed disciple who penetrated Paticcasamuppaada would attain Nibbana (total Release) through disenchantment(nibbida) & dispassion(viraga) of the five aggregates..." Scott: You don't have to sell me on Paticcasamuppaada. I'm only saying that C.R. is a different method of explanation. T: "I still have the impression that you've dangerously underestimated Paticcasamuppaada, maybe even much more than Venerable Ananda did. But Ananda was fortunate to have the Great Sage corrected him right away [See DN 15 : Maha-nidana Sutta]." Scott: No, Tep, one method of explanation is not to be placed over the other. One isn't superior, and the other inferior. I've not underestimated anything. The Dependent Origination method is no better than the Conditional Relations method. They are simply two distinct methods of explanation. Sincerely, Scott. #83480 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:27 pm Subject: Re: How does one start Abhidhamma Studies? A brilliant answer by Ajahn Chah scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: "'Only here', he said, pointing to his heart, 'only here.' "'I' couldn't resist posting this..." Yoda once said: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Man, that's brilliant. Just pulling your leg, man. Sincerely, Scott. #83481 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 8:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (9) hantun1 Dear Walter, I am very, very happy that I could be of some service. I also found the articles excellent. I must thank you, Walter, for making me read more! Respectfully, Han #83482 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:01 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (97) 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 read in the “Gradual Sayings” (III), Book of the Fives, Ch XXII, § 5, Impatience, that the Buddha said: “Monks, there are these five disadvantages from being impatient. What five? Not to many folk he is dear and pleasing; he is full of malevolence; there is much harm for him; he dies muddled in thought and rises in unhappy planes, such as hell planes. Monks, these are the five disadvantages from being impatient.” It is true that someone who is impatient is not dear and pleasing to many people, he is full of malevolence and he may cause quarreling, injuring, fighting, harming and killing. When he is irritated and displeased because of an unpleasant experience, he should know that accumulated inclinations condition him to be bad-tempered and impatient and that he will receive the harmful effect of his own akusala. Someone else cannot harm him, only his own defilements will cause him harm, and moreover, he will die muddled in thought. If someone is often impatient and overcome by anger, he may also be so when he is near death. Everybody has to leave this world, and when the citta is impure just before dying, his akusala citta is the condition for rebirth in an unhappy plane such as hell. This is a danger much more fearsome than the dangers in this world. Thus, we should train ourselves in patience, acceptance and endurance with regard to our living conditions, our environment, patience with regard to all kinds of situations (adhivaasanaa khanti). Patience has many degrees. We need patience to listen to the Dhamma, to study and to consider it, in order to have right understanding of what is taught. We should not merely listen, we should also consider with wise attention what we have heard. The Dhamma is very subtle and deep and if we do not consider thoroughly what we have heard and studied, we can easily have confusion and wrong understanding, there may be conditions for wrong conduct and wrong practice. When patience with regard to listening to the Dhamma increases we shall see the benefit of all kinds of kusala and further develop it. This means that we shall have more understanding of the right cause that brings its effect accordingly. We read in the ‘Kindred Sayings” (V, Mahaa-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Streamwinning, Ch II, § 2, Brahmins) that the Buddha, while he was dwelling at Saavatthí, was reminding the monks about the right kind of patience and the wrong kind of patience. We read: “Monks, the brahmins proclaim this practice which leads to prosperity: they instruct their disciples thus: ‘Come, good fellow! Rise up betimes and go facing east. Don’t avoid a hole, a village pool or cesspit. You should go to meet your death wherever you may fall. Thus, good fellow, on the break up of body, after death you will be reborn in the Happy Lot, in the Heaven World.’ ” Those brahmins taught endurance and patience, but if patience is not accompanied by pa~n~naa it is not beneficial at all. This teaching of the brahmins was devoid of pa~n~naa, unreasonable and not beneficial. To be continued. Metta, Han #83483 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:07 pm Subject: Patthaana (14) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of (1). Root condition (hetu-paccaya), and the root moha. There are many suttas about moha or avijjaa. But today, I will take up only two short suttas. SN 45.1 Avijja Sutta Ignorance Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.001.than.html Quote [The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, (akusalaanam dhammaanam) followed by lack of conscience (ahirikam) & lack of concern (anottappam). In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises. "Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities (kusalaanam dhammaanam), followed by conscience & concern (hirottappam). In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises."] End Quote. Han: Here also, the Buddha emphasized the fact that ahirika and anottappa [which are opposite of hiri and ottappa, the two guardians of the world] follow moha. In a person immersed in moha, wrong view (micchaa ditthi) arises, followed by micchaa-sankappa, micchaa-vaacaa, micchaa-kammanta, micchaa-aajiiva, micchaa-vaayaama, micchaa-sati, and micchaa-samaadhi. Thus moha or avijjaa is the starting point for all that is opposite to Noble Eightfold Path. ----------------------------- If that is the case, what can we do about avijjaa? SN 35.79 Pathama Avijjaa Pahaana Sutta: Abandoning Ignorance (1) Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Once, a certain monk asked the Blessed One "Venerable sir, is there one thing, through the abandoning of which, ignorance (avijjaa) is abandoned by a bhikkhu and true knowledge (vijjaa) arises?” The Buddha replied, "Ignorance, bhikkhu, is the one thing through the abandoning of which, ignorance is abandoned by a bhikkhu and true knowledge arises.” [Han: Here the foot-note says that “though it may sound redundant to say that ignorance must be abandoned in order to abandon ignorance, this statement underscores the fact that ignorance is the most fundamental cause of bondage, which must be eliminated to eliminate all the other bonds.”] “But, venerable sir, how should a bhikkhu know (katham jaanato), how should he see (katham passato), for ignorance to be abandoned (avijjaa pahiiyati) by him and true knowledge arises (vijjaa uppajjati)?” “Bhikkhu, when a bhikkhu knows and sees the eye [form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling arising with eye-contact] as impermanent, ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge arises. [To repeat with other five senses.] Han: Thus, among others, aniccaanupassanaa (contemplation on impermanence of naama and ruupas) is very important. --------------------- Han: While still on the subject, I would like to study the cause of avijjaa. In expounding the Law of Dependent Origination, Buddha began with avijjaa (ignorance) and went on explaining that because of avijjaa, sankhaara arises; because of sankhaara, vi ~n~naana arises, and so on. So one may enquire whether avijjaa is the first cause or whether there is another cause for avijjaa? In this regard, I found an interesting excerpt in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (page 302) which I would present below. “The Cause of Avijjaa” Quote: [In the Sammaaditthi Sutta the Venerable Saariputta is asked to explain the cause of ignorance and he replies that ignorance arises from the taints (aasava-samudayaa avijjaa-samudayo). When he is asked to state the cause of the taints, he replies that the taints arise from ignorance (avijjaa-samudayaa aasava-samudayo). Since the most fundamental of the taints is the taint of ignorance (avijjaasava), the Venerable Saariputta’s statement implies that the ignorance in any given existence arises from the ignorance in the preceding existence. This, in effect, establishes the round of becoming as beginningless (anaadikam) since any instance of ignorance always depends on a preceding life in which ignorance was present, entailing an infinite regression.] End Quote. Han: No wonder that the avijjaa could finally be abandoned or eradicated by the arahantta-magga only! Other roots to continue. Metta, Han #83484 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > The Dhamma verification issue has not been fully discussed at DSG. > Members are happy with quoting books and commentaries, but shy away > from citing their real experience of the Abhidhamma at the true dhamma > level. I am going to explain what I mean by real experience of the > Abhidhamma below. > > ... > T: The thought about self or "what belongs to (pertaining to) self" are > pinned down as a reality in every non-ariyan. And that is the dhamma of > a "fool". Until we experience the true dhamma at the Abhidhamma level, > I believe it is not possible for us to truly understand the real taste > of the Abhidhamma. > I think I understand what you are saying here, except that I would put it this way: Any aspect of the teachings that has not been understood by direct experience can only be understood at an intellectual level (and thus not fully understood). As I see it, proper understanding at an intellectual level depends on (a) one's direct understanding, such as it is, and (b) study and consideration of the teachings as heard. It is inevitable that, until there has been direct understanding and realisation to the level of sotapanna, there will be the idea of self arising, with greater or lesser frequency, depending on various factors. However, right view and other kusala can develop notwithstanding that the tendency to wrong view still remains as a latent tendency. Jon #83485 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 21:42 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Some > day I hope to KNOW. I cannot claim that knowledge now. It seems > that you can. ------ N: I do not claim anything, but there are degrees of understanding. One can begin to be aware and understand a little more clearly. A very gradual development, and one knows: this is the right direction. Nina. #83486 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - Concerns, interests, accumulations ...... sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Back to #82874 Thank you for a great reply with good questions. --- Tep Sastri wrote: > I always like to read your e-report cards. Often, they lead to useful > discussions (although most of the questions are old and have been > answered several times). .... S: ;) and ! .... > > I have a few questions & thoughts for your kind consideration. > > >Sarah: K.Sujin stressed that there has to be an understanding of > seeing,visible object and other paramattha dhammas . No self to make > anything happen. In response to concerns about whether there's > anything that "I can do", she said that of course there is nothing "I > can do" because there is no self! > > T: Is the 'self' that she denies existence of the same as "soul" or > a metaphysical entity as in MN 2, or is it both physical and mental > body (attapa.tilabha) as stated in DN 9, or is it the self > identification as in MN 44? .... S: In my note above, it is sakkaya-ditthi (self-view) when there is an idea that "I can do something". So in this context, no self means no one, no person at all. In the broader sense, no self and the understanding of paramattha dhammas as stressed above (seeing and visible object) refers to the understanding of dhammas as anatta. We don't take the computer or telephone for being a person, so there's no sakkaya-ditthi involved, but there is atta-belief when the dhammas appearing through the senses are taken for being 'a thing', such as a computer or telephone. Your quotes include both sakkaya-ditthi and the broader attanu-ditthi, e.g. MN44. . .... > ............................... > > >S: On right effort, who can have effort at will? > > T: I think one can have effort through a wise attention to dangers of > akusala dhammas, and subsequently makes a strong effort ("he arouses > ardor") to abandon them as explained by Maha Kassapa in SN 16.2. .... S: This is OK as long as it's very clear that there is no 'one' to have any effort or to make any effort in an absolute sense. To think otherwise would be a good example of sakkaya-ditthi and silabbata-paramasa if there was an attempt to have this 'one' make the effort. .... > T: There is another sutta, AN 10.51, that makes it clear in black-and- > white how effort may arise at will following a skillful examination > of the mind. Notice the phrase "put forth extra desire, effort, > diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, and alertness" and "make > an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful > qualities to a higher degree". So it is necessary to think and "do > something", otherwise skillful qualities(kusala dhammas) will never > arise. .... S: The skillful examination, the making an effort and so on are all functions of particular cetasikas arising with cittas (kusala ones in this case). At moments of right understanding, there is wise attention, there is right effort , there is mindfulness already. Again, as soon as there is any idea of 'you', 'I' or 'one' doing anything, it's wrong understanding of conditioned dhammas. .... > ................................................ > > >S: At the moment of thinking, there is effort already at that moment > of thinking of making an effort. It's not necessary to think, to do. > > T: I wonder if the "effort already at that moment of thinking of > making an effort" is qualified as the right effort, the magga factor > (samma vayamo), that can abanadon akusala dhammas. .... S: Usually, whenever there's a thought of 'making an effort' to be aware or to understand dhammas or to develop wholesome states, it's unwise attention and wrong effort. ... > ................................................ > > Thank you for the effort to take notes of the meeting. ... S: Your response was a great one, Tep. Super questions and quotes (which I've snipped out for now - but you're welcome to raise any of them again). I've been particularly enjoying some of your recent posts too, such as the one to Steven on right speech (#82967) and the one on the fire simile to TG (#82831) as well as your Abhidhamma corner, posts to Alex and so on. Metta, Sarah ======= #83487 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I hope you are enjoying your sessions. Thanks for: > > S: "...There is vitakka (and vicara) arising with almost every citta. > What we take for 'thinking' involves many cittas, cetasikas and > mind-door processes. There is none of this conventional thinking at > moments of jhana cittas. The condition for the growth of samma > sankappa is the growth of right understanding." > > What is it that creates the sense of wholeness and continuity in the > experience of thinking? ... S: I think it's the atta-sa~n~naa (wrong perception of 'atta') which accompanies wrong view which leads to the idea of 'wholeness'. This is because of not understanding dhammas as elements or as namas and rupas. There is continuity of dhammas and this (along with wrong view) is what leads to a lack of understanding of the arising and falling away of those namas and rupas. Again, because of atta-sanna, there is an illusion of lastingness. ***** "But it is owing to not keeping what in mind, owing to non-penetration of what and owing to concealment of what that these characteristics [S: 3 characteristics of realities] do not appear? Firstly the characteristic of impermanence does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating rise and fall owing to its being concealed by continuity (santati). The characteristic of pain does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating continuous oppression and owing to its being concealed by the postures (iriyaapatha). The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness(ghana).... ....When resolving of the compact (ghanavinibbhoga) is effected by resolution into the various elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its true essential nature." (Sammohavinodani. transl as 'Dispeller of Delusion', Class. of Bases, 243). **** S: It is on account of not 'resolving the compact', not understanding dhammas as elements that the various vipallasa arise - especially those connected with ditthi (wrong views). Do you have any other suggestions yourself, Scott? Metta, Sarah p.s Thanks for adding the Pali in the Dhsg corner. ================= #83488 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, I'm glad to see your Abhidhamma and CMA study and interest. I've been saying all along that you're a 'closet Abhidhammist':). --- Alex wrote: [#82928] > Furthermore, you should know that one of the skills is to enter/exit > Jhana at will. Where does "no control" fits in :) ? ... S: What do you have great skill in? Maybe playing the piano or writing computer programs or playing golf. Is there any self involved who has any control? Or are there conditioned dhammas performing their particular functions at such times? Metta, Sarah ========== #83489 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing present moment. 11 surefire things for Liberation sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Back to #82927 --- Alex wrote: > > S: The object of jhana is not the 'seeing of present realities'. > The object of jhana is one of the 40 objects of samatha, such as a > > kasina. > >>>> > > Not fully correct. In the suttas Jhanas ARE highly refined states of > consciousness where satipatthana (in some shape&form) happens. MN111 > and other suttas show that. If you disagree with that, then it is > your decision not mine. ... S: Not anyone's decision, just conditions to think differently, to understand the sutta differently. ... >The more I analyze (through experience, not > just theory) the concentration vs "not" the more I realize that > Buddha was AGAINST "concentration" as some tend to interpret it. > Whenever you are concetrating you are developing what is > called "inattentional blindness". I witnessed it in a retreat (non- > Buddhist) that I've just had in Hawaii. ... S: Well, I'm glad you're learning about such blindness, Alex. Why not join us in Bangkok for your next retreat? ... >This inattentional blindness > doesn't just happen in "normal" samatha, but "vipassana" practice as > well (any concentration be it momentary, access, or even worse still > Full) is developing blind spots. ... S: If there is any blindness, it is not "normal" or any other kind of samatha or vipassana. I agree that simply concentrating or focussing is blindness in itself (if this is what you mean). .... >This blindness simply cannot awaken > you! It may even develop heretical eternalism beliefs. This is > perhaps one of the problems that Buddha's two (or 3) meditation > teachers had. They focused too much on (nothingness or neither > perception nor non perception) and couldn't see the alteration, non- > self and satipatthana (in base of nothingness). .... S: This is why even jhana is referred to as being the wrong path. Only the development of satipatthana leads out of samsara. .... > > The wise understanding and reflection on jhana states occurs > > subsequently during the reviewing process and by subsequent moments > > of insight. > >>>> > > No. it occurs DURING or immeadetely after the state occurs. Otherwise > it is not the sort of Jhana that Buddha taught. 5 senses ARE present > within the 4 Jhanas and they CAN happen in an unpurified Arupa Jhana > (such as infinite space). ... S: NO. Immediately after, NOT during. See CMA. The Buddha taught 2 kinds of jhana as I quoted recently. With regard to mundane jhana, it is not unique to the Buddha's teaching. Jhana cittas are jhana cittas. NO sense objects can be experienced during jhana. This is the meaning of jhana - the burning of attachment to such sense objects so that they don't appear (temporarily). ....... > > S: These states were known after they had fallen away. > >>> > > A split second afterwards perhaps. Sure. > > >>>>>>> > With the development of insight, there has to be the development of > detachment towards any dhammas which arise since all conditioned > dhammas fall away. None are worth clinging to or desiring/seeking. > > > > TRUE. Buddhist Jhana GOES with insight. ... S: Or insight GOES with whatever dhammas are arising, depending on inclinations, accumulations and skills:) Thx for all your good threads, Alex. Metta, Sarah ======= #83490 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... HI Ken H (Larry, Nina & Connie), --- kenhowardau wrote: > What we might take to be an elementary, or simplified, level of right > understanding is very often wrong though, isn't it? For example, I > assumed that "what is not the path" was a reference to wrong theory. > But as you point out, these chapters in the Vism. are not about > theory: "what is not the path" refers to the defilements of vipassana. ... S: A good point and I'm looking forward to more of your comments on this area. ... > Sorry to have had so little to contribute, and sorry if I'm going to > be a bit slow in typing out the next few paragraphs. There has been > a big surf this week, and I am exhausted. > > It's a hard life! :-) ... S: We did see some pictures of HUGE swell up your way while we were in Bangkok. Either it's still huge and you're still recovering or else you're agonising over the next draft:). The only way to cope with the onerous task Larry gives is to do it in whatever way is easiest for you. If that is to just pick a few paras with no comments, do that! If it is to write a few comments addressed to those you disagree with and ask Connie to fill in the text, do that! If it is to ask Larry a dozen tough questions, do that! Whatever works for you... Just think up a few good punch-lines and you'll be fine. Imagine you're posting each extract to Howard and that should help pick up the momentum again:). Metta, Sarah ========= #83491 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Dear Sarah and Ken H, Op 2-mrt-2008, om 10:34 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Imagine you're > posting each extract to Howard and that should help pick up the > momentum > again:). ----- N: Ha, ha, if we would not have Howard we would be lost! Nina. #83492 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Love them "dhammas" sarahprocter... Hi TG, Thx for your 'Love them "dhammas" sent to me on Feb 14th - a 'dhamma Valentine', the best:) --- TGrand458@... wrote: > To keep saying..."there are only 'Dhammas' existing right now" is like > me > saying, "there is only present phenomena appearing right now." ... S: Just a minute.....You don't like 'Dhammas' or 'realities', but the reason I don't usually use 'phenomena' is that the point being stressed is that a) seeing arises now, hearing arises now, visible object is seen now, sound is heard now and so on, however b) trees and birds are not arising now, are not experienced now. So 'dhammas' or 'realities' are used to stress the distinction between what can be directly known with right understanding and what can only be thought about. ... >It may > be true > enough, but what's that got to do with insight at all? ... S: If the distinction is not made clearly and understood clearly, there will be no insight. Insight can only ever be the direct understanding of seeing, visible object and other realities, never of trees and birds. Phenomena may be used to blur this distinction, but if it points to ultimate dhammas for you, then use it. ... >All it says > when you > boil it down is -- "all there is now is all there is now." ... S: No, it says what is arising now, what is being experienced now. If I refer to realities to Jon or Nina or many other friends here, they know that what I'm referring to are various namas and rupas. It is used very precisely. It's like when we say there are only 5 khandhas now. It is very precise and excludes the blur of 'all' which may mean anything, unless we have already agreed on 'the all'. ... >It seems > like > total nonsense to me. ... S: With respect, I think this is because you don't see the importance of understanding paramattha dhammas as distinct from concepts. I would say that without appreciating this distinction, there will only be thinking or intellectual study of the teachings as taught by some later schools of Buddhism, but I know you disagree. .... >The implication is that there is something other > that > exists but doesn't actually exist, other than these bastions of > "present-ness > exist-ers -- 'Dhammas.'" Kind of like a dual reality? .... S: I don't really follow this. Close your eyes and open them. There is seeing! It exists when it arises and doesn't exist as soon as it has fallen away. When it arises, it experiences visible object. It can be proved! .... > So you want to think in a manner that isn't deluded...great. But I > think > your just replacing one delusion with another...but that's just (me) > dhammas > thinking. Oh, how about just saying "thinking" without prefacing it > with the > term "dhammas"? .... S: Yes, it is just dhammas thinking either way. Yes, we can say 'it's just thinking' when there is this or that idea. The only reason for mentioning/stressing dhammas in this context is to make it clear that there's no TG or Sarah who thinks. .... > I'm sorry, I've seen the way this "dhammas" term is used and it just > comes > off as being an "entification" (entity) or substance of its own accord. > Seems > to me the "dhammas" is HELD onto as strongly or more strongly than any > self > view I've encountered. There's an incredible resistance to just > discuss > elements without bringing out the majestic "dhammas." ... S: I'm very happy to discuss elements. At moments of thinking, what are the elements involved would you say? In fact, you could delete the entire message so far and we could just discuss this one question. ... > Are we so enamored with the term"dhammas" or "namas" and "rupas" that we > think by their mere usage, we know something? ... or are communicating > something? ... S: Whether 'enamored' or 'aversive' to any terms, there are various elements arising and falling away now as we speak. At this moment of seeing, what are these elements? .... > Got to run, I've got to give some "dhammas" a nap. .... S: :-)) Look forward to hearing from the well-rested "dhammas':) Thanks for all your active threads recently, TG. Metta, Sarah ======= #83493 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/1/2008 8:42:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: What I am trying to say is that appearances CAN be deceptive. Just because you see something and think it is real, (a hungry person in a desert due to craving may mistake a mirage for an oasis with water) doesn't make it really really real. Reality is very imprecise word, which has paradoxes. 'Buddhist' thinkers tried to describe reality and so far they haven't come to a same conclussion , I wonder why? =============================== There are, indeed, perversions of perception. As a slight balance to what you wrote here, Alex, and mainly to provide a few thoughts as partial answer to your query, I'd like to add the following, beginning with my "balancing": Misperception is, indeed, real, in that it does occur. ;-) Not all uses of 'real' should be thrown out. 'Real' in the sense of "unimagined" is meaningful and is a valuable term. Also, the concepts of "illusion" and "misperception" are meaningful only in the context of their opposites of "reality" and "proper perception." As for why Buddhists are not in perfect agreement with regard to what is the Buddhist view of "reality," by which term I mean "the way things actually are," I see that as due to a multiplicity of factors, including the following - not in any purposeful order: 1) Less than perfect detail in the record of the Buddha's teachings, 2) Translational problems, 3) An emphasis by the Buddha less on describing what he knew than on the means to come to know it, for the Dhamma is a soteriology more than anything else, 4) Differing personal inclinations and failings on the part of students of the Dhamma, 5) Clinging to view, 6) Ego and arrogance, 7) Reluctance, variously conditioned, to devote the time and energy to investigating the Dhamma in *all* the ways outlined by the Buddha, and 8) Fear of being set adrift from one's personal anchor. Note: Items 4-8 are all related. With metta, Howard #83494 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:34:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes to KenH: Just think up a few good punch-lines and you'll be fine. Imagine you're posting each extract to Howard and that should help pick up the momentum again:). ============================= LOLOL! With metta, Howard #83495 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 6:00 am Subject: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 3, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn Sujin said: “People think that they cannot gain understanding of the reality appearing at this moment”. Realities appear one at a time through one of the six doorways. If we believe that we can see and hear at the same time we shall not know that seeing and hearing are impermanent, dukkha and anattå. The characteristic of impermanence refers to the reality that appears now. She said: “We may read the Tipitaka without any understanding of realities. We may read that all conditioned dhammas are dukkha, but we should know that these words represent reality.” We may think about the impermanence of mind and body, but that is not insight that realizes the impermanence of citta that arises and falls away each moment, nor is it the resolution of the compact of the body into elements that are arising and falling away. Paramattha dhammas, citta, cetasika and rúpa, have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå and these can be directly known through the development of insight. This sutta reminds us to develop right understanding of seeing and hearing at this very moment. Seeing sees a desirable object or an undesirable object depending on the kamma that produces seeing. Seeing is vipåkacitta, the result of kamma. It does not matter whether visible object is desirable or undesirable, seeing falls away immediately. Seeing just sees and it does not know whether visible object is desirable or undesirable. It is of no use to find out whether the object is desirable or undesirable. We can learn that seeing is only a type of nåma and that it experiences visible object which is rúpa. When we understand that seeing is only a type of nåma, we begin to know the meaning of non- self. Seeing arises because kamma produces it, we cannot cause its arising or be the owner of it. It is only nåma, not “my seeing”. Seeing sees only visible object, not a person or a thing. Sati can be aware only of one nåma or rúpa at a time, but so long as we do not distinguish nåma from rúpa we are bound to take all realities for self. Insight develops stage by stage, so that eventually enlightenment can be attained. At the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the sotåpanna, wrong view of self is eradicated, and at the fourth and final stage, the stage of the arahat, all defilements are eradicated. Some people at the Buddha’s time had accumulated a high degree of understanding and when they heard only a few words, when they heard about the impermanence of realities such as seeing or hearing, they could immediately penetrate their true nature and even attain arahatship. Acharn Sujin stressed many times that the objects insight has to be developed of are very ordinary, occurring in daily life, but that attachment always distracts us from awareness and understanding of what appears at the present moment. Lobha urges us to do something different from understanding seeing or hearing that arises now. Seeing for the arahat is not different from seeing for us at this moment. However, we still have ignorance, wrong view and all the other defilements. ******* Nina. #83496 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) nilovg Dear Han, I find the choice of your texts, elaborations and personal remarks very beneficial. In Patthaana 13, there was something: An extract from Dr. Mehm Tin Mon’s The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma. Quote: [Moha is the ignorance of the true nature of sense-objects. All living and non-living things are made up of naama and ruupa (mind and matter) which are endowed with the four common characteristics . Is it a matter of translation perhaps: non-living things do not have naama. I add something to your sutta quote below: Op 2-mrt-2008, om 7:07 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > “But, venerable sir, how should a bhikkhu know (katham > jaanato), how should he see (katham passato), for > ignorance to be abandoned (avijjaa pahiiyati) by him > and true knowledge arises (vijjaa uppajjati)?” > > “Bhikkhu, when a bhikkhu knows and sees the eye [form, > eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling arising with > eye-contact] as impermanent, ignorance is abandoned by > him and true knowledge arises. [To repeat with other > five senses.] ------ N: This quote made me think. People wonder whether the Buddha spoke about knowing the present moment. But this sutta demonstrates that the impermanence, that is the arising and falling away of visible object, seeing etc. should be known and seen. Can it be at another moment but the present one? ----- Nina. #83497 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma nilovg Hi Tep, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 17:53 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > T: In the aruupa jhaana where there is neither vedana nor sa~n~naa, is > there a mind in the conventional sense? If there is no mind, then what > kind of being is the monk at that moment? > ........ > N: There is citta, vedanaa, sa~n~naa, but they are very subtle. > Present as a residual formation, it is said. The result of this > stage of aruupa-jhaana is rebirth in an aruupa brahma plane where > there is no ruupa. But there is naama. --------- > > >N: Ruupa can be produced by kamma (one of the four factors, the > others being citta, heat and nutrition), but the term vipaaka is > reserved > for the mental result of kamma. > > T: Thank you. That is clear now; vipaka is the mental result of a > kamma, > while ruupa is the bodily tesult of the kamma. > Cetana(volition) is kamma, > the Buddha said. Does that mean cetana can produce a ruupa? ------- N: When we speak about kusala kamma or akusala kamma motivating a deed through body, speech and mind, it is actually the reality of kusala or akusala cetanaa. Kamma is cetanaa, but not every cetanaa is kusala kamma or akusala kamma. Cetanaa is a cetasika accompanying each citta. Howard spoke about moving one's hand and then we can speak of cittaja ruupa, ruupa produced by citta. When we say: citta, also the accompanying cetasikas, and thus also cetanaa are included. Gestures or speech by which our intention is expressed are ruupas produced by citta. As to kammaja ruupa, ruupa produced by kamma, this is ruupa produced by kusala kamma or akusala kamma that has fallen away. Ruupas produced by kamma are, for example, the sense organs, eyesense, etc., femininity and masculinity, and the heartbase. Nina. #83498 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perseverance in dhamma, Ch 3, no 1. nilovg Hi Tep, Op 1-mrt-2008, om 20:11 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > The venerable Ånanda said : When, while one rejoices, the cankers are > destroyed- that is the best of joys. > > Questions: > 1. For a sekha what dhammas does he rejoice and how does he do it > such that the cankers are destroyed? > 2. What are the dhammas that an Arahant rejoices? ------ N: This depends on the individual and is hard to answer. The point of the sutta is to express what really matters. Not this or that happiness one may find, but the development of right understanding leading to the eradication of defilements. Nina. #83499 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Furthermore, you should know that one of the skills is to enter/exit Jhana at will. Where does "no control" fits in :) ? > ... > S: What do you have great skill in? Maybe playing the piano or writing > computer programs or playing golf. >>> Is there any self involved >>>> Not of course. >>> who has any control? >>> Some Dhammas (such as akusala) MAY but don't have to arise in some situations. There ARE moments of opportunity (such as immeadetely after feeling) to resist the arising of Craving. Here is a good excerp from ------- Abhidhamma in practice by N.K.G. Mendis http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#causalit y Free Will. Someone might say: "If all phenomena are conditionally arisen, then Buddhism is a form of fatalism, for we have no free will to control our destiny." Such a statement would not be correct. Will is volition (cetanaa), a mental state, determined ethically by its root condition (hetu paccaya). If the root is unwholesome, we can !!!either restrain or indulge the volition; if the root is wholesome, we can encourage it or neglect it.!!! In this exercise of will lies our freedom to guide our destiny. --- Lots of Metta, Alex #83500 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: "...Free Will...If the root is unwholesome, we can either restrain or indulge the volition; if the root is wholesome, we can encourage it or neglect it. In this exercise of will lies our freedom to guide our destiny." Scott: This misses the entire point. We can neither restrain, nor indulge, encourage or neglect. To be precise, this should read: "...If the root is unwholesome, *there will be either* restraint or indulgence; if the root is wholesome, *there will be either* encouragement or neglect. There is no 'exercise of will' as understood in the conventional sense - no doer; and 'our freedom' is an idea based on a misunderstanding of the nature, characteristics, and function of cetanaa. This misunderstanding allows for a belief in the ideas of an 'exercise of will' and 'freedom to guide our destiny'." Sincerely, Scott. #83501 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:55 am Subject: Re: Seeing present moment. 11 surefire things for Liberation. Jhana truth_aerator Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > ... > S: Not anyone's decision, just conditions to think differently, to > understand the sutta differently. > ... Of course there is no self involved. However the process which IS involved, is NOT 100% deterministic. > > >This inattentional blindness > > doesn't just happen in "normal" samatha, but "vipassana" practice as > > well (any concentration be it momentary, access, or even worse still > > Full) is developing blind spots. > ... > S: If there is any blindness, it is not "normal" or any other kind of samatha or vipassana. I agree that simply concentrating or focussing is blindness in itself (if this is what you mean). > .... What I mean was that one should NOT develop intentional blindness. The Jhanas and Arupa Jhanas are NOT blind states (at least they aren't supposed to be). > > S: This is why even jhana is referred to as being the wrong path. Only the development of satipatthana leads out of samsara. > .... > Correction, incorrect use of Jhana. Jhana itself is required for Anagin stage (remember one must perfect Samma-Samadhi which includes 4 Jhanas). Do I need to quote MN36 (or was it 26) where Gotama remembered his Jhanic experience and said "This IS the path to enlightment". ?? > ... > S: NO. Immediately after, NOT during. >>>> Not according to MN111. >>> See CMA. >>>> Whenever there is disagreement between Abh or CMA, I take the SUTTAS to be correct. >>> The Buddha taught 2 kinds of jhana >>>> No. For his disciples he taught only ONE kind, Jhana coupled with Insight (or Right View). No sense objects can be experienced during jhana. This is the meaning of jhana - >>> This is clearly wrong. One can HEAR in non purified impertubable Jhana (4th to 6th, infinite consiousness). For example in AN 9.37 Ananda says that one isn't sensitive to 5 sense objects in ARUPA Jhanas. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.037.than.html In another Sutta, Buddha has said that lower Jhana factors can occur in higher. For example forms in "base of Infinite Space", which would mean that in imperfect 5th SUTTA Jhana one MAY hear sounds. ----- Vinaya Pj 4 states: And then Venerable Maha Moggallana addressed the monks: 'Here, friends, when I had attained imperturbable samadhi on the bank of the Sappinika River, I heard the sound of elephants plunging in, crossing over, and trumpeting.' [To which the Buddha commented:] 'The meaning is that that samadhi was not fully purified. Moggallana spoke truthfully.' this statement is clearly in reference to the attainment of the 'imperturbable,' (anenja) which as far as I am aware is not used as a synonym for jhana in the suttas, although it sometimes refers to the fourth jhana, but in reference to entering the post jhanic formless attainments (arupa-samapatti). And bearing in mind the relevant passage from AN 9.34: Nibbana Sutta, which comments on the formless attainments: [W]ith the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, thinking, 'Infinite space,' enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with form, that is an affliction for him. It is clear that the abandoning of the perceptions of form is not necessary until one intends to practice the formless attainments. So this statement that, 'The meaning is that that samadhi was not fully purified,' I would suggest is in reference to imperturbable samadhi as a synonym for the formless attainments, but not the fourth jhana. And even if someone wants to object to this, and assert that the imperturbable is always a direct synonym for the fourth jhana, it still is nowhere stated in the Suttanta that it is a direct synonym for the first three jhanas, and thus, the first three jhanas are not the subject of this vinaya statement at all. Another passage which seems at first sight to support the commentarial definition of jhana is from the Anguttara Nikaya 10.72, which states: Noise is a thorn to the first jhana... Initial and sustained application of mind are a thorn to the second jhana.... Rapture is a thorn to the third jhana.... etc.... This is the very statement that initially gave rise to the commentarial assertion in the Kathavatthu that the meditator can't hear sounds while practicing jhana, and as such, is a case of the Abhidhamma commentarial academia taking one statement as being all- encompassing without taking into consideration all the Suttanta statements regarding jhana in their totality as listed above — most notably AN 9.36 and AN 5.28. Commenting on this passage Ajahn Sujato says, 'The meaning of this statement [i.e. 'noise is a thorn to the first jhana'] can be understood in the light of the statements which follow: 'Initial and sustained application of mind are a thorn to the second jhana. Rapture is a thorn to the third jhana,' and so on. Initial and sustained application of mind are incompatible with the second jhana, cannot exist in it, and if they arise they signify that one has fallen away from second jhana. So too, sound — and by extension the other sense objects — are incompatible with the first jhana, cannot exist in it, and if they arise they signify that one has fallen away from first jhana.' I would humbly suggest that Ajahn Sujato is here interpreting this statement based upon the commentarial notion (and possibly influenced by Ajahn Brahm's definitions as well), that jhana is always a state of fixed absorption (appana samadhi) where the mind is completely fused with its single object, and that there is a rigid division between what constitutes the experience of each of the four jhanic states. I would submit that the paradigm of the four jhanic states as presented in the suttas themselves is actually much more a case of four general stages of one increasingly refined state of concentration. As such, the mental phenomena that the meditator is to abandon 'perception and attention' to at each of the four stages, are not necessarily always absolutely 100% ceased and absent from that particular stage of jhana. But of course one is to abandon all 'perception and attention' to any occurrences of these phenomena should they arise. In this regard, what the Buddha says in AN 9.41: Tapussa Sutta is relevant: Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality (kàmasahagatà saññàmanasikàrà). That was an affliction for me. Just as pain arises as an affliction for a healthy person, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset me was an affliction for me. http://www.empty-universe.com/calm_abiding.htm -- ------- In fact, in MN 152: Indriya-bhavana Sutta, the Buddha criticizes the methods of contemplative development (bhavana) taught by the brahman Parasiri whereby 'one does not see forms with the eye, or hear sounds with the ear' in a trance of non-perception. Regarding such methods the Buddha replies: That being the case, Uttara, then a blind person will have developed faculties, and a deaf person will have developed faculties, according to the words of the brahman Parasiri. For a blind person does not see forms with the eye, and a deaf person does not hear sounds with the ear. Later in this same sutta, the Buddha exhorts Ananda and the other monks to go practice meditation (jhàyatha): 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. It's clear from this statement following after the Buddha's critique of meditation methods resulting in contentless trance states in the same sutta, that for the Buddha the jhanas of 'right concentration' (samma samadhi) are not jhanas devoid of all sensory consciousness. Add to this that AN 5.113: Samma Samadhi Sutta states that one has to be able to withstand/tolerate sensory phenomena in order to both enter and remain in right concentration. There is no right concentration without this tolerance: A monk endowed with these five qualities is incapable of entering & remaining in right concentration. Which five? He cannot withstand sights, he cannot withstand sounds... aromas... tastes... tactile sensations. A monk endowed with these five qualities is not capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. Which five? He can withstand sights, he can withstand sounds... aromas... tastes... tactile sensations. A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. If the yogi were in a state of fixed transic absorption where s/he wasn't even able to perceive sensory phenomena in jhana then there would be no reason to maintain that one needs to be able to tolerate them while abiding in jhana. And regarding how the discernment ('panna,' here referring to of the mental quality of vipassana developed in tandem with samatha) occurs in the first jhana, the Anupada Sutta (MN 111) states: Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — applied thought, evaluation, rapture [happiness], pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness [vl. intent], desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferrets them out one by one. Known to him they arise, known to him they remain, known to him they subside. He discerns, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remains unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. And even beyond the discernment of mental phenomena which occur in jhana, once the jhanic state is stabilized, one can readily turn one's attention to any internal or external phenomena, and clearly see the three characteristics as they pertain to the five aggregates. The Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36) states: There is the case where a monk ... enters & remains in the first jhana .... He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful ... an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' http://www.empty-universe.com/calm_abiding.htm ------------ >> > the burning of attachment to such sense objects so that they don't appear (temporarily). > ....... The problem isn't the sense objects, the problem is the CRAVING. > . Buddhist Jhana GOES with insight. > ... > S: Or insight GOES with whatever dhammas are arising, depending on > inclinations, accumulations and skills:) >>>> As someone has said "Insight without concentration is just concepts." There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment for one with no jhana. Dhp 372 Lots of Metta, Alex #83502 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? truth_aerator Dear Scot, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > Scott: This misses the entire point. We can neither restrain, nor > indulge, encourage or neglect. To be precise, this should read: > So are you saything that everything is 100% pre-determined? Yes or No? Lots of metta, Alex #83503 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:17 am Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. dhammanusara Dear Scotty, - The world would have become a nicer place to live, if people can understand each other quickly and so well that they no longer have to argue or re-explain things as much. But I truly appreciate your ability to keep a cool head, even when you don't like my reply. > >T: "However, by expressing your opinion that the 'conditional relations' underly all things, " including Paticcasamuppaada", it is overextending beyond the Buddha's words..." >Scott: Again, Tep, you haven't quite got me correctly. Think about it: If dhammas arise and fall away by conditions, as explained by the method of Conditional Relations, that is conditioning dhammas, conditioned dhammas and the forces that are between them, then these dynamics explain the way in which all dhammas function. T: I apologize for not getting it the way you want, and humbly request that you ignore the slow (near zero) understanding you might have seen in me, Scott. But I fail to follow you that "the method of Conditional Relations" subsumes Paticcasamuppaada -- it seems you contradict to Bhikkhu Bodhi's and my belief that Paticcasamuppaada is "the central principle". Or, could it be the opposite : i.e. Bhikkhu Bodhi and Tep are not aware of the "method" of Conditional Relations, and hence overestimate Paticcasamuppaada ? Bhikkhu Bodhi [in Transcendental Dependent Arising An Exposition of the Upanisa Sutta]: Dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) is the central principle of the Buddha's teaching, constituting both the objective content of its liberating insight and the germinative source for its vast network of doctrines and disciplines. As the frame behind the four noble truths, the key to the perspective of the middle way, and the conduit to the realization of selflessness, it is the unifying theme running through the teaching's multifarious expressions, binding them together as diversified formulations of a single coherent vision. ................................ Scott: For example, wouldn't C.R. explain the dynamics of the coming into a new existence - that is, the conditions and forces which cause the arising of patisandhi citta, for example. And how there are certain mental factors arising with this citta. This whole complex first moment of a new existence in best explained by the C.R. method. The D.O. method doesn't have this fine a focus. T: I can appreciate the two different focuses, namely the D.O. is the macroscopic treatment of the dhammas, while the C.R. is the microscopic one. The important consideration is, however : Which one solves the all- important problem (dukkha)? The saying that the 'conditional relations' underly all things, "including Paticcasamuppaada" is not right in my humble- and-non-aggravating-opinion (HANAO). ;-) BTW Would you be kind enough to make clear what you mean by "the dynamics" of Conditional Relations? You also use the term "method of Conditional Relations". When I hear the word "method", I think of a systematic account of how to do things (e.g. to repair a radio), to get a certain outcome, or a clear description of a solution to a problem. Why is C.R. a method? What problem does "the C.R. method" solve? The Dependent Origination provides both description and a systematic contemplative steps for attaining the right wisdom for the cessation of dukkha (i.e. solving "the problem"), according to the Upanisa Sutta: "What is the supporting condition for consciousness? 'Kamma formations' should be the reply. "Kamma formations, monks, also have a supporting condition, I say, they do not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for kamma formations? 'Ignorance' should be the reply. "Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality- materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers). [End of quote] ......................... >Scott: No, Tep, one method of explanation is not to be placed over the other. One isn't superior, and the other inferior. I've not underestimated anything. The Dependent Origination method is no better than the Conditional Relations method. They are simply two distinct methods of explanation. T: Now, that reply I like better than the one before it, i.e. > >Scott: "I don't think you are wrong, just that you misread my statement and are not quite seeing the complexity of conditional relations, which underlies all things, including Paticcasamuppaada... " Sincerely, Tep === #83504 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: "So are you saything that everything is 100% pre-determined? Yes or No?" Scott: Of course not, Alex. I'm saying you don't understand cetanaa. Neither does the author of the quote you supplied. He appears to believe in 'destiny', which, as I see it, comes much closer to 'pre-determination' than does what I suggest. Again, my point is that it is a characteristic of cetanaa cetasika that, when it arises, there *is* "volition, purpose, purposefulness which is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection..," (Dhs., pp.7-8). Cetanaa is the name for volition, purpose and purposefulness when they are happening. Sincerely, Scott. #83505 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > "So are you saything that everything is 100% pre-determined? > Yes or No?" > > Scott: Of course not, Alex. I'm saying you don't understand cetanaa. >>> The way you phrase things, anyone Buddhist or not, would (mis) understand as 100% determinism or fatalism disguised as Buddha Dhamma. No need for me to do anything since there isn't me and no matter what happens, nobody gets hurt as there is no giver no doer no reciever, no this world, no next world, no ascetics practicing correctly (remember the DSG party line?)... Sounds familiar, doesn't it? > Neither does the author of the quote you supplied. He appears to > believe in 'destiny', which, as I see it, comes much closer to > 'pre-determination' than does what I suggest. > No. What he seem to say is that if there is an unwholesome root, then there IS a choice to act with unwholesome tendencies or not (abstention may be good kamm). Eventually the unwholesome root may atrophy and wholesome root appear. > Again, my point is that it is a characteristic of cetanaa cetasika > that, when it arises, there *is* "volition, purpose, purposefulness > which is born of contact with the appropriate element of > representative intellection..," (Dhs., pp.7-8). Cetanaa is the name > for volition, purpose and purposefulness when they are happening. > The paragraph above makes no sense. With metta accompanied by cetasikas, prompted, Alex #83506 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:54 am Subject: Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. dhammanusara Hi Jon, - Thank you again for the optimal reply that gets to the point without using a sophisticated vocabulary or some invented terminology. > T: The thought about self or "what belongs to (or pertaining to) self" are pinned down as a reality in every non-ariyan. And that is the dhamma of a "fool". Until we experience the true dhamma at the Abhidhamma level, I believe it is not possible for us to truly understand the real taste of the Abhidhamma. > Jon: I think I understand what you are saying here, except that I would put it this way: Any aspect of the teachings that has not been understood by direct experience can only be understood at an intellectual level (and thus not fully understood). T: I can tell that you have been very careful in drawing a line that separates full understanding (pari~n~naa) from intellectual understanding in non-ariyans. The underlying idea of yours is not different from mine, I think, although the wordings look different. ................ Jon: As I see it, proper understanding at an intellectual level depends on (a) one's direct understanding, such as it is, and (b) study and consideration of the teachings as heard. T: We are getting closer here than ever before. Again, our wordings may be different, but we are talking about the same thing. In my own words (which are plain and simple) I would say as folllows: To progress from a correct understanding of what is heard (or read) one must test the idea by experimenting (in a real life situation) and carefully observing an outcome, and by verifying the outcome with the previous understanding ( the book knowledge). In short, one gains direct understanding by trial and error. Such trial-and-error verification of the dhamma will lead to direct knowledge of the truth/reality. .................. Jon: It is inevitable that, until there has been direct understanding and realisation to the level of sotapanna, there will be the idea of self arising, with greater or lesser frequency, depending on various factors. T: Yes, the idea of self (attanuditthi) or self-identification in the khandhas is abandoned at Stream-entry. There are 20 self identification views. "There is the case, friend Visakha, 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 — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He assumes feeling to be the self... perception ... (mental)fabrications ... "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about." [MN 44 Cula- vedalla Sutta] .................. Jon: However, right view and other kusala can develop notwithstanding that the tendency to wrong view still remains as a latent tendency. T: At Stream-entry there is right wisdom (sammappaññaya) that abandons doubts and self identification (views). Before right wisdom has arisen, 15 of the 20 self identifications may be abandoned and some are not. Is the monk's view at that stage called right view? Or, should it be called 75%-right view? Or, should it still be called wrong view? Tep === #83507 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:00 am Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "...it seems you contradict to Bhikkhu Bodhi's and my belief that Paticcasamuppaada is 'the central principle'." Scott: No, this seems to be how you must see it. Again, I merely state that, at the level of explanations, C.R. and D.O. are simply two different methods of explanation. T: "Bhikkhu Bodhi [in Transcendental Dependent Arising An Exposition of the Upanisa Sutta]: Dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) is the central principle of the Buddha's teaching...As the frame behind the four noble truths, the key to the perspective of the middle way, and the conduit to the realization of selflessness, it is the unifying theme running through the teaching's multifarious expressions, binding them together as diversified formulations of a single coherent vision." Scott: If one follows this line of reasoning, you ought to level the same critique of Bh. Bodhi's statement; that is, again according to this line of reasoning, the venerable is as much as saying that D.O. is more important than the Noble Truths method since D.O. is 'the frame behind the four noble truths'. And of course, this is not what he is saying. The four noble truths, at the level of explanatory systems, is simply the third method of explanation. It is no better or no worse than either the D.O. or the C.R. method. T: I can appreciate the two different focuses, namely the D.O. is the macroscopic treatment of the dhammas, while the C.R. is the microscopic one. The important consideration is, however : Which one solves the all- important problem (dukkha)?..." Scott: Yes, two different focuses, one a macroscopic treatment, the other a microscopic one. Well put. Neither, as explanatory systems, solve the problem of dukkha. They both explain it in their own way. Pa~n~naa solves the 'problem of dukkha'. T: "BTW Would you be kind enough to make clear what you mean by 'the dynamics' of Conditional Relations?" Scott: To me this refers to the way C.R. describes cause and effect by including, not only the conditioning and the conditioned dhammas, but the forces extant between them. This is a description that explains the way things 'move' from moment to moment. T: "You also use the term 'method of Conditional Relations'. When I hear the word 'method', I think of a systematic account of how to do things (e.g. to repair a radio), to get a certain outcome, or a clear description of a solution to a problem. Why is C.R. a method? What problem does 'the C.R. method' solve?" Scott: Method of explanation, not recipe. I don't agree that teachings are meant to be taken literally as steps to be taken as if one were following a recipe. Method in this case simply refers to explanatory system. I don't agree with the statement below: T: "The Dependent Origination provides both description and a systematic contemplative steps for attaining the right wisdom for the cessation of dukkha (i.e. solving "the problem")..." Upanisa Sutta: "What is the supporting condition (sa-upanisa.m) for consciousness? 'Kamma formations' should be the reply. "Kamma formations, monks, also have a supporting condition (sa-upanisa.m), I say, they do not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for kamma formations? 'Ignorance' should be the reply. "Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness...emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers). [End of quote]" Scott: Out of interest, I see where Bh. Bodhi uses 'proximate cause' for sa-upanissa.m where there is 'supporting condition' given above (Thanissaro?). It would appear that this former is more accurate given the following Commentarial clarification, (S.N., p.747): "Note 68. Spk. glosses sa upanisaa as sakaara.na, sappacayya, 'with cause, with condition.' Spk-p.t adds: upanisiidati phala.m etthaa ti kaara.na.m upanisaa; 'the cause is called the proximate cause because the effect rests upon it.'" Scott: It was tempting to discuss Decisive-Support Condition (Upanissaya Paccaya) here, but I don't think this is what is being referred to. Sincerely, Scott. #83508 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:19 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - Concerns, interests, accumulations ...... dhammanusara Hi Sarah, There are always kind words from "Sarah" who does not exist. >S: Your response was a great one, Tep. Super questions and quotes (which I've snipped out for now - but you're welcome to raise any of them again). >I've been particularly enjoying some of your recent posts too, such as the one to Steven on right speech (#82967) and the one on the fire simile to TG (#82831) as well as your Abhidhamma corner, posts to Alex and so on. T: I often wonder how you've managed to find time to read all the posts and comprehend them too (then, amazingly, reply to everyone). Talking about great memories, I remember reading a sutta in which the Buddha told his disciples about some super monks who were older than 100, but they had no problem recalling words and events that had happened long time ago. These monks were arahants. No doubt the several hundred thousand lectures the Buddha gave must be memorized by the arahants and passed along from generation to generation that way, before they finally got stored in the book form. Nowadays we have super computers (that memorize everything you can imagine) but no arahants. I like the old days better ! Tep === #83509 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion/ vipaka dhamma dhammanusara Hi nina, - I appreciate the detailed and complete answers you have given. I am keeping all in my notebook for future reference. Thank you very much. Tep === #83510 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:33 am Subject: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Hello all, 1) Does citta which has arisen and ceased, exist now? 2) Can the ceased citta (from the past) exist in the present (its future)? Thanks, Lots of metta, Alex #83511 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Dear Alex, you have so many questions, I just select a few. I admire and appreciate your keen interest and stamina. However, it is easier for this adressee if you write short posts with just one or two questions, if you don't mind. Op 1-mrt-2008, om 20:50 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > N: Very basic for satipatthana, awareness of this > reality appearing now, at the present moment. When hardness appears > it can be known as a rupa-element, and then no other reality appears. > >>>> > > A: What about wholesome citta that cognizes this rupa?!!!! It has > to be > there AT THAT TIME in order to COGNIZE this rupa! After all, rupa > doesn't feel itself , citta does. ------- N: You are correct. I mean: no other reality appears to sati. ------- A: A:If one consciousness affect the next one, what happens when an > Anagamin enters Nirodha Samapatti? > ------ > N: when he emerges, the last citta before he entered Nirodha > Samapatti conditions the first citta at emerging, by way of proximity condition. >>> a: Dear Nina, but that citta which conditions the emerging is no longer existent! How can something NON-EXISTENT, Now Gone, condition the arising of a citta after emerging from Nirodha Samapatti? ------ N: The last citta before he entered Nirodha falls away, but it conditioning force it not lost, it operates so that there is the next citta, which is the first one after this attainment. This case is in the Patthanaa, Investigation of Faultless triplet, under proximity-condiiton. (U Narada, Guide to Conditional Relations, p. 20, 21). When he enters, there are still rupas produced by kamma, heat and nutrition, if he is a human. Actually, something similar happens in the case of kamma-condition. Kamma of the far, far past can condition rebirth in the future. That is because of the force of kamma-condition that can operate after a long time. But you mention here a special case, and this does not help us to know this moment now in our daily life. Nina. #83512 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:50 am Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... Patthana vs DO .. dhammanusara Dear Scott,- Your reply was well written. At this point I have said what I thought ought to be said. Thus it seems there is nothing significant remaining to be discussed. Thank you for the thoughtfull words and gentle manner. Yours truly, Tep == #83513 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda dhammanusara Hi TG (Howard), - You posted the Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60) with no comment or even a statement of purpose. Tep === #83514 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Hello Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > ------ N: The last citta before he entered Nirodha falls away, but it conditioning force it not lost, it operates so that there is the next citta, which is the first one after this attainment. Actually, something similar happens in the case of kamma-condition. Kamma of the far, far past can condition rebirth in the future. That is because of the force of kamma-condition that can operate after a long time. >> Thank you very much for your reply. So can this conditioning force be located between two cittas (for example when last citta falls away before Nirodha and before the 1st citta that arises after?) Related question: Can the force of habitual kamma be located in the currently arisen citta? Thank you and lots of Metta, Alex #83515 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "...What he seem to say is that if there is an unwholesome root, then there IS a choice to act with unwholesome tendencies or not (abstention may be good kamm). Eventually the unwholesome root may atrophy and wholesome root appear." Scott: I think that, at least according to my understanding, when there is unwholesome root there is unwholesome citta. When there is wholesome root, there is wholesome citta. I would assume that cetanaa follows suit according to root, since it would arise with citta. If one understood properly the meaning of roots (hetu), then one wouldn't be speculating about concepts like 'atrophy' - in the moment-to-moment way of things, 'atrophy' has no meaning. It is a concept based on some version of permanence. Dhammas arise and fall away. Me: "Again, my point is that it is a characteristic of cetanaa cetasika that, when it arises, there *is* 'volition, purpose, purposefulness which is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection..,' (Dhs., pp.7-8). Cetanaa is the name for volition, purpose and purposefulness when they are happening." A: "The paragraph above makes no sense." Scott: That which is mistaken for 'choice of someone' is merely the misapprehended presence of cetanaa, which has, as characteristic, 'volition, purpose and purposefulness'. The misapprehension is known by its sign, I guess one could say, and that would be the experience of the quality of purposiveness. This, then, is what is wrongly assumed to represent the acts of will of a person. How's that, better? A: "With metta accompanied by cetasikas, prompted..." Scott: Good one. Mettaa is a cetasika, by the way - adosa cetasika. Sincerely, Scott. #83516 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Dear Nina & Alex - I think that looking for underlying, substantial connections to "account for" causality is based on the familiarity of our conventional day-to-day observing of physical connection in mechanical operations of pushing and pulling, and it is a mistake and a misreading of this/that-conditionality to look for such. If A, B, C, and D are the requisite conditions for E, they are conditions for it at the very moment that they occur. The mere fact of their occurrence is all that is required. There is nothing more to be said than when these are the case, that will be the case. One should not speak of "conditioning force" that carries over. That is reminiscent of Sati's error. One can, of course ask, for example, why A, B, C, and D occurred, and the answer, for each of them, is that the requisite conditions for it were met. That is simply taking explanation further back in time. With metta, Howard #83517 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > Scott: I think that, at least according to my understanding, when > there is unwholesome root there is unwholesome citta. When there is > wholesome root, there is wholesome citta. I would assume that cetanaa > follows suit according to root, since it would arise with citta. If > one understood properly the meaning of roots (hetu), then one wouldn't > be speculating about concepts like 'atrophy' - in the moment-to- moment > way of things, 'atrophy' has no meaning. It is a concept based on > some version of permanence. Dhammas arise and fall away. > So Devadatta had no choice but to attempt to murder the Buddha, and Buddha had no choice but to teach people after his awakening... Yeh right. Something doesn't seem right here. > Scott: That which is mistaken for 'choice of someone' >>> We aren't talking about Self which we both agree on it ultimately not existing. What we ARE talking about is that the conditioned process isn't 100% deterministic. Lots of Metta, A;ex #83518 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: If A, B, C, and D are the requisite conditions for E, they are > conditions for it at the very moment that they occur. >>> But with the "momentary one citta at a time teaching" the point is that they CAN'T happen at the exactly the same time. >>> One should not speak of > "conditioning force" that carries over. That is reminiscent of Sati's error. >>>> The conditioning force IS NOT SELF OR BELONGING TO SELF. Furthermore it CAN change due to additional circumstances. lot of Metta, Alex #83519 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Love them "dhammas" TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 3/2/2008 2:58:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, Thx for your 'Love them "dhammas" sent to me on Feb 14th - a 'dhamma Valentine', the best:) --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > To keep saying..."there are only 'Dhammas' existing right now" is like > me > saying, "there is only present phenomena appearing right now." ... S: Just a minute.....You don't like 'Dhammas' or 'realities', but the reason I don't usually use 'phenomena' is that the point being stressed is that a) seeing arises now, hearing arises now, visible object is seen now, sound is heard now and so on, however b) trees and birds are not arising now, are not experienced now. ................................................... NEW TG: Just a minute....Do the concepts of trees, birds, etc. arise now? Are those concepts experienced now? Do the phenomena that support those concepts; are they experienced now? Was there seeing in the past? Was there hearing in the past,etc.? Were those "dhammas" back then? Will there be seeing in the future, Will there be hearing in the future, Etc.? Will those be "dhammas" then? If so, I can see no difference between "dhammas" and "phenomena" except that "dhammas" is used in a manner that connotes "things existing as themselves" whereas "phenomena" does not. ............................................................. So 'dhammas' or 'realities' are used to stress the distinction between what can be directly known with right understanding and what can only be thought about. ......................................................... NEW TG: Except that the very notion of "dhammas" or "realities" is wrong understanding as I see it. This is one reason there are no Sutta references you can point to that support this type of terminology ... "ultimate realities with their own characteristics" and the like. ................................................................... ... >It may > be true > enough, but what's that got to do with insight at all? ... S: If the distinction is not made clearly and understood clearly, there will be no insight. Insight can only ever be the direct understanding of seeing, visible object and other realities, never of trees and birds. ......................................................... NEW TG: Insight is neither. Insight knows the principles of conditionality, through both direct confirmation and inference, to the extent necessary to "turn away" from the so-called 'realities," to reject them, to be utterly detached from them, so as to be free from them. Your description above is only provisional insight...i.e., defiled "insight." As I have pointed out, by posting numerous Suttas as support, the Buddha used conceptualizations all the time as insight edifying fodder. The Satipatthana itself has many examples of inferential tactics in insight development ... and this is one of the Suttas that specializes in direct knowledge. And as I have said many times, I believe direct experience/mindfulness/insight is crucial and very important. But I'm not throwing out the baby with the bath-water. There are a lot of other teachings of the Buddha just as important and extremely useful in insight development. The entire gamut of the Buddha's teachings are critical and knowing how to amalgamate those teachings into a unified whole is critical. After all, without your conceptual studies of Buddhism, not to mention your entire life history, you wouldn't be in the position to think that direct non-conceptual experiences were so important. When it comes time, that the most important aspect of your Buddhist practice is not even addressed by the Buddha -- "knowing realities (with their own characteristics)" -- then that should be a wake-up call that something might be askew. ................................................................. Phenomena may be used to blur this distinction, but if it points to ultimate dhammas for you, then use it. ................................................. NEW TG: If my view of "phenomena" had the effect of pointing to "ultimate dhammas" ... I'd be screwed IMO. My view of "phenomena" instead has the effect of seeing phenomena as empty, coreless, nonself, like a mirage, like a trick, etc. You know....they way the Buddha said they should be seen. I only practice direct mindfulness in order to realize the impermanent, conditioned, afflicting, and nonself aspects of phenomena. I do not practice mindfulness with he purpose of "knowing ultimate realities." All that arises arises, all that doesn't arise doesn't arise...its as simple as that. The phenomena that come together to form the form we call a tree arises, changes, and ceases. The phenomena that come together to experience aspects of that "tree" phenomena arises, changes, and ceases. The phenomena that come together to form concepts of that "tree" phenomena arises, changes, and ceases. All due to conditionality. There isn't any such thing as a "non-real tree." (Though there can be the concept of such a thing. Then it is the concept that arises...not the "non-real tree.") There is just phenomena arising, changing, and ceasing due to conditions. Such phenomena combines in multifaceted ways to form various different forms. This includes delusion. ............................................................ ... >All it says > when you > boil it down is -- "all there is now is all there is now." ... S: No, it says what is arising now, what is being experienced now. If I refer to realities to Jon or Nina or many other friends here, they know that what I'm referring to are various namas and rupas. It is used very precisely. It's like when we say there are only 5 khandhas now. It is very precise and excludes the blur of 'all' which may mean anything, unless we have already agreed on 'the all'. ................................................... NEW TG: This is Buddhism 101. Who hasn't agreed on "the all"? I think its the nature of "the all" that is in contention...as well as the method of practice and realization that is most efficacious in overcoming suffering. ........................................................... ... >It seems > like > total nonsense to me. ... S: With respect, I think this is because you don't see the importance of understanding paramattha dhammas as distinct from concepts. I would say that without appreciating this distinction, there will only be thinking or intellectual study of the teachings as taught by some later schools of Buddhism, but I know you disagree. .................................................. NEW TG: The problematic term "paramattha dhammas" aside, I think I understood that distinction a quarter of a century ago and have hopefully moved on to deeper understandings/realizations. If you think you are talking to someone who only thinks conceptual understandings are important or who is unaware of the deluded qualities of concepts, than I don't know what to say. I guess I've been wasting my time posting for the last 5 or so years. I think this compulsion with "knowing realities" is pretty rudimentary stuff. (For a beginning student of Buddhism it would be difficult yes. But not for too many that contribute to this group.) The "ultimate realities" terminology has flaws, in supporting a subtle form of delusion/entity/self-view, that I don't think you are at all aware of. And I think there's a huge importance in understanding that. As for later schools of Buddhism...it is you that focus on later schools of Buddhism. I focus on the Suttas and have only studied Abhidhamma or commentaries as "fodder for reflection" upon the Suttas/nature. And although I recognize the Abhidhamma as a work of genius, it has the flawed tendency to give the impression to some of its adherents that "dhammas" are substantial-particulate-entities. I.E., "Ultimate realities with their own characteristics." ...................................................... .... >The implication is that there is something other > that > exists but doesn't actually exist, other than these bastions of > "present-ness > exist-ers -- 'Dhammas.'" Kind of like a dual reality? .... S: I don't really follow this. Close your eyes and open them. There is seeing! It exists when it arises and doesn't exist as soon as it has fallen away. When it arises, it experiences visible object. It can be proved! ................................................... NEW TG: Seeing arises due to conditions, it falls away due to conditions. You folks seem to think it falls away of its own accord??? I would object to the word "exists" above as I see the way you use it as getting carried away by a "reality-view." Of course the Suttas that deal with the matter show the Buddha rejecting the view of existence or non-existence. I'm not disputing the importance of direct experience/mindfulness and its value in determining conditionality, impermanence, affliction, nonself. What I DO dispute is that merely by the fact of seeing...one concludes BY CONCEPTUAL REASONING that this experience is "An Ultimate Reality with its own characteristic." This latter is a VIEW. And a False View IMO. I would be far happier if it is just said -- THERE IS SEEING DUE TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONDITIONS. ................................................... .... > So you want to think in a manner that isn't deluded...great. But I > think > your just replacing one delusion with another...but that's just (me) > dhammas > thinking. Oh, how about just saying "thinking" without prefacing it > with the > term "dhammas"? .... S: Yes, it is just dhammas thinking either way. Yes, we can say 'it's just thinking' when there is this or that idea. The only reason for mentioning/stressinmentioning/stressing dhammas in this context there's no TG or Sarah who thinks. ............................................ NEW TG: Fair enough. The problem then becomes...instead of seeing a "TG entity" that is thinking, we now see a "dhammas entity" that is thinking. That's the problem with the terminology. If we say...there is no TG, there is just Thinking...then I think we avoid that problem. When we say "its is dhammas thinking," then we have a new entity, "dhammas," that has taken the place of TG. Its still of subtle form of Self-view IMO. The stressing of "dhammas" goes too far. ...................................................... .... > I'm sorry, I've seen the way this "dhammas" term is used and it just > comes > off as being an "entification" (entity) or substance of its own accord. > Seems > to me the "dhammas" is HELD onto as strongly or more strongly than any > self > view I've encountered. There's an incredible resistance to just > discuss > elements without bringing out the majestic "dhammas." ... S: I'm very happy to discuss elements. At moments of thinking, what are the elements involved would you say? In fact, you could delete the entire message so far and we could just discuss this one question. ................................................. NEW TG: I think my comments above would answer where you are trying to go with this. With regard to thinking -- Thinking is just thinking. There are no "dhammas doing the thinking." There are no "elements doing the thinking." Thinking is the thinking thereof. Thinking due to and in accordance with conditions. The conditions supporting thinking are vast. .................................................... ... > Are we so enamored with the term"dhammas" or "namas" and "rupas" that we > think by their mere usage, we know something? ... or are communicating > something? ... S: Whether 'enamored' or 'aversive' to any terms, there are various elements arising and falling away now as we speak. At this moment of seeing, what are these elements? ....................................... NEW TG: Eye, visual object, eye-consciousness. These elements are empty, coreless, like a trick, like a mirage, nonself, etc. Also, The Buddha said regarding feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness ... that these are not in actuality separate things, but are merely separated for purposes of analysis. The teaching is designed to overcome suffering, and at no point is the teaching designed to "realize ultimate realities with their own characteristics." TG OUT ........................................... .... > Got to run, I've got to give some "dhammas" a nap. .... S: :-)) Look forward to hearing from the well-rested "dhammas':) Thanks for all your active threads recently, TG. ................................................. NEW TG: Thank you. And I enjoyed working on your post. Say hi to your dhammas for me. ;-) ............................................. Metta, Sarah #83520 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/2/2008 3:18:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: If A, B, C, and D are the requisite conditions for E, they are > conditions for it at the very moment that they occur. >>> But with the "momentary one citta at a time teaching" the point is that they CAN'T happen at the exactly the same time. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Each one is a condition for E at the time it occurs. I am *not* presuming the need for simultaneous occurrence. A conventional analogy: To let go of a glass, I must first pick it up. Once it is picked up, it is a certainty that it will eventually be released. The picking up of the glass is a requisite for its release, and was so at the very moment of its occurrence. ------------------------------------------------------ >>> One should not speak of > "conditioning force" that carries over. That is reminiscent of Sati's error. >>>> The conditioning force IS NOT SELF OR BELONGING TO SELF. Furthermore it CAN change due to additional circumstances. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There's no such thing as this alleged "conditioning force". It's like the ether that scientists used to think was needed. -------------------------------------------------- lot of Metta, Alex ========================== With metta, Howard #83521 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Each one is a condition for E at the time it occurs. I am *not* > presuming the need for simultaneous occurrence. A conventional analogy: To let go of a glass, I must first pick it up. Once it is picked up, it is a certainty that it will eventually be released. The picking up of the glass is a requisite for its release, and was so at the very moment of its occurrence. > ------------------------------------------------------ Your example does not include the sort of events and causes that I was talking about. Here are some examples of necessity of simulteneous causes. For example to light a match requires a) oxygen b) matchstick c) the special surface d) rubbing of (b,c) them together If these don't happen exactly at the same time, then fire will not appear. If some of these are missing at that moment, the matchstick won't light up. These events can't happen (and cease) one after another. Them being present in the same place/area and time is required. Lots of metta, Alex #83522 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 2:05 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear Alex (and Ken H), - . . . > > A: Since the Form (Rupa) is misery, we should NOT elevate it to a > > position of being "Ultimate". Well we can call it Ultimate, but > > Ultimate SUFFERING rather than 'reality' which has a > > very 'questionable' meaning. > > > > T: That is for our good friend Ken to reply. Hi Tep and Alex (and Howard), Thanks for including me, Tep. I usually don't write replies before reading all the messages, but that strategy is getting me further and further behind. So, here I go - with apologies if this question has already been settled. :-) When you first joined DSG, Alex, you used the word "ultimate" only to denote high office or high station. And so you insisted that the only ultimate reality was Nibbana. I can see remnants of that thinking here when you say we should not elevate something that is misery to a position of being ultimate. But it seems DSG might be having some effect on you at last, and now you have conceded, "Well we can call it Ultimate,." "Hooray!" I thought, "Alex is has agreed that conditioned dhammas are equally as real as Nibbana!" But my joy was short lived because you added, "but ultimate SUFFERING rather than 'reality' which has very questionable meaning." So are we back to where we started? The theory that nibbana is the only ultimate reality is making communication very difficult. Howard, too, has occasionally expressed a liking for this theory, which says that Nibbana is all around us if only we could see it: Eventually, we *will* see that everything else is just imaginary, and we will realise there has only ever been Nibbana. I believe this is a Mahayana theory, isn't it? Not, I hasten to add, that there is anything wrong with Mahayana! (!!!) It's just that we are trying to discuss Theravada here. How can we do that if we keep thinking Nibbana is the only ultimate reality? Ken H #83523 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:47:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Each one is a condition for E at the time it occurs. I am *not* > presuming the need for simultaneous occurrence. A conventional analogy: To let go of a glass, I must first pick it up. Once it is picked up, it is a certainty that it will eventually be released. The picking up of the glass is a requisite for its release, and was so at the very moment of its occurrence. > ------------------------------------------------------ Your example does not include the sort of events and causes that I was talking about. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I follow you, and I agree that timing is important to causality and that co-occurrence is often needed - just not always needed. But even for a phenomenalist such as I, the principle of one object of conciousness at a time doesn't preclude the simultaneous presence of other phenomena that are not the object of consciousness. My phenomenalism, while considering the occurrence of all dhammas to be occurrences "on the stage of consciousness," distinguishes subliminal presence from presence-as-object. I do not reject, for example, the multi-rupic constitution of a kalapa, and I accept that all these rupas arise as part of my experiential stream, but with only one rupa of that aggregation rising to the level of object of consciousness. Some folks may say that mine is a "Have your cake, and eat it too" position. But, hey, I just love win/win positions! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------------- Here are some examples of necessity of simulteneous causes. For example to light a match requires a) oxygen b) matchstick c) the special surface d) rubbing of (b,c) them together If these don't happen exactly at the same time, then fire will not appear. If some of these are missing at that moment, the matchstick won't light up. These events can't happen (and cease) one after another. Them being present in the same place/area and time is required. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Correct. ------------------------------------------------------ Lots of metta, Alex ========================== With metta, Howard #83524 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 2:27 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > When you first joined DSG, Alex, you used the word "ultimate" only to denote high office or high station. And so you insisted that the only ultimate reality was Nibbana. >> Only Nibbana is timeless, bliss (of nothing being felt) has no arising or ceasing there. The samsara on other hand is characterised by instability, unsecurity, misery, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness. In that way Nibbana is ultimate. In other words what has no arising, ceasing, or alteration is Ultimate happiness. What is conditioned and impermanent is not ultimate - and neither is it really existent in a long long run. > > So are we back to where we started? The theory that nibbana is the only ultimate reality >>> It depends with what you mean by "reality" here. >>> How can we do that if we keep thinking Nibbana is the only ultimate reality? > If samsara is ultimate, then there would be no escape from it. If the 5 aggregates are ultimate, then we wouldn't be able to let go off them. But precisely because they are conditioned& impermanent while Nibbana is unconditioned and timeless, precisely due to that reason it is possible to "escape" (make 5 aggregates cease forever) samsara and enter Nibbana. Lots of Metta, Alex #83525 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 2:55 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau Hi Ray, --- <. . .> R: >So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the truth about the > impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general statement > about wether or not they exist. --- You might be right, Ray. But the sutta does say that the *form* that is impermanent is existent. It doesn't say that only the *truth of* impermanence is existent. As you have shown us, the sutta also says the form that is permanent does not exist. I think this means that the form of a person, or a tree, or a coffee cup etc., does not exist, don't you? So, how do conditioned dhammas (which are impermanent) differ from concepts (which are permanent)? Surely, it is that the former really exist, whereas the latter do not! (?) Ken H #83526 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 4:19 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ---- <. . .> S: > We did see some pictures of HUGE swell up your way while we were in Bangkok. Either it's still huge and you're still recovering or ---- I must admit I was not actually riding those huge waves. While the young guns were out deep fighting over them I was in a sheltered spot they had overlooked. The waves there were only small to middle-sized, but they were good, and for a couple of days I had them practically to myself. Heaven on a stick! Thanks for your tips on how to get the next Vism. instalment out. As the wise saying goes, 'if you want a job done quickly give it to a busy man.' In other words, don't give it to a lazy old surfie with nothing else to do. :-) Ken H #83527 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 5:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "So Devadatta had no choice but to attempt to murder the Buddha, and Buddha had no choice but to teach people after his awakening..." Scott: Interesting point, really. A Buddha, having already become 'enlightened', technically has no cetanaa, as far as I know. Kiriya-citta is kammically neutral, so no 'volition' (corrections by those in the know, of course). Devadatta, having cetanaa-cetasika in the mind-stream, of course had 'choice', but not in the sense that you persistently assert. Despite what is suggested about having the 'self' thing squared away, the views expressed continue to read as demanding the presence of someone who has ownership of 'choice'. There is 'choice' but no chooser. A: "...What we ARE talking about is that the conditioned process isn't 100% deterministic. Scott: Of course it isn't. There is just no one at the helm. Sincerely, Scott. #83528 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:00:08 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi TG (Howard), - You posted the Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60) with no comment or even a statement of purpose. Tep .................................. Hi Tep I simply prefaced the Sutta with this comment -- Hi All This is a great Sutta for striving and shows how the Buddha combined teachings of practical common sense things, through inferential reflection, with teachings of -- direct mindfulness as well... Its a nice Sutta. One of my main points of late is that the Buddha seamlessly combines inferential knowledge and direct knowledge as he teaches insight development. This Sutta is another example of that... but probably most every Sutta dealing specifically with insight development is as well. Since there are those who think only "direct experience" can be used as insight fodder, I pursue this issue to try to give a more "rounded" demonstration of what and how the Buddha taught. TG #83529 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 6:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > There is 'choice' but no chooser. > Good! > A: "...What we ARE talking about is that the conditioned process > isn't 100% deterministic. > > Scott: Of course it isn't. There is just no one at the helm. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Scott, what is this concern with atta? It seems that you are the one worrying about reading in atta-views. Lots of Metta, Alex #83530 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - Scott, you wrote "There is 'choice' but no chooser," and with regard to a sequence of events not being 100% deterministic (by which determinism I understand being independent of volition), you wrote "Of course it isn't. There is just no one at the helm." I quite agree with this, and I think you put it perfectly. With metta, Howard #83531 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Scott, what is this concern with atta? It seems that you are the one worrying about reading in atta-views." Scott: Simple. I think that it is you who falls into atta-view each time you persist in insisting on there being 'choice' or 'will' and then using examples of beings who make choices of their own free will to substantiate the point. Sincerely, Scott. #83532 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:33:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, 1) Does citta which has arisen and ceased, exist now? 2) Can the ceased citta (from the past) exist in the present (its future)? Thanks, Lots of metta, Alex ............................. Hi Alex 1) No 2) No Are these trick questions? :-) TG #83533 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:12 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... rjkjp1 Dear Ken I cant find the thread with teh sutta you and ray are discussing (is there a secret way to find posts? ) If form is a translation of rupa (pure guess as I don't know the sutta), how do you get your particular interpretation?\ robert dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Ray, > > --- > <. . .> > R: >So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the truth > about the > > impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general > statement > > about wether or not they exist. > --- > > You might be right, Ray. But the sutta does say that the *form* that > is impermanent is existent. It doesn't say that only the *truth of* > impermanence is existent. > > As you have shown us, the sutta also says the form that is permanent > does not exist. I think this means that the form of a person, or a > tree, or a coffee cup etc., does not exist, don't you? > > So, how do conditioned dhammas (which are impermanent) differ from > concepts (which are permanent)? Surely, it is that the former really > exist, whereas the latter do not! (?) > > Ken H > #83534 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... m_nease Hi Rob, rjkjp1 wrote: > If form is a translation of rupa (pure guess as I don't know the > sutta), how do you get your particular interpretation?\ If you don't mind my butting in for a second: We're accustomed to 'the dhamma that doesn't experience anything', but from V. Buddhadatta's Concise Pali-English Dictionary: ruupa: form; figure; image; object of the eye; a material composition. It depends on context I think. mike #83535 From: han tun Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) hantun1 Dear Nina, > Nina: I find the choice of your texts, elaborations and personal remarks very beneficial. In Patthaana 13, there was something: An extract from Dr. Mehm Tin Mon’s The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma. Quote: [Moha is the ignorance of the true nature of sense-objects. All living and non-living things are made up of naama and ruupa (mind and matter) which are endowed with the four common characteristics . Is it a matter of translation perhaps: non-living things do not have naama. Han: It was not a translation error (Dr. Mehm Tin Mon himself wrote it in English), and I copied it correctly. I cannot explain why was there such a mistake? -------------------------------- > Text: “Bhikkhu, when a bhikkhu knows and sees the eye [form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling arising with eye-contact] as impermanent, ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge arises. [To repeat with other five senses.] > Nina: This quote made me think. People wonder whether the Buddha spoke about knowing the present moment. But this sutta demonstrates that the impermanence, that is the arising and falling away of visible object, seeing etc. should be known and seen. Can it be at another moment but the present one? Han: Admitting that I have very limited knowledge of suttas, I have not yet come across a sutta where the Buddha emphasizes “knowing the present moment.” Kindly let me know if there is such a sutta. As regards your thinking, I think it can be both ways. Impermanence can be known and seen at the present moment when the object falls away. Or, the instructed one can know and see impermanence as the inherent nature of conditioned things, even before they fall away. Respectfully, Han #83536 From: "Raymond Hendrickson" Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:06 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... bitakarma Hi Ken H, > [Original Message] > From: kenhowardau > To: > Date: 3/2/2008 2:55:47 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... > > Hi Ray, > > --- > <. . .> > R: >So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the truth > about the > > impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general > statement > > about wether or not they exist. > --- You Say: > You might be right, Ray. But the sutta does say that the *form* that > is impermanent is existent. It doesn't say that only the *truth of* > impermanence is existent. > > As you have shown us, the sutta also says the form that is permanent > does not exist. I think this means that the form of a person, or a > tree, or a coffee cup etc., does not exist, don't you? > > So, how do conditioned dhammas (which are impermanent) differ from > concepts (which are permanent)? Surely, it is that the former really > exist, whereas the latter do not! (?) > > Ken H > I think the notion of the form of a person, or a tree, is certainly covered, but I see no reason not to apply it to any arising of form. At least for this Sutta there is no difference made between the mental aggregates and form. This Sutta asserts the same position that "Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." So at least based on this Sutta we cannot say that form is no more or less existent than any other conditioned arising. Ray #83537 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... sarahprocter... Dear Robert K, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Ken > I cant find the thread with teh sutta you and ray are discussing (is > there a secret way to find posts? ) .... S: I think this is the sutta: >SN22:94 Flowers: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists."< ***** S: To check back the thread, usually you can go to the bottom of the message and see the earlier posts. This usually works fine unless anyone has failed to use the 'reply' button and instead started a 'new' thread, in which case you can try doing the same with an earlier post in the thread. Alternatively, as I just did in a jiff, go to your g-mail account. If you have one for DSG messages (as I do), you'll see 38 messages neatly stacked under this subject heading and it only takes a couple of secs to quickly scroll down to find the sutta. This is a very easy way. With long threads, it does help (as perhaps you're indirectly suggesting) if we are reminded from time to time by the participants what the sutta and quote being discussed is! I'll leave the other point and further discussion to Ken H, you and others. Metta, Sarah ======= #83538 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (95) sarahprocter... Der Han & all, I like these reminders: --- han tun wrote: > Therefore, when daana, síla and bhaavanaa (mental > development), or síla, samaadhi and pa~n~naa are > present, the perfections, viriya etc., can be regarded > as completed.” > > The Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct” > (Miscellaneous Sayings) reminds us to consider our own > patience : > > “Again, only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate > the wrongs of others, not the dull-witted man. In the > man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only provoke > impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience > into play and make it grow even stronger.” .... S: I think we can see that even a little understanding makes a big difference in this regard... ... > > There is a difference between a person with pa~n~naa > and without it. As to the person with pa~n~naa, no > matter what wrong someone else has done to him, this > makes his patience grow firmer and more accomplished. > As to the person who lacks pa~n~naa, the wrongs of > someone else provoke an increase in impatience, the > opposite of patience. ... S: Again, we see that pa~n~naa is the key. By beginning to understand dhammas as dhammas, not people and learning about accumulations and kamma, there are more conditions for patience as effort (viriya), acceptance and endurance of whatever is experienced at the present moment. ... > Patience is needed with regard to our environment, in > the different situations of daily life. Daily life can > be a test for our patience and endurance. .... S: There are always going to be changes in the worldly conditions. Is there patience and endurance with the good and the bad? Thanks again for all your work in this series. Also to Connie, a big thanks and anumodana for her work, dedication and patience with endurance in the completion of the Sisters thread. Metta, Sarah ========== #83539 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... rjkjp1 Dear Sarh Thank you. I see the pali word is rupa (as in rupa of the five khandas). Based on this I fail to see what KenH means. Ps. Ken may not be able to follow this thread as my original point was left off in your reply. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Robert K, > > --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > > Dear Ken > > I cant find the thread with teh sutta you and ray are discussing (is > > there a secret way to find posts? ) > .... > S: I think this is the sutta: > > >SN22:94 Flowers: > > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, > suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree > upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is > is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in > the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists."< > ***** #83540 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you very much for your good reminder. > You can find a similar reminder in > AN 5.57 Upajjhatthana Sutta, translated by Thanissaro > Bhikkhu > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html ... S: Excellent, thank you! Metta, Sarah ======== #83541 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? nilovg Dear Scott, Op 3-mrt-2008, om 4:04 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > A Buddha, having already become > 'enlightened', technically has no cetanaa, as far as I know. > Kiriya-citta is kammically neutral, so no 'volition' (corrections by > those in the know, of course). Devadatta, having cetanaa-cetasika in > the mind-stream, of course had 'choice', but not in the sense that you > persistently assert. ------ N: It is correct that the Buddha has kiriyacitta instead of kusala citta, but he has cetanaa cetasika which is also kiriya. Perhaps you meant this also when writing, 'technically has no cetanaa'. Cetanaa is a universal cetasika, arising with each citta. It also arises with vipaakacitta. Nina. #83542 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:52 pm Subject: Internecine Disputes (Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott & Alex & all - LOLOL! It seems to me that when we're not "accusing" each other of being closet Mahayanists (Quick! Alert Homeland Security!), a lot of us spend much of our time saying or at least thinking that others of us are atta-freaks! ;-)) It's like theists accusing one another of being atheists, Catholics accusing each other of being crypto-protestants, and liberals (social democrats outside the U.S.) labeling each other as secret-conservatives. It strikes me as a good idea for us to take it pretty much for granted, slight differences in interpretation aside, that we all recognize the Buddha as the teacher of not-self and that we all adhere to that teaching! With metta, Howard #83543 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:12 pm Subject: A Question on Pali Words for a Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, all - I quote here a short sutta and then raise a question that might be useful to have definitively answered. The sutta is the following: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SN 25.2 Rupa Sutta Forms Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: S iii 225 CDB i 1004 ____________________________________ Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. ____________________________________ Copyright © 2004 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 2004 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. ____________________________________ At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable. "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am interested in knowing the Pali words translated as 'inconstant', 'changeable', and 'alterable', and whether that translation is accurate. The reason that I ask, is that each of these, instead of suggesting "cessation" or even just noncommittal "not lasting," suggests a gradual modification over time. Inasmuch as it is paramattha dhammas being referred to, and not aggregations, this strikes me as important with regard to our perspective on aniccata. With metta, Howard #83544 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) nilovg Dear Han, Op 3-mrt-2008, om 6:31 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Han: Admitting that I have very limited knowledge of > suttas, I have not yet come across a sutta where the > Buddha emphasizes “knowing the present moment.” Kindly > let me know if there is such a sutta. ------- N: It is good you ask, people often wonder. We read in the “Bhaddekaratta Sutta of Lomasakangiya” ( M. sutta 134)that the deva Candana approached the venerable Lomasakangiya and asked him whether he remembered the exposition and analysis of the Baddhekaratta Sutta. It appeared that both of them could not remember this, but Candana remembered the verses. He related that the Buddha had taught these when he dwelled in the Heaven of the Thirtythree. They are the following verses: The past should not be followed after, the future not desired. What is past is got rid of and the future has not come. But whoever has vision now here, now there of a present dhamma, The unmovable, unshakable, let him cultivate it [2]. Swelter at the task this very day. Who knows whether he will die tomorrow? There is no bargaining with the great hosts of Death. Thus abiding ardently, unwearied day and night, He indeed is “Auspicious” called, described as a sage at peace [3]. ------ Vision is the translation of vipassana, insight. We can remember also beginners abh., recently quoted: apparent (uppanna.m), cognizable by the six modes of cognition (chahi vi~n~naa.nehi vi~n~neya.m), ------ Uppanna.m: arisen or present. Thus, here is reference to the present rupa. The present rupa is cognized. I quote the Expositor to this part (p. 400) to show that the Abhidhamma is not abstract, that it deals with this very moment. <'Arisen (uppanna.m) by means of the six modes of [sense-]cognition' means that only matter as now present should be understood by means of all the six modes of cognition. ... It is impermanent in that it becomes and perishes. Here we come to your next remark: > > H: As regards your thinking, I think it can be both ways. > Impermanence can be known and seen at the present > moment when the object falls away. Or, the instructed > one can know and see impermanence as the inherent > nature of conditioned things, even before they fall > away. ------ N: As to the second part: is this not thinking with understanding? It seems to me that this is not direct realization. Salaayatanavagga, §7, the impermanence of the aayatanas of the senses: One considers the impermanence of eye in the past and future, but as to the present, he sees how troublesome attachment is and seeks dispassion. That is, by understanding its nature of impermanence when it appears at the present. **** Nina. #83545 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question on Pali Words for a Sutta nilovg Hi Howard, Op 3-mrt-2008, om 12:12 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. ----- N: aniccam, vipari.naami, a~n~nathaabhaavi (becoming other). I think these are words to describe, paraphrase, the nature of impermanence. Nina. #83546 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the clarification: N: "It is correct that the Buddha has kiriyacitta instead of kusala citta, but he has cetanaa cetasika which is also kiriya. Perhaps you meant this also when writing, 'technically has no cetanaa'. Cetanaa is a universal cetasika, arising with each citta. It also arises with vipaakacitta." Scott: Yes, I appreciate this. I was trying to say that there was no cetanaa which would ever bear fruit for a Buddha. There would still be the volition, purpose and purposefulness which are cetanaa. Sincerely, Scott. #83547 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda dhammanusara Hi TG, - Thank you very much for responding to my request. Question: There are 10 cases of "perception" in this sutta, what does perception really mean for each of these cases? Thanks. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:00:08 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > Hi TG (Howard), - > > You posted the Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60) with no comment or even a statement of purpose. > #83548 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question on Pali Words for a Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/3/2008 6:48:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 3-mrt-2008, om 12:12 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. ----- N: aniccam, vipari.naami, a~n~nathaabhaavi (becoming other). I think these are words to describe, paraphrase, the nature of impermanence. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know yet. The 1st, 'aniccam', would have, I think, better been translated, neutrally, as 'impermanent' or 'not lasting' or 'not remaining'. So, I consider the translation as 'inconstant' to be slanted unfairly towards gradualism or transformationalism. The third word, meaning "becoming other," does carry a sense of change-while-continuing, a gradualist sense. As for the second, ' vipari.naami', you don't provide what you think is a correct translation. Does it really mean "changeable" as given in the translation? Or does it mean "prone to cease". That distinction is important, I think. Childer's dictionary gives the meaning of 'viparinamo' as "change," which, again, suggests transformation rather than cessation. ------------------------------------------------------ Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard #83549 From: han tun Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you ever so much. Since you mentioned MN 134, I now remember MN 131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta. I have read MN 131, but I have forgotten. Very poor retentive memory! The two suttas have the same verse about seeing each presently arisen state with insight. Yes, you are right, the Abhidhamma is not abstract, that it deals with this very moment. I also like your other comments. I like your entire post. Thank you very much once again. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: It is good you ask, people often wonder. > We read in the “Bhaddekaratta Sutta of > Lomasakangiya” ( M. sutta 134) #83551 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Internecine Disputes (Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation) scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: H: "...It strikes me as a good idea for us to take it pretty much for granted, slight differences in interpretation aside, that we all recognize the Buddha as the teacher of not-self and that we all adhere to that teaching!" Scott: Yeah, good point. Alex and I have our own way of going back and forth, it seems. Its funny. I'm not sure how to read him sometimes, though. It seems as though there is a need to have the concept of 'free will' somehow preserved; and that 'determinism' is a bad thing. When 'will', which I think is being used in this part of the discussion to include a notion of 'conscious choice', is discussed, this is where I get the sense that some form of atta-view is arising. Of course I could be wrong but I do think that this idea that there is 'conscious' participation in 'choice' (the function and characteristic of cetanaa, for lack of a better word in the context of this discussion) is the problem. I think it might be fair to say that cetanaa 'wills', if one doesn't literally attribute agency to a cetasika. Perhaps, again as we've seemingly concurred, when there is 'will' there is cetanaa but there is no agent who wills. As far as 'determinism' goes, I think that it is the case that a moment of consciousness now is determined by its predecessor - that is, antecedent conditions determine the present moment. The usual outrage with determinism, as I've discussed it in non-Dhamma circles is always around the idea that this does away with 'me' as an actor. Just the fact that there are, accumulated and present in each moment, 'potentials' any sort of arising, dependent of conditions, allows for more than enough 'wiggle room' to show this to be a special case of determinism with parameters so broad as to create the illusion of conscious choice since anything seems possible, I just happen to think this is self-view. To say that it is only by conditions that the present moment arises is to posit a form of determinism. So be it. What's the problem, I ask? The fact that cetanaa exists and arises with each moment of consciousness (and is the volition, purpose, and purposefulness of each moment) is enough for me to conclude that while 'conscious choice' is only apparent, there is still much room for a wide variety of outcomes. Sincerely, Scott. #83552 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? walterhorn Dear Scott and Alex: Your interesting discussion reminds me quite a bit of the debates about "compatibalism" in Western philosophy. Many philosophers (Mill is a good example) have held that total determinism is not inconsistent with "free will" (hence 'compatible' with it) in the sense that if/when we are acting principally from 'internal' volitions rather than 'external' forces, constraints, etc., we are free, in spite of the fact that every action is completely determined by the constitution of the universe and the laws of nature prior to this action. The important point for freedom would be whether we are acting 'because we want to' rather than as a result of deterministic forces, since, according to the compatibalist, all actions are entirely pre- determined by something or other. We certainly all seem to understand the basic difference between, for example, reaching down to tie our shoes and having someone forceably pull our arms down toward our feet. In each we may be completey determined by a multitude of forces beyond our control, but in one action we nevertheless seem to be in some sense free. Best, Walto #83553 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the reply: S: "I think it's the atta-sa~n~naa (wrong perception of 'atta') which accompanies wrong view which leads to the idea of 'wholeness'. This is because of not understanding dhammas as elements or as namas and rupas. There is continuity of dhammas and this (along with wrong view) is what leads to a lack of understanding of the arising and falling away of those namas and rupas. Again, because of atta-sanna, there is an illusion of lastingness." Scott: I think that Alex and I are getting into this sort of territory in our ongoing discussion about cetanaa; that is, the need to preserve an idea of 'conscious choice', which, I suggest, is micchaa di.t.thi and perhaps derived from atta-sa~n~naa. I need to learn more about the constituents of micchaa di.t.thi. Views are powerful modes of thought. I appreciate the Sammohavinodanii extract. S: "It is on account of not 'resolving the compact', not understanding dhammas as elements that the various vipallasa arise - especially those connected with ditthi (wrong views). Do you have any other suggestions yourself, Scott? Scott: No, not really. I want to understand di.t.thi more, as I mentioned. Here we are referring, I think, to di.t.thi-vipallaasa, but this must be linked somehow - conditioned - by sa~n~naa-vipallaasa. I don't know enough about the functioning of the whole illusion of coherent thought. By this I mean that it must also be illusory that 'my thoughts' hang together and form whole conceptual 'entities', seeming to build upon each other, etc., but I'll need to think about it some more. So funny... Sincerely, Scott. #83554 From: "matheesha" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda matheesha333 Hi TG, I agree with you on this completely. I think it is safe to use contemplation, especially after becoming a sotapanna/seeing thigs as it really is, because then the contemplation will be based on truths not speculation, as might be the case with the Girimananda sutta. But I suspect the issue is deeper since the buddha's discourses was instrumental in making people streamentrants and that process would have been conceptual to some degree. Panna is panna what ever the source I suppose but the level of 'penetration' and hence resultant outcomes of the different types of panna is likely to be different. with metta Matheesha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:00:08 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > Hi TG (Howard), - > > You posted the Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60) with no comment or even a > statement of purpose. > > Tep > > > > .................................. > > Hi Tep > > > I simply prefaced the Sutta with this comment -- > > > Hi All > This is a great Sutta for striving and shows how the Buddha combined > teachings of practical common sense things, through inferential reflection, > with > teachings of -- direct mindfulness as well... > > > Its a nice Sutta. One of my main points of late is that the Buddha > seamlessly combines inferential knowledge and direct knowledge as he teaches insight > development. This Sutta is another example of that... but probably most > every Sutta dealing specifically with insight development is as well. Since > there are those who think only "direct experience" can be used as insight fodder, > I pursue this issue to try to give a more "rounded" demonstration of what > and how the Buddha taught. > > #83555 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) dhammanusara Hi Han and Nina, - You asked Nina : Han: Admitting that I have very limited knowledge of suttas, I have not yet come across a sutta where the Buddha emphasizes "knowing the present moment." Kindly let me know if there is such a sutta. > ------- I recalled Patisambhidamagga paragraph #284 in Treatise I on knowledge is about paccuppanna dhamma. This ~naana is called 'udayabbayaanupassane ~naanam'. [Paccuppannaanam dhammaanam viparinaamaanupassane pa~n~naa udayabbayaanupassane ~naanam.] 284. Presently-arisen materiality is born; the characteristic of its generation (nibbatti) is rise, the characteristic of its change(viparinaama) is fall, the contemplation(anupassanaa) is knowledge(~naana). Presently-arisen feelings ... Presently-arisen perception ... Presently-arisen formations ... Presently-arisen consciousness is born; the characteristic of its generation is rise, the characteristic of its change is fall, the contemplation is knowledge. Presently-arisen eye ... [and so on with the rest of the 201 things up to] ... Presently-arisen being is born; the characteristic of its generation is rise, the characteristic of its change is fall, the contemplation is knowledge. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han, > Op 3-mrt-2008, om 6:31 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > N: It is good you ask, people often wonder. > We read in the "Bhaddekaratta Sutta of > Lomasakangiya" ( M. sutta 134)that the deva Candana approached the > venerable > Lomasakangiya and asked him whether he remembered the exposition and > analysis of the Baddhekaratta Sutta. #83556 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Dear TG and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: Alex: > 1) Does citta which has arisen and ceased, exist now? > 2) Can the ceased citta (from the past) exist in the present (its > future)? TG > > 1) No > 2) No > > > Are these trick questions? :-) > TG In a way. If answered Yes, they would assert Sarvastivada. If answered No as you did, they would confuse the heck out of me. How can a present citta take its object a past (NON-EXISTENT) citta? This aspect of Ther. Abh. doesn't make sense to me (or to many 'Buddhist' philosopher monks). Maybe I am missing something... Maybe between my ears... Lots of Metta, Alex #83557 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? scottduncan2 Dear Walter, Thanks for the reply: W: "...if/when we are acting principally from 'internal' volitions rather than 'external' forces, constraints, etc., we are free, in spite of the fact that every action is completely determined by the constitution of the universe and the laws of nature prior to this action..." Scott: This, that is constitution and laws of the universe, in the context here, would relate to conditionality, as I see it. W: "...The important point for freedom would be whether we are acting 'because we want to' rather than as a result of deterministic forces, since, according to the compatibalist, all actions are entirely pre- determined by something or other..." Scott: The argument I am making is that the 'because we want to' is the clause that suggests the workings of desire to construe self and agency. Here I suggest that cetanaa, that is the volition, purpose and purposefulness that arises with each moment of consciousness, is all there is. I suggest that the sense that one does something because one wanted to is the illusion. Why? "I" am conceptual, even when I experience something that seems like self-reflexion. W: "...We certainly all seem to understand the basic difference between, for example, reaching down to tie our shoes and having someone forceably pull our arms down toward our feet. In each we may be completey determined by a multitude of forces beyond our control, but in one action we nevertheless seem to be in some sense free." Scott: Good example. I think 'our control' is an illusion. I focus on the 'seem to be in some sense free' as I continue to try to sort out the question of vipallaasa. Sincerely, Scott. #83558 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Internecine Disputes (Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplat... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/3/2008 7:32:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: H: "...It strikes me as a good idea for us to take it pretty much for granted, slight differences in interpretation aside, that we all recognize the Buddha as the teacher of not-self and that we all adhere to that teaching!" Scott: Yeah, good point. Alex and I have our own way of going back and forth, it seems. Its funny. I'm not sure how to read him sometimes, though. It seems as though there is a need to have the concept of 'free will' somehow preserved; and that 'determinism' is a bad thing. When 'will', which I think is being used in this part of the discussion to include a notion of 'conscious choice', is discussed, this is where I get the sense that some form of atta-view is arising. Of course I could be wrong but I do think that this idea that there is 'conscious' participation in 'choice' (the function and characteristic of cetanaa, for lack of a better word in the context of this discussion) is the problem. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, this idea of *free* will is a bit of a stumbling block. It's difficult. There *is* conscious choice, but, and this is a BIG 'but', there is no chooser, and the choosing is not random but arises in dependence on conditions, making choosing just as empty as everything else. So, as much that is considered in the Dhamma, choice occurs, but dependently and "on its own" - that is, not as the behavior of some agent. ----------------------------------------------------------- I think it might be fair to say that cetanaa 'wills', if one doesn't literally attribute agency to a cetasika. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Exactly. I would tend to put it as "Cetana is willing, and it occurs." ------------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps, again as we've seemingly concurred, when there is 'will' there is cetanaa but there is no agent who wills. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed! We do concur. ------------------------------------------------------ As far as 'determinism' goes, I think that it is the case that a moment of consciousness now is determined by its predecessor - that is, antecedent conditions determine the present moment. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, and co-occuring conditions. But the co-occurring conditions also arise in the same manner, so, yes, ultimately, what happens now is determined by what has gone before. I see no other option besides utter randomness, which I reject. There is nothing wrong with this "determinism". It only seems so when one forgets that desire and will are included among conditions. When folks who are not beset by strong atta-view informally say they have free will, if they would closely examine what they mean by that, I think they would see that they really mean nothing more than that their desires play a role in the course of events - their desires are not irrelevant. They are correct in that, but it in no way contradicts conditionality and impersonality. --------------------------------------------------------- The usual outrage with determinism, as I've discussed it in non-Dhamma circles is always around the idea that this does away with 'me' as an actor. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, often so. --------------------------------------------------------- Just the fact that there are, accumulated and present in each moment, 'potentials' any sort of arising, dependent of conditions, allows for more than enough 'wiggle room' to show this to be a special case of determinism with parameters so broad as to create the illusion of conscious choice since anything seems possible, I just happen to think this is self-view. To say that it is only by conditions that the present moment arises is to posit a form of determinism. So be it. What's the problem, I ask? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. And it also perplexes me why the alternative of random events hold any people. ----------------------------------------------------------- The fact that cetanaa exists and arises with each moment of consciousness (and is the volition, purpose, and purposefulness of each moment) is enough for me to conclude that while 'conscious choice' is only apparent, there is still much room for a wide variety of outcomes. Sincerely, Scott. ============================ With metta, Howard #83559 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Han and Nina, - > > You asked Nina : > > Han: Admitting that I have very limited knowledge of suttas, I have not yet come across a sutta where the Buddha emphasizes "knowing the present moment." Kindly let me know if there is such a sutta. > > ------- THERE IS SUCH A SUTTA!!! It is called MN111 Anupada Sutta which contrary to some people views includes Satipatthana practice (or parts of it, maranasati isn't mentioned here). There Ven. Sariputta has seen presently arisen phenomenon AS THEY occured one by one in the 7 Jhanas. Only after coming back from 8th did he have to reflect on past Jhanas. If Jhana (contemplation, or burning) doesn't include Satipatthana (ie MN152 Brahman Parasivi), then it can't be called a proper Jhana. --- "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.' ... "Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: '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.'4 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html ---- Many people may quote Satipatthana sutta, but it DOES contain things that do NOT refer to present moment ie: maranasati, or asubha (I mean you don't see dead people or people with their livers hanging out walking aroung). Lots of Metta, Alex #83560 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and TG) - In a message dated 3/3/2008 8:42:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear TG and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: Alex: > 1) Does citta which has arisen and ceased, exist now? > 2) Can the ceased citta (from the past) exist in the present (its > future)? TG > > 1) No > 2) No > > > Are these trick questions? :-) > TG In a way. If answered Yes, they would assert Sarvastivada. If answered No as you did, they would confuse the heck out of me. How can a present citta take its object a past (NON-EXISTENT) citta? This aspect of Ther. Abh. doesn't make sense to me (or to many 'Buddhist' philosopher monks). Maybe I am missing something... Maybe between my ears... Lots of Metta, Alex =============================== Here's my thought: When the prior mind state occurred, the various aspects involved - the object and the cetasikas, right then and there served as conditions for mental operations of recollection and reflection related to them on a future occasion at which appropriate supportive conditions are in place to prompt such processing. This happens all the time. We shouldn't think of "the object" of a mind state to necessarily be some present phenomenon, but more generally and informally as "what the mind state pertains to." With metta, Howard #83561 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:07 am Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] Internecine Disputes (Re: the present moment ... Wh ... upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott - In a message dated 3/3/2008 8:51:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I agree. And it also perplexes me why the alternative of random events hold any people. ================================ That was meant to be as follows: "I agree. And it also perplexes me why the alternative of random events holds any appeal for anyone." With metta, Howard #83562 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 243 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 243. Intro: In the preceding section there was an explanation in brief of the four kinds of upaadaana, clinging: clinging to sense-desires, to views, to wrong practice and to self doctrine. These will be further explained in the following section. Here the clinging to wrong views will be elaborated upon. ---------- Text Vis. 243: In detail, however, sense-desire clinging is the firm state of the craving described above as of one-hundred-and-eight kinds with respect to visible data and so on. ------- N: As we have seen in Vis. 234, 235, craving can be classified as six by way of the objects experienced through the six doors and as eighteen when each of these are reckoned as sensuous craving without wrong view, and as accompanied by eternity belief or accompanied by annihilation belief. Craving is accompanied by eternity belief when one believes that objects are lasting, and by annihilation belief when one does not see that they arise because of conditions. These eighteen kinds of craving can be classified as thirtysix, when seen as internal (pertaining to oneself) and external (pertaining to someone else), and as one-hundred-and-eight when reckoned as past, future and present. Evenso, sense desire clinging which is firm grasping, can also be classified as one-hundred-and-eight kinds. ------- Text Vis.:[False-] view clinging is the ten-based wrong view, according as it is said: 'Herein, what is [false-] view clinging? There is no giving, no offering, ... [no good and virtuous ascetics and brahmans who have themselves] realized by direct-knowledge and declare this world and the other world: such view as this ... such perverse assumption is called [false] view clinging' (Vbh. 375; Dhs. 1215). ------- N: Actually, by these wrong views, kamma that produces result, vipaaka, is denied. The text refers to Dhammasangani, 1215: “There is no such thing as alms, or sacrifice, or offering; there is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds; there is no such thing as father or mother, or beings springing into birth without them [opapaatika, of spontaneous birth]; there are in the world no recluses or brahmins who have reached the highest point, who have attained the height, who, having understood and realized by themselves alone both this world and the next, make known the same...” The Tiika gives a further explanation, and this is similar to that given in the ‘Expositor’ (p. 493). Both Commentaries mention offerings by invitation, to guests and in marriage ceremonies. The Tiika explains as to ‘no result of good or evil deeds’, that these are the ten kusala kamma patha (courses of action) and the ten akusala kamma patha. The Tiika mentions also wrong assumptions about this world and the next world. Being established in this world he takes it that there is no next world. He believes that there is no cycle of birth and death, he has annihilation view. He does not believe in spontaneous rebirth. He does not believe that there are recluses or brahmins who have followed the right practice leading to nibbaana. He does not believe that there is an omniscient Buddha who knowing this world and the next, after having realized them by his superior knowledge, is able to proclaim them. --------- Text Vis.: Rite-and-ritual clinging is the adherence [to the view that] purification comes through rites and rituals, according as it is said: Herein, what is rite-and-ritual clinging? ... That purification comes through a rite, that purification comes through a ritual, that purification comes through a rite and ritual: such view as this ... such perverse assumption is called rite-and-ritual clinging' (Dh. 1216). Self-doctrine clinging is the twenty-based [false] view of individuality, according as it is said: 'Herein, what is self-doctrine clinging? Here the untaught ordinary man, untrained in good men's Dhamma, sees materiality as self ... such perverse assumption is called self-doctrine clinging' (Dhs. 1217). This is the 'brief and full account of states'. -------- N: The Tiika states that as to self-doctrine clinging, such as ‘ruupa is self’ that this has been explained before. This is personality belief, sakkaya di.t.thi, by which one has four kinds of wrong view with regard to each of the five khandhas: as identifying oneself with them, as seeing oneself as their possessor, as being the container of them or as contained in them. ****** Conclusion: As the text states, sense-desire craving, tanhaa, can be classified as one-hundred-and-eight kinds with respect to visible data and so on. As to sense-desire clinging, upaadaana, this is the firm state of craving, and this can also be seen as one-hundred-and- eight kinds. All kinds of clinging, including clinging to wrong views, may arise for those who are ordinary persons, who have not attained enlightenment. For instance, personality view may arise, when we believe that we see a person in visual object. Visible object is only a ruupa element, that arises because of conditions. It appears for a very short while, but we keep on thinking of persons or things we believe we see. Visible object is no person or self. Only in being aware of it when it appears right understanding of it can be developed so that there will be less wrong view of it. ****** Nina. #83563 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 3, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, We see all that appears through the eyes. Seeing is a reality, a dhamma that appears. Ignorance does not know that it is dhamma. It is natural that ignorance and wrong view follow upon seeing very often. When we have a notion of “I see persons and things”, the dhamma at that moment is not seeing but thinking of concepts. Gradually we can learn that there are many different dhammas appearing through the six doors, one at a time. This is a condition for the arising of direct awareness and understanding and it is the sure way leading to the penetration of anattå. During lunch in Khun Duangduen’s garden we discussed realities while we were enjoying the food. I was reflecting on hardness, a reality that is experienced through the bodysense. Sometimes there can be just a moment of awareness of hardness, and I was discussing this with Acharn Sujin. She reminded me of the truth, saying, “Even when there is awareness of hardness, there is still an idea of hardness as ‘mine’.” She explained that there is an underlying tendency of “self’, even when we believe that there is awareness. She said that lobha is always with us, that it is the second noble Truth, which is the cause of dukkha. We may be thinking of lobha and wrong view, but only when they arise, there can be understanding of them. Paññå knows that they must be eliminated. We read in the “Kindred Sayings”(V, Kindred Sayings about the Truths, Ch 4, § 4, Turban) that the Buddha asked what should be done if one’s turban or head is on fire. The answer was that in order to extinguish the fire one should make extra efforts, and have mindfulness and attention. The Buddha said: Well, monks, letting alone, paying no heed to, the blazing turban or head, for the comprehension as they really are, of the four not penetrated Ariyan Truths, one must put forth extra desire, effort, endeavour, exertion, impulse, mindfulness and attention....” This sutta can remind us that we should not delay the development of understanding of all realities arising at this moment. Acharn Sujin said that lobha is attached to everything and that we are always in danger. There is as it were fire on our heads. For the development of right understanding we do not need to go to a quiet place. We may die before we reach that place. Realities such as seeing, hearing and thinking are the same no matter where we are. All day long dhammas appear through the five sense-doors and through the mind-door, one at a time. Through the eyes visible object is experienced, through the ears sound, through the nose odour, through the tongue flavour, through the bodysense hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. The realities that appear exhibit their own characteristics. They arise dependent on many different conditions and nobody can cause their arising. Through satipatthåna one will understand the nature of anattå of realities. ****** Nina. #83564 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) nilovg Hi Tep, Thank you, that is excellent. Here we also come to the Pali requested by howard: viparinaama, change. It all pertains to the impermanence of the present reality. Nina. Op 3-mrt-2008, om 14:29 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > I recalled Patisambhidamagga paragraph #284 in Treatise I on > knowledge is > about paccuppanna dhamma. This ~naana is called 'udayabbayaanupassane > ~naanam'. > > [Paccuppannaanam dhammaanam viparinaamaanupassane > pa~n~naa udayabbayaanupassane ~naanam.] > > 284. Presently-arisen materiality is born; the characteristic of > its generation > (nibbatti) is rise, the characteristic of its change(viparinaama) > is fall, the > contemplation(anupassanaa) is knowledge(~naana). #83565 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) nilovg Dear Alex (and Matheesha), Op 3-mrt-2008, om 14:53 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Many people may quote Satipatthana sutta, but it DOES contain things > that do NOT refer to present moment ie: maranasati, or asubha ------ N: Death can be seen as conventional death, as momentary death and as final death of the arahat. Momentary death: the falling away of each citta. There is birth and death of citta all the time. This refers to the present moment. Also asubha can refer to asubha right now: the rupas of the body fall away and what falls away is not beautiful. Do you find that beautiful? So, it all depends on the citta with awareness and understanding whether there can be reference to the present moment. As Matheesha said: Matheesha, I was so happy to see you, I had been thinking of you. Nina. #83566 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:24 am Subject: Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Alex: > 1) Does citta which has arisen and ceased, exist now? > 2) Can the ceased citta (from the past) exist in the present (its future)? >>>>>>>>> Howard: Here's my thought: When the prior mind state occurred, the various aspects involved - the object and the cetasikas, right then and there served as conditions for mental operations of recollection and reflection related to them on a ***future occasion at which appropriate supportive conditions are in place to prompt such processing. **** This happens all the time. We shouldn't think of "the object" of a > mind state to necessarily be some present phenomenon, ... >>> >>>> So you accept that mind state that has occured in the past, exists in the future as a potential condition that can cause results if appropriate supportive conditions are in place and can prompt past citta which exists in its future (current present) . Sounds like Sarvastivadin (doesn't mean that it is false) Concept. Lots of Metta, Alex #83567 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question on Pali Words for a Sutta nilovg Hi Howard, Op 3-mrt-2008, om 13:21 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > The third word, meaning "becoming other," does carry a sense of > change-while-continuing, a gradualist sense. As for the second, ' > vipari.naami', you > don't provide what you think is a correct translation. Does it > really mean > "changeable" as given in the translation? Or does it mean "prone to > cease". > That distinction is important, I think. Childer's dictionary gives > the meaning > of 'viparinamo' as "change," which, again, suggests transformation > rather than > cessation. ------ N: Tep quoted from the Path of Discrimination: [Paccuppannaanam dhammaanam viparinaamaanupassane pa~n~naa udayabbayaanupassane ~naanam.] 284. Presently-arisen materiality is born; the characteristic of its generation (nibbatti) is rise, the characteristic of its change(viparinaama) is fall, the contemplation(anupassanaa) is knowledge(~naana). -------- This stage of insight is the first principal insight, realisation of the ariisng and falling away of nama and rupa. It is about the present moment. < the characteristic of its change (viparinaama) is fall>. Nothing gradual here. Different translations use different words, but if we understand correctly it does not matter. Nina. #83568 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: ------ > N: Death can be seen as conventional death, as momentary death and as final death of the arahat. Momentary death: the falling away of each citta. There is birth and death of citta all the time. This refers to the present moment. Also asubha can refer to asubha right now: the rupas of the body fall away and what falls away is not beautiful. >>>>>> This seems like a very big strech! Lets read what MahaSatipatthana sutta says: ----- "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to- be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. "And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death." I don't see how Buddha could have made it more clear. Death = Literal death. "Furthermore... just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain — wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice — and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' 6] "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground — one day, two days, three days dead — bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'... "Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, & various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood, connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions — here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old... decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html --- >>> Do you find that beautiful? >>> Some people find it stimulating. The arising and passing of 58 billion mind moments per second isn't felt as suffering by most people (except for serious Buddhist with great meditative attainments, base of infinite consciousness as I've heard). However literal (re)birth, aging &death IS. And this is what stimulated Gotama to go to the forests... Lots of Metta, Alex #83569 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 9:02 am Subject: Re: Suffering aggregates robmoult Venerable Sir, "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that, for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, there is no development of the mind. Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that, for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, there is development of the mind." – Pabhassara Sutta (AN 1.51-52) Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > The more we look and the more we understand,the more defiled the mind > appears.It's not a pretty picture - at least this mind isn't.It seems > that to come out of suffering one needs to see this endless stream of > dirt as though through a magnifying glass. #83570 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/3/2008 6:42:58 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: How can a present citta take its object a past (NON-EXISTENT) citta? This aspect of Ther. Abh. doesn't make sense to me (or to many 'Buddhist' philosopher monks). Maybe I am missing something... Maybe between my ears... .................................................... TG: Hi Alex, I agree with you! A present consciousness cannot have a past object for its object. Without more information about the examples you have in mind, I can only guess at the specifics of what you are thinking. If you provide an example, I'd be happy to give you my take on how the process is working. TG OUT #83571 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 9:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? walterhorn Dear Scott, Thanks for your response. I think you do a nice job making the case for the determinist/incompatibalist, and, of course, there are many (excellent) philosophers who are in that camp with you. As I see it, the task for those who not only espouse determinism (as we both do), but also deny 'freedom' (as you do, but I'm reluctant to do myself) is to explain the at least apparent difference between, say, not wanting to leave the house and being in jail. Again, while the compatibalist determinist has the admittedly quite difficult task of explaining how there can be moral responsibility if everything is determined by prior causes, the incompatibalist determinist must, I think, endeavor to explain why it is that we should feel that we are SOMETIMES morally culpable but other times not. I feel worse, e.g., if I could have kept a promise I just didn't feel like bothering with, than I likely do if my failure to keep it was that I had a heart attack that morning. These moral intuitions and distinctions may, of course, just be mistaken, but they are widespread and I think the task of those defending incompatibalism is to help us understand the very dissimilar responses to our actions--both our own responses (of guilt, etc.) and the attitudes they're likely to engender in most people around us. I think all the four positions here (determinist/incompatibalist, determinist/compatibalist, indeterminist/incompatibalist, indeterminist/compatibalist) are in some ways appealing and in others quite difficult to defend. I suppose that's why they've dogged philosophy, theology, and cognitive science for hundreds of years.... Best, Walto #83572 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/3/2008 5:20:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi TG, - Thank you very much for responding to my request. Question: There are 10 cases of "perception" in this sutta, what does perception really mean for each of these cases? Thanks. Tep ................................................... Hi Tep I would simply say that the perceptions are what the Sutta outlines. Notice that in many of the perceptions, there is reflection or pondering that proceeds. So analysis of the situation at hand is an important factor. By reflecting and pondering these states at hand, the monk/person develops the perception discussed, and that perception has the effect to lead the mind primarily to detachment. The "perception itself" is direct knowledge ... but it is direct knowledge that has been cultivated by both "direct experience" and "non-direct analysis." TG OUT #83573 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 9:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Dear TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > TG: Hi Alex, I agree with you! A present consciousness cannot have a past object for its object. > > > Without more information about the examples you have in mind, I can only guess at the specifics of what you are thinking. If you provide an example, I'd be happy to give you my take on how the process is working. > > > TG OUT > I don't seem to get it how the citta process functions according to Ther Abh. It says that present citta takes past (NON EXISTENT) citta for its object. But if you think hard about it, then that doctrine makes no sense unless of course the past citta exists in some form in the present which is its future. During Nirodha, the citta process stops. It then seems to restart without ANY existent citta to condition the first citta after the attainment... ???? ... Lots of Metta, Alex #83574 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:24:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Alex: > 1) Does citta which has arisen and ceased, exist now? > 2) Can the ceased citta (from the past) exist in the present (its future)? >>>>>>>>> Howard: Here's my thought: When the prior mind state occurred, the various aspects involved - the object and the cetasikas, right then and there served as conditions for mental operations of recollection and reflection related to them on a ***future occasion at which appropriate supportive conditions are in place to prompt such processing. **** This happens all the time. We shouldn't think of "the object" of a > mind state to necessarily be some present phenomenon, ... >>> >>>> So you accept that mind state that has occured in the past, exists in the future as a potential condition that can cause results if appropriate supportive conditions are in place and can prompt past citta which exists in its future (current present) . -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I do not accept that. The state that was no longer is, and it no longer is the *moment* it has ceased. When we say that we are thinking of something, for example "thinking of heat," that is merely a description of a thought process. To use that language neither implies the existence of heat now nor even of some mental "thing" that is a "thought of heat". It merely means that a certain sort of thought process called "thinking of heat", a mental operation, is underway. Speaking of aggregations for moment, Alex, instead of khandhic elements: My father died many, many years ago. I was thinking about him this morning. Was he there? Were any of the original mind states that involved "seeing him" and "hearing him" there? (I use quotes, because "he" was known only through the mind door, not eye or ear.) Speaking of a paramattha dhamma: For many years I passed loads and loads of kidney stones. I can easily bring to mind the severe colicky pain that was involved. Is that pain present now? Speaking of another paramattha dhamma: As a child, I loved the graham cracker, custard pie that my mother baked, the delightful fragrance of which filled the house. When a similar odor arises now, a glow of happiness arises in me. It happens that I recall that pie and that fragrance and their association with my mother, but even if I did not, the odor would still evoke the happy response now. In either case, no pie is present, no mother is present, no original mind state is present, and neither is the original fragrance present. What was then, is not now, but at the time that it *was* present it served, right then and there, as condition for what arises now. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sounds like Sarvastivadin (doesn't mean that it is false) Concept. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but it is not my position. ------------------------------------------------------- Lots of Metta, Alex ========================= With metta, Howard #83575 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question on Pali Words for a Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/3/2008 10:32:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: 284. Presently-arisen materiality is born; the characteristic of its generation (nibbatti) is rise, the characteristic of its change(viparinaama) is fall, the contemplation(anupassanaa) is knowledge(~naana). -------- This stage of insight is the first principal insight, realisation of the ariisng and falling away of nama and rupa. It is about the present moment. < the characteristic of its change (viparinaama) is fall>. Nothing gradual here. ============================= You're quite right. It's a good example. (Maybe that's why some folks say that the PTSM really should be part of the Abhidhamma Pitaka! ;-)) With metta, Howard #83576 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 10:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, I do not accept that. The state that was no longer is, and it no longer is the *moment* it has ceased. >>> If we change the word state for "cause", then what you seem to say is that the cause that was, no longer is, and when it has ceased (in the past) it no longer exists. Right? If so, then how could effect arise from the cause that no longer is? Remember, effect requires a cause. Effect without a cause is acausality, a view that Buddha has rejected. Lots of Metta, Alex #83577 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/3/2008 1:37:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, I do not accept that. The state that was no longer is, and it no longer is the *moment* it has ceased. >>> If we change the word state for "cause", then what you seem to say is that the cause that was, no longer is, and when it has ceased (in the past) it no longer exists. Right? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. ----------------------------------------------- If so, then how could effect arise from the cause that no longer is? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: By the mjere fact that it occurred and is one of the conditions for the effect. You want some sort of substantial connection. I do not. I am satisfied with the mere fact of when this is, that will be. -------------------------------------------- Remember, effect requires a cause. Effect without a cause is acausality, a view that Buddha has rejected. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Buddist "causality" is just conditionality. It is not a substantialist theory of causality. It is something quite different, as is all of the Dhamma. --------------------------------------------- Lots of Metta, Alex ======================= With metta, Howard #83578 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: >By the mere fact that it occurred and is one of the conditions for the effect. You want some sort of substantial connection. I do not. I am satisfied with the mere fact of when this is, that will be. >>> But if there isn't a substantial connection, then how do we know that THIS cause caused THAT effect? In fact is Cause different from Effect? or Is Cause & effect the same thing? Thank you, Lots of Metta, Alex #83579 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi again, Alex - Just a bit more: In a message dated 3/3/2008 2:12:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: If we change the word state for "cause", then what you seem to say is that the cause that was, no longer is, and when it has ceased (in the past) it no longer exists. Right? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. ----------------------------------------------- If so, then how could effect arise from the cause that no longer is? ============================ How could an effect arise from a co-occurring cause? If the effect is already existent at that time, then it already arose, and the current "cause" is quite irrelevant! A cause must precede its effect. What needs to be done is to *drop* the ideas of causality and causal force, and replace them by mere this/that-conditionality. This actually, was a basic point of Nagarjuna's, who, IMO, well understood the conditionality taught by the Buddha in the original and actual Buddhadhamma appearing in the Pali suttas. With metta, Howard #83580 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda nilovg Hi TG and Tep, Op 3-mrt-2008, om 18:21 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Question: Tep: There are 10 cases of "perception" in this sutta, > what does > perception really mean for each of these cases? > > TG: I would simply say that the perceptions are what the Sutta > outlines. Notice > that in many of the perceptions, there is reflection or pondering that > proceeds. So analysis of the situation at hand is an important > factor. By > reflecting and pondering these states at hand, the monk/person > develops the > perception discussed, and that perception has the effect to lead > the mind primarily > to detachment. The "perception itself" is direct knowledge ... but > it is > direct knowledge that has been cultivated by both "direct > experience" and > "non-direct analysis." -------- N: I can just add a comment in the Co. to the Mahaarahulovaadasutta, about perception of impermanence (Rahula had to learn many perceptions): < As to the expression, perception of impermanence, this refers to perception that arises together with contemplation of impermanence. Or, just insight; although this is not perception, it is called perception because it is under the heading of perception.> Nina. > #83581 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda dhammanusara Hi TG (and Matheesha), - Thank you for your answer that I do not understand. > > Question: There are 10 cases of "perception" in this sutta, what does > perception really mean for each of these cases? > > TG's answer: > I would simply say that the perceptions are what the Sutta outlines. Notice that in many of the perceptions, there is reflection or pondering that proceeds. So analysis of the situation at hand is an important factor. By reflecting and pondering these states at hand, the monk/person develops the perception discussed, and that perception has the effect to lead the mind primarily to detachment. The "perception itself" is direct knowledge ... but it is direct knowledge that has been cultivated by both "direct experience" and "non-direct analysis." > T: Let's look at the first case. [1] "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy. Is perception of inconstancy different from the contemplation of impermanence(aniccaanupassana)? Could you please elaborate a bit further on what you mean by "direct experience" and "non-direct analysis" in the perception of inconstancy (anicca-sa~n~naa) above? I have no clue whatsoever. Yours truly, Tep == #83582 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 2-mrt-2008, om 20:59 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Thank you very much for your reply. So can this conditioning force be > located between two cittas (for example when last citta falls away > before Nirodha and before the 1st citta that arises after?) ----- N: I do not take to the idea of locating a force in between two cittas. The condition itself is the force. I am going to quote more for Howard about this. Maybe it interests you. > > A: Related question: > Can the force of habitual kamma be located in the currently arisen > citta? N: Same answer. Nina. #83583 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana, was: Real Experience of Abh. Q. nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, The subject of conditional force belongs to Han's corner. He also gave an explanation before. Op 2-mrt-2008, om 21:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > If A, B, C, and D are the requisite conditions for E, they are > conditions for it at the very moment that they occur. The mere fact > of their > occurrence is all that is required. There is nothing more to be > said than when > these are the case, that will be the case. One should not speak of > "conditioning force" that carries over. That is reminiscent of > Sati's error. > One can, of course ask, for example, why A, B, C, and D occurred, and > the answer, for each of them, is that the requisite conditions for > it were met. > That is simply taking explanation further back in time. ------ Quote from Conditional Relations, Introduction by U Narada (p. XII, XIII): He then gives an example that pa~n~naa besides being root-condition can also have the conditioninng forces of predominance, conascence, mutuality, etc. Nina. #83584 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >How could an effect arise from a co-occurring cause? If the effect is already existent at that time, then it already arose, and the current "cause" is quite irrelevant! >>> Can you please explain what you mean by co-occuring cause? Can you provide some examples please? Lots of Metta, Alex #83585 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: A: So can this conditioning force be located between two cittas (for example when last citta falls away before Nirodha and before the 1st citta that arises after?) > ----- N: I do not take to the idea of locating a force in between two cittas. The condition itself is the force. I am going to quote more for Howard about this. Maybe it interests you. > > > > A: Related question: > > Can the force of habitual kamma be located in the currently arisen > > citta? > N: Same answer. > Nina. > So what unites the last citta before Nirodha, and first citta after Nirodha? The past citta has disappeared, there is no conditioning force in Nirodha (or between two cittas), and then suddently, a first citta arise without any Presently existing cause? Past cause is GONE, non existent in its future (current present)... I must be missing something. Lots of Metta, Alex #83586 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/3/2008 2:25:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: >By the mere fact that it occurred and is one of the conditions for the effect. You want some sort of substantial connection. I do not. I am satisfied with the mere fact of when this is, that will be. >>> But if there isn't a substantial connection, then how do we know that THIS cause caused THAT effect? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: By observing the regularity of pattern. The Buddha taught this/that conditionality as characterized by objectivity, necessity, invariability and conditionality. (I don't recall the sutta that lists these characteristics. I hope someone will point me to it.) ------------------------------------------------ In fact is Cause different from Effect? or Is Cause & effect the same thing? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: These are *exactly* the theories of causality examined and refuted by Nagarjuna, who relied on the Buddha's original teaching of conditionality instead. I suggest you read Jay L. Garfield's The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, available in paperback on Amazon. ------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Lots of Metta, Alex ============================== With metta, Howard #83587 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana, was: Real Experience of Abh. Q. truth_aerator Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > Quote from Conditional Relations, Introduction by U Narada (p. XII, > XIII): > conditioning forces inherent in the states [dhammas] cannot exist > apart from those states. >>>> So what happens when lets say citta accompanied by greed ceases? Does all the conditioning of greed passes away with passing away of that citta so that every moment there is a blank state? >?>>> For example, in root condition, the force of root condition (conditioning force) inherent in the state of greed, which is one of the six roots, cannot exist apart from that state. >>>> So what happens to greed when lets say aversive citta arises? Does the greed disappear, forever - in other words is it erased? Thank you for your answers, Lots of Metta, Alex #83588 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana, was: Real Experience of Abh. Q. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/3/2008 3:06:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, The subject of conditional force belongs to Han's corner. He also gave an explanation before. Op 2-mrt-2008, om 21:05 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > If A, B, C, and D are the requisite conditions for E, they are > conditions for it at the very moment that they occur. The mere fact > of their > occurrence is all that is required. There is nothing more to be > said than when > these are the case, that will be the case. One should not speak of > "conditioning force" that carries over. That is reminiscent of > Sati's error. > One can, of course ask, for example, why A, B, C, and D occurred, and > the answer, for each of them, is that the requisite conditions for > it were met. > That is simply taking explanation further back in time. ------ Quote from Conditional Relations, Introduction by U Narada (p. XII, XIII): He then gives an example that pa~n~naa besides being root-condition can also have the conditioninng forces of predominance, conascence, mutuality, etc. Nina. ============================= At best, this talk of a causal force or power is only metaphorical. All it really amounts to is that when this is, that will be. This reminds me of a story of a story I like that I related on DSG a good while ago involving a dim-witted city dweller who was told by a farmer that a seed has the power to sprout into a plant, a true sttement, of course. When the city dweller asked the farmer where in the seed that power to sprout was located, the farmer just stared at the man as one would stare at an escaped lunatic! With metta, Howard #83589 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 7:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 3/3/2008 3:18:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >How could an effect arise from a co-occurring cause? If the effect is already existent at that time, then it already arose, and the current "cause" is quite irrelevant! >>> Can you please explain what you mean by co-occuring cause? Can you provide some examples please? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I cannot. That's exactly my point. The "cause" precedes the effect. It is you who seems to want the "cause" to somehow persist and "make contact". -------------------------------------------------- Lots of Metta, Alex ========================== With metta, Howard #83590 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (14) ... Satipatthana here & now ... dhammanusara Dear Alex (Nina and other DSG friends), - Let me address an important issue in your post, i.e. > > Many people may quote Satipatthana sutta, but it DOES contain things > that do NOT refer to present moment ie: maranasati, or asubha (I > mean you don't see dead people or people with their livers hanging > out walking aroung). > > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > T: Satipatthana Sutta is about kayanupassana, ..., dhammanupassana. Each 'anupassana' consists of three stages. As pointed out by Ajaan Thanissaro, the first stage focuses on the objects of the meditation practice, the focal points that provide mindfulness with a foundation; the second satge focuses on the process of the meditation practice, on how a frame of reference is established; and the final stage indeed "refers to the present moment" which the bhikkhu dwells discerning with no attachment in the object of Satipatthana. [An excerpt from Introduction to DN 22 by Thanissaro Bhikkhu follows] Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body (feeling, mind, mental quality)' is maintained [simply] to the extent of knowledge & recollection. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This stage corresponds to a mode of perception that the Buddha in MN 121 terms "entry into emptiness": Thus he regards it [this mode of perception] as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: "there is this." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html Let me also add the Pali text for the "third stage" of Satipatthana as a reference, e.g. for kayanupassana : "atthi kaayo" ti vaa panassa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti [or else mindfulness that 'there is a body' is established in him] yaavad-eva ~naa.namattaaya patissatimattaaya, [just as far as (is necessary for) a full measure of knowledge and a full measure of mindfulness,] anissito ca viharati, na ca ki~nci loke upaadiyati. [and he dwells independent, and without being attached to anything in the world.] I hope now you agree that Satipatthana is about contemplation for the establishment of mindfulness with detachment in kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma in "the present moment". Sincerely, Tep === #83591 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? walterhorn Dear Howard, Alex et al., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > When we say that we are thinking of something, for example "thinking of > heat," that is merely a description of a thought process. To use that > language neither implies the existence of heat now nor even of some mental "thing" > that is a "thought of heat". It merely means that a certain sort of thought > process called "thinking of heat", a mental operation, is underway. > Speaking of aggregations for moment, Alex, instead of khandhic > elements: My father died many, many years ago. I was thinking about him this morning. > Was he there? Were any of the original mind states that involved "seeing > him" and "hearing him" there? (I use quotes, because "he" was known only > through the mind door, not eye or ear.) > Speaking of a paramattha dhamma: For many years I passed loads and loads > of kidney stones. I can easily bring to mind the severe colicky pain that > was involved. Is that pain present now? > Speaking of another paramattha dhamma: As a child, I loved the graham > cracker, custard pie that my mother baked, the delightful fragrance of which > filled the house. When a similar odor arises now, a glow of happiness arises in > me. It happens that I recall that pie and that fragrance and their > association with my mother, but even if I did not, the odor would still evoke the > happy response now. In either case, no pie is present, no mother is present, no > original mind state is present, and neither is the original fragrance present. > What was then, is not now, but at the time that it *was* present it served, > right then and there, as condition for what arises now. > ---------------------------------------------------------- For what it's worth, I think that is very well put and is an extremely important philosophical concept. The nature of mental acts, like that of language, is "to refer". The relation between a thought and "it's object" is not at all like that between two bricks smashing together. In fact, it's not really like anything else (i.e., anything that doesn't have this "referring nature") at all. The Medievals talked about properties--like the odor of your mom's custard pie--being "objectively present" in ideas, but they meant almost the opposite of what we mean by "objective" today. Best, Walto #83592 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 2/29/2008 1:47:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Hi Howard > > To my understanding, dhammas are considered to be "realities" in the > sense that they are the same for every sentient being, through all > time. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know what that "Same for every sentient being" business means. > First of all, without telepathic ability, how would one know? Secondly, I do > not believe that tastes and sights etc are the same, for example, in insects > and in humans. Thirdly, what's this "through all time" business? > -------------------------------------------------- This is an important aspect of "dhammas". The truths of the teachings are universal and not dependent on plane of existence, world system, era or any other variable that one may conceive of. This being so, then seeing consciousness is seeing consciousness and visible object is visible object regardless of the plane (human, animal, deva, etc) in which the seeing consciousness and the visible object arise. The same would also apply for, for example, kusala and akusala citta. > I do not see how, with this information, incorrect views can arise on > account of the choice of "realities" as a translation of the term "dhammas". > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Jon, I've already explained my objections to that usage, and I choose to > refrain from it as harmful. You, of course, can do as you wish. Why are you > beating this dead horse? It just won't run. > ------------------------------------------------------ Well up until now, our discussion has been on a general level and not about your or my choice regarding the use of the term "realities"; so I'm puzzled as to why the discussion has suddenly taken a rather personal turn ;-)) To get back to the discussion as it was proceeding, you have made some generalisations as to how the use of the term "realities" may condition wrong view in the reader/listener, and is also (if I have understood you correctly) a reflection of wrong view on the part of the user. My point is simply this: if the use of the term "realities" as a translation of "dhammas", based on established usage, is accompanied by a correct understanding and explanation of what dhammas are, then I don't see how the tendency to wrong view can be linked to that use of the term. But perhaps you have in mind particular circumstances or factors that I have overlooked. > I have not seen any > basis for it being the latter (other than the mere assertion/speculation > that it is so). > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So long as a not insignificant number of people misinterpret Theravada > based on language use, ... Yes, but what is the basis for the assertion that people's misinterpretation of Theravada is *based on language use*? Where does such an idea come from (can it be explained in Dhamma terms, for example)? > it is irrelevant whether you see them as foolish or > not, and whether you deem such language use as reasonable or not. > This has not been my meaning at all. You have misinterpreted my comments;-)) > When I was a > teacher, I would use whatever means would work to communicate to people, > without insisting on sticking only with speech I deemed "logical." If people > misinterpret certain terminology (by your lights), then try other terminology! > But I have not been suggesting in this thread that people have been misinterpreting certain terminology (in fact, I'd have said that was what you've been suggesting!). > The aim should be clear communication, not stubborn adherence to fixed ways of > speech. > ------------------------------------------------------ > ??!! I'm speech-less ;-)) Jon #83593 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 2:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] F/W message from Saengchan jonoabb Hi Saengjan Good to see your questions! Let me try giving an answer. > Well, my question is Panya ( of people in this era) can also know > how each citta in the mind door arises and falls away just like we > listened to the Dhamma, is that right? > I would say that only highly developed panna, such as the panna of a Buddha or the Great Disciples, could know the arising and falling away of individual cittas. To my understanding, the descriptions we read in the texts (Abhidhamma and Commentaries) of the succession of cittas arising in the sense and mind door processes are not given as things to be directly known by panna in the course of developing mundane insight. Beginning level panna knows individual dhammas as a dhammas, but it does not know an individual moment of a dhamma. That is to say, while visible object appearing is known as just visible object, there is no knowing of visible object in terms of single moments of visible object. > And the second question is that > panya understands the cause of the arising of seeing and then there is > also thinking after that understanding about the 24 conditions , is that > the process how it normally happens......understanding and then thinking > about it again ,like generalization ....is that so? > The knowing by panna of an object such as visible object, and the knowing by panna of the causes of that object or anything in relation to the 24 conditions, are different levels of panna, the latter being the more highly developed by far. Beginning panna may know visible object, but cannot know anything about the causes of the object or the 24 conditions in relation to that object. Hoping this addresses your questions. Looking forward to continuing the discussion! Jon #83595 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 2:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. truth_aerator Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Howard > > upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 2/29/2008 1:47:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > > jonabbott@... writes: > > > > Hi Howard > > > > To my understanding, dhammas are considered to be "realities" in the sense that they are the same for every sentient being, through all time. >>> Not always! For example a bee will see the same thing differently than a human being. The perceptions of forms are different. > This being so, then seeing consciousness is seeing consciousness and > visible object is visible object regardless of the plane (human, animal, deva, etc) in which the seeing consciousness and the visible object arise. The same would also apply for, for example, kusala and akusala citta. >>>> What you appear to say sounds like "Direct Realism" , something the Buddha didn't teach. Two different beings will percieved two different "things". The more their organs are different, the more different perceptions they will have. A blind man, a colour blind man and a bea will see the visual shapes DIFFERENTLY. Furthermore, perceptions are dependently arisen, based on the sense base, sense object, contact and consciousness and all the cetasikas. These things vary from being to being. Technically, two people cannot see EXACTLY the same things. They will always see the "same thing" from two different angles. The whole point of Buddhist teaching on epistemology is that since everything is dependently arisen, it cannot be absolute, static and unchanging. Since nothing is unchanging, it cannot be percieved in an absolutely the same way by two different people. Heck, an object isn't even the same for two consequetive moments. So how can it be >>> dhammas are considered to be "realities" in the sense that they are the same for every sentient being, through all time. >>> ??? Lots of Metta, Alex #83596 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:07 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi all, We are up to paragraph 3. The subheading here is "[The Three Kinds of Full Understanding]" "3. Here is the exposition: there are three kinds of mundane full- understanding, that is, full-understanding as the known, full- understanding as investigating, and full-understanding as abandoning, with reference to which it was said: "Understanding that is direct- knowledge is knowledge in the sense of being known. Understanding that is full understanding is knowledge in the sense of investigating. Understanding that is abandoning is knowledge in the sense of giving up (Ps.i,87). Herein the understanding that occurs by observing the specific characteristics of such and such states, thus, 'materiality (rupa) has the characteristic of being molested (ruppana); feeling has the characteristic of being felt', is called 'full-understanding as the known.' The understanding consisting in insight with the general characteristics as its object that occurs in attributing a general characteristic to those same states in the way beginning 'Materiality is impermanent, [607] feeling is impermanent' is called 'full- understanding as investigating.'(2) The understanding consisting in insight with the characteristic as its object that occurs as the abandoning of the perception of permanence, etc., in those same states is called 'full-understanding as abandoning.'" I missed them on my first few readings, but some of the key terms were: "by observing" "in attributing" and "as abandoning" along with "specific characteristic" "general characteristic" and "perception of." So, there is a lot in it. You will appreciate that it is for your sakes that I am going so slowly. :-) Any comments? Ken H #83597 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi TG > NEWEST TG: You wrote this Jon in your last post to me.... > > > When discussing dhammas, we need I think to keep in mind the difference > between (a) their inherent characteristics (of anicca, dukkha and > anatta) > > > Maybe you could explain to me what the heck the difference is between > "inherent characteristic" and "own characteristic"???? I may be a simpleton, but > aren't you directly contradicting yourself with these two statements? > The term "sabhava"/"own characteristic" refers to the unique characteristic that distinguishes one dhamma from another. For example, visible object is not audible object is not hearing consciousness; in each case the characteristic by which the dhamma may be known as the dhamma it is and not the other is called the sabhava. "Own" here simply means pertaining to the particular dhamma and not to any other. It has no other connotations, as far as I'm aware. Thus the ti-lakkhana are not the sabhava because they are common to all dhammas. But all characteristics inhere in the dhamma; that is implicit in the term "characteristic", I would say. >> #3) As for this take -- (unalterable, but lasting only for an >> infinitesimally short moment of time). Please supply a Sutta >> reference for this view of impermanence. But I'm quite sure there >> isn't one. BTW, this view of impermanence also falls into line >> with substantialism theory. I.E., you unwittingly see these >> "dhammas" as "existent selves" for brief moments. I know you >> won't think so...but I think so. >> > > To my understanding, the fleeting nature of dhammas is standard > Theravadin orthodoxy. Do you have a different view of the impermanence > of dhammas? > ..................................................... > > NEWEST TG: This is what I get in trying to discuss points with some of you > nice folks. My questions are ignored and I'm answered a counter-question > which sidetracks the issue being discussed. > > To say something last for a "brief moment," and to say that nature is > fleeting" (I'll leave out "dhammas") are two different things. You didn't answer > my question. My point was the Buddha did not phrase impermanence as you do, > and your phrasing supports my contention that your "dhammas view" is a subtle > and unwitting view of fleeting "existences/entities/selves." > > Seems like I'm boxing at shadows. Nobody's home to back up their > statements. Oh well. > It's not like that really. You should know by now that here we do not play the "suttas only, no other sources, please" game here ;-)). We all know how the Buddha phrased impermanence in the suttas. But that still leaves open the question of the whether or not dhammas are momentary. I'd be interested to know if you're saying they're not, so that the discussion can proceed further. Jon #83598 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:42 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Ken > I cant find the thread with teh sutta you and ray are discussing (is > there a secret way to find posts? ) > If form is a translation of rupa (pure guess as I don't know the > sutta), how do you get your particular interpretation?\ > robert > Hi Robert, What particular interpretation was that? As I said to Tep, I haven't seen any commentaries or discussions on this sutta, and so I am on my own. I can only assume it is consistent with the parts of the Dhamma that I already know (or think I know). What I told Ray was essentially (1) that namas and rupas really exist (2) that concepts do not really exist and (3) that, in my opinion, this sutta confirms points (1) and (2). What was so wrong about that? :-) Ken H > > R: >So it seems to me that what is being asserted here is the > truth > > about the > > > impermanent nature of the aggregates rather than some general > > statement > > > about wether or not they exist. > > --- > > > > You might be right, Ray. But the sutta does say that the *form* > that > > is impermanent is existent. It doesn't say that only the *truth > of* > > impermanence is existent. > > > > As you have shown us, the sutta also says the form that is > permanent > > does not exist. I think this means that the form of a person, or > a > > tree, or a coffee cup etc., does not exist, don't you? > > > > So, how do conditioned dhammas (which are impermanent) differ from > > concepts (which are permanent)? Surely, it is that the former > really > > exist, whereas the latter do not! (?) > > > > Ken H #83599 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Does the citta which has arisen and ceased, exist? upasaka_howard Hi, Walto - In a message dated 3/3/2008 4:41:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, calhorn@... writes: For what it's worth, I think that is very well put and is an extremely important philosophical concept. The nature of mental acts, like that of language, is "to refer". The relation between a thought and "it's object" is not at all like that between two bricks smashing together. In fact, it's not really like anything else (i.e., anything that doesn't have this "referring nature") at all. The Medievals talked about properties--like the odor of your mom's custard pie--being "objectively present" in ideas, but they meant almost the opposite of what we mean by "objective" today. ================================== You say "For what it's worth ..." Well, I can tell you that I value what you say here very much. I'm pleased with your support, pleased that you understood me, and appreciative that you wrote. With metta, Howard