#85400 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 6, 2008 11:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi all, Back to Vism. XX! Sorry for the delay. I have paused half way through para.19 because the post was getting too long. It looks heavy going, but give it a go and you will find it surprisingly easy. (Notice we have a new subheading.) "[STRENGTHENING OF COMPREHENSION OF IMPERMANENCE ETC., IN 40 WAYS] 18. Now when the Blessed One was expounding conformity knowledge, he [asked the question]: 'By means of what 40 aspects does he acquire liking that is in conformity? By means of what 40 aspects does he enter into the certainty of rightness?' (Ps.ii,238). In the answer to it comprehension of impermanence, etc., is set forth by him analytically in the way beginning: '[Seeing] the five aggregates as impermanent, as a disease, a boil, a dart, a calamity, an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as a plague, a disaster, a terror, a menace, as fickle, perishable, unenduring, as no protection, no shelter, no refuge, as empty, vain, void, not self, as a danger, subject to change, as having no core, as the root of calamity, as murderous, as due to be annihilated, as subject to cankers, as formed, as Mara's bait, as subject to birth, subject to ageing, subject to illness, subject to death, subject to sorrow, subject to lamentation, subject to despair, subject to defilement. Seeing the five aggregates as impermanent he acquires liking that is in conformity. And seeing that the cessation of the aggregates is the permanent nibbana, he enters into the certainty of rightness' (Ps.ii,238). So in order to strengthen that same comprehension of impermanence, pain and not-self, in the five aggregates, this [meditator] also comprehends these five aggregates by means of that [kind of comprehension]. 19. How does he do it? He does so by means of comprehension as impermanent, etc., stated specifically as follows: He comprehends each aggregate as 'impermanent' because of non-endlessness, and because of possession of a beginning and an end; as 'painful' because of oppression by rise and fall and because of being the basis of pain; as 'a disease' because of having to be maintained by conditions, and because of being the root of disease; as 'a boil' because of being consequent upon impalement by suffering, because of oozing with the filth of defilements, and because of being swollen by arising, ripened by ageing and burst by dissolution; as 'a dart' because of producing oppression, because of penetrating inside, and because of being hard to extract; as 'a calamity' because of having to be condemned because of bringing loss, and [612] because of being the basis for calamity; as 'an affliction' because of restricting freedom, and because of being the foundation of for affliction 'as 'alien' because of inability to have mastery exercised over them, and because of intractability; as 'disintegrating' because of crumbling through sickness, ageing and death; as 'a plague' because of bringing various kinds of ruin; as 'a disaster' because of bringing unforseen and plentiful adversity, and because of being the basis for all kinds of terror, and because of being the opposite of the supreme comfort called the stilling of all suffering; as 'a menace' because of being bound up with many kinds of adversity, because of being menaced by ills, and because of unfitness, as a menace, to be entertained; as 'fickle' because of fickle insecurity due to sickness, ageing and death and to the worldly states of gain etc.; as 'perishable' because of having the nature of perishing both by violence and naturally; as 'unending' #85401 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 2:40 am Subject: Metta, Ch 4, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 4. The Characteristic of Metta. The development of satipatthåna is not repeating words to oneself, or naming realities “nåma” and “rúpa”, without investigating the characteristics of the realities which appear. This becomes clearer when we read the “Velåma sutta” (Gradual Sayings, Book of the Nines, Chapter II, §10). We read that the Buddha, while he was near Såvatthí, at the Jeta Grove, spoke to Anåthapindika about the gifts given by him in a former life, when he was the brahmin Velåma. He compared the value of different good deeds: ...though with a heart full of confidence he took refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, greater would have been the fruit thereof, had he with confidence undertaken to keep the precepts: abstention from taking life, from taking what is not given, from carnal lusts, from lying and from intoxicating liquor, the cause of sloth. ...though with confidence he undertook to keep these precepts, greater would have been the fruit thereof, had he developed a mere passing fragrance of mettå. ...though he developed just the fragrance of mettå, greater would have been the fruit thereof, had he developed, just for a finger-snap, anicca- saññå, the perception of impermanence. Thus we see that the development of satipatthåna is of the greatest value, since through satipatthåna the characteristics of realities are seen as they are. Mettå is one of the four brahma-vihåras, divine abidings. The development of mettå is intricate and one should learn about it in detail. The Buddha explained that mettå should be developed time and again so that it can grow. When mettå has been developed, it can also support the development of the other brahma-vihåras of compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. When someone has developed mettå, he can have compassion: he will not hurt other beings. He can have sympathetic joy: he will rejoice in other people’s happiness. Whereas if one does not develop mettå one is likely to hurt other beings and one will not rejoice in their happiness. The Buddha stressed that the development of mettå is very beneficial, since mettå conditions the arising of other kusala dhammas. Therefore it is important to consider the development of mettå more in detail. If someone thinks that he can develop mettå by the recitation of texts about mettå, he should try to find out whether this is the right approach. ****** Nina. #85402 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 3:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why all the long lists in the Abhidhamma? nilovg Dear Alex, your question is justified, I understand it. Op 6-mei-2008, om 20:34 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > It begs the question: What is the use > of all the detail other than to take up ones time that can be spent > elsewhere (doing Dana, Sila, Samadhi, etc)? > > If one believe in Anatta of ALL components of "reality" and no Atta > outside, then what is the PRACTICAL use of listing 89/121 cittas, > dozens of cetasikas, 24 conditioned relations and 10K (or how many?) > of pages? -------- N: When we read the details we can see that a great deal of it (not all) is occurring in our life now. That helps, otherwise we would just be reading anatta, anatta, but not much meaning. Now we can partly verify: this reality is a condition for that reality in such a way and this makes our understanding of anatta firmer. We become more convinced that this citta now that has arisen cannot be manipulated to become otherwise. There are condiitons for clinging to all sense objects because it has been accumulated. But by listening to the Dhamma there are conditions for more understanding leading to the eradication of all clinging. We better understand the Buddha's words that 'It can be done'. If it could not be done he would not have told us so. Nina. #85403 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 7, 2008 2:53 am Subject: How to choose only good friends & spend wealth right? bhikkhu0 Friends: The Golden Buddhist Life Standards are the Primary Laws! The golden Buddhist's life standards make harmony for oneself and others. This layman's code of discipline = (gihi-vinaya) organize social relationships so that they produce a society of happy being and beings: Law 2 is: Law 2: Choose only True Friends and Prudent Money Planning: A. Choosing only good people as true friends will make life prosperous and constructive: How to recognize the 4 kinds of false friends only imitating a surface of goodness (mitta-patirÅ«paka)? I. The habitual cheater who only takes from friends, has four features: 1. He thinks only of getting & rarely of giving 2. He gives only little when in the hope of getting much. 3. Only when he is pressed in danger does he help his friend. 4. He imitates friendliness only to promote his own advantage. II. The smooth talker has four features: 1. He talks only of what is already done & now gone. 2. He talks only of what has not yet come. 3. He offers only help that has no true effect. 4. When his friend needs a hand, he then makes many excuses. III. The empty flatterer has four features: 1. He agrees even, when his friend is doing some wrong. 2. He also agrees, when his friend is doing right. 3. He sings only his beguiling praises, when the friend is present. 4. He runs him down behind his back, when the friend is absent. IV. The leader to ruin has four features: 1. He is a companion only when drinking. 2. He is a companion only when partying. 3. He is a companion only in frequenting shows and amusements. 4. He is a companion only in gambling, gaming and betting. How to recognize the 4 kinds of true friends with a genuine core goodness (suhada-mitta)? I. The helping friend has four features: 1. When his friend is off guard, then he guards & protects him. 2. When his friend is off guard, he guards & protects his property. 3. In times of danger, he is always a refuge of help & ready assistance. 4. In times of need, then he gives much more than asked for. II. The friend through thick and thin has four features: 1. He confess his own secrets to his friend. 2. He keeps his friend's secrets safe and sound. 3. He does not desert or betray his friend in times of danger. 4. He will give even his own life for his friend's sake. III The good counsellor has four features: 1. He restrains his friend from doing evil or harm. 2. He encourages him to do good & accumulate merit. 3. He explain to his friend, what he has not heard before. 4. He points out the way to prosperity, progress and happiness. IV. The loving friend has four features: 1. When his friend is unhappy, he sympathizes in pity. 2. When his friend is happy, he is also happy for him. 3. When others criticize his friend, he comes to his defence. 4. When others praise his friend, he joins in their praise. Such are the 4 false and the 4 true friends. Please take note of that! B. Allocating one's wealth rightly by being intelligent in earning, spending & saving: 1. One portion is to be used for supporting oneself, family, dependents, and for charity & good works. 2. Two portions to be used for investment in one's business or owned structures. 3. Another portion to be put aside as savings for future needs. Source: A constitution for Living. Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life. Ven. P.A. Payutto. Thailand. Buddhist Publication Society 2007: BP 620S http://www.bps.lk The Golden Buddhist Life Standards are the Primary Laws! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #85404 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Tue May 6, 2008 6:28 pm Subject: The Brahmans of Sala * rwijayaratne Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammâ Sambuddhassa! Sakyamuni Sambuddha Vihara <....> Summary: The brahman householders of Sala ask the Lord Buddha why some being are re-born in unhappy destinations (e.g. hell) following death whereas why others beings are re-born in happy destinations (e.g. heavenly realms) following death. The Lord Buddha explains that beings are re-born in unhappy destinations following death due to bad actions and bad conduct (comm. in present and past lives) whereas beings are re-born in happy destinations following death due to good actions and good conduct (comm. in present and past lives). On requested to give a detailed meaning of this, the Lord Buddha explains that there are three kinds of negative/bad bodily actions done with the body; 1) killing beings and being violent, 2) taking what is not given (stealing), 3) sexual misconduct (adultery) with beings protected by mother, father, brother, sister, relatives, is married, someone waiting to be punished, in relationships or are engaged to be married. He explains there are four kinds of negative/bad verbal actions done with the mouth; 1) lying, 2) divisive speech that causes divisions among people, 3) harsh and unkind speech, 4) empty words of little value connected with gossip and not connected with the Dhamma (comm. here silence is the preferred choice). He explains that there are three kinds of negative/bad mental actions done with the mind in thoughts; 1) coveting and desiring others things, 2) having ill-will towards other beings, wishing them ill and harm, 3) and having a distorted view and understanding of reality, which contradicts the true Dhamma (teachings). Taken from AccessToInsight.org1 Translated from Pali by Ñanamoli Thera THE BRAHMANS OF SALA Majjhima Nikâya 41 - Saleyyaka Sutta2 1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was wandering in the Kosalan country with a large Sangha of bhikkhus, and eventually he arrived at a Kosalan brahman village called Sala. 2. The brahman householders of Sala heard: "A monk called Gotama, it seems, a son of the Sakyans who went forth from a Sakyan clan, has been wandering in the Kosalan country with a large Sangha of bhikkhus and has come to Sala. Now a good report of Master Gotama has been spread to this effect: 'That Blessed One is such since he is arahant and Fully Enlightened, perfect in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable teacher of men to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened, blessed. He describes this world with its gods, its Maras, and its (Brahma) Divinities, this generation with its monks and brahmans, with its kings and its people, which he has himself realized through direct knowledge. He teaches a Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end with (the right) meaning and phrasing, he affirms a holy life that is utterly perfect and pure.' Now it is good to see such arahants." 3. The brahman householders of Sala went to the Blessed One; and some paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down at one side; some exchanged greetings with him, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, sat down at one side; some raised hands palms together in salutation to the Blessed One and sat down at one side; some pronounced their name and clan in the Blessed One's presence and sat down at one side; some kept silence and sat down at one side. 4. When they were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?" 5. "Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world." 6. "We do not understand the detailed meaning of this utterance of Master Gotama's spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be good if Master Gotama taught us the Dhamma so that we might understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning." "Then, householders, listen and heed well what I shall say." "Yes, venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this: 7. "Householders, there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. There are four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. There are three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. 8. "And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings. He is a taker of what is not given: he takes as a thief another's chattels and property in the village or in the forest. He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal. That is how there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. 9. "And how are there four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone speaks falsehood: when summoned to a court or to a meeting, or to his relatives' presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family's presence, and questioned as a witness thus, 'So, good man, tell what you know,' then, not knowing, he says 'I know,' or knowing, he says 'I do not know,' not seeing, he says 'I see,' or seeing, he says 'I do not see'; in full awareness he speaks falsehood for his own ends or for another's ends or for some trifling worldly end. He speaks maliciously: he is a repeater elsewhere of what is heard here for the purpose of causing division from these, or he is a repeater to these of what is heard elsewhere for the purpose of causing division from those, and he is thus a divider of the united, a creator of divisions, who enjoys discord, rejoices in discord, delights in discord, he is a speaker of words that create discord. He speaks harshly: he utters such words as are rough, hard, hurtful to others, censorious of others, bordering on anger and unconducive to concentration. He is a gossip: as one who tells that which is unseasonable, that which is not fact, that which is not good, that which is not the Dhamma, that which is not the Discipline, and he speaks out of season speech not worth recording, which is unreasoned, indefinite, and unconnected with good. That is how there are four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. 10. "And how are there three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is covetous: he is a coveter of another's chattels and property thus: 'Oh, that what is another's were mine!' Or he has a mind of ill-will, with the intention of a mind affected by hate thus: 'May these beings be slain and slaughtered, may they be cut off, perish, or be annihilated!' Or he has wrong view, distorted vision, thus: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed, no fruit and ripening of good and bad kammas, no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously (born) beings,1 no good and virtuous monks and brahmans that have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.'2 That is how there are three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. "So, householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. To be continued... Notes 1. More suttas from AcessToInsight.org can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html 2. This sutta can be found in full here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.nymo.html <....> #85405 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 7, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why all the long lists in the Abhidhamma? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/6/2008 10:30:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello all, > > One of the things is that Abhidhamma pitaka is very long, detailed > (too much for some), and so on. It begs the question: What is the use > of all the detail other than to take up ones time that can be spent > elsewhere (doing Dana, Sila, Samadhi, etc)? It is my view that much of the Abhidhamma proper is very valuable as a mindmap for the serious student of reality, who is typically a meditator. (I couldn't think of any greater folly than to study a map as an end in itself). However, some books of the Abhidhamma, such as the Dhatukatha, Puggalapannatti, Kathavatthu and Yamaka are more academic in nature. Also, it has become customary over time to represent Abhidhamma commentary as Abhidhamma, which is a very misleading practise, and cause for an unnecessary blemish on the reputation of the Abhidhamma proper. The following quote from B. Bodhi's introduction to the BPS' Abhidhammata Sangaha, makes clear to what extent this practise has come to corrupt Theravadan thought as to what is Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this following quoted material is important, and, I presume, correct. I will insert a comment or two, sometimes in agreement, and sometimes to create some opposing balance: "......we might briefly note a few of the Abhidhammic conceptions that are characteristic of the Commentaries but either unknown or recessive in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself. One is the detailed account of the cognitive process (cittavithi). While this conception seems to be tacitly recognized in the canonical books, it now comes to be drawn out for use as an explanatory tool in its own right. The functions of the cittas, the different types of consciousness, are specified, and in time the cittas themselves come to be designated by way of their functions. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The cognitive process may largely be a commentarial innovation, but it impresses me as beautiful psychological theory. I find it appealing, though I have no means to evaluate its relative correctness or lack thereof. My maintain objection to it is its foundation in the khanavada view of mind states. ------------------------------------------------------------- The term khana, "moment," replaces the canonical samaya, "occasion," as the basic unit for delimiting the occurrence of events, and the duration of a material phenomenon is determined to be seventeen moments of mental phenomena. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is an essential and very problematical matter which points in a dangerous direction. It has always been a matter that troubles me (or that Nina would say I "stumble over"). I don't consider it stumbling, though. I consider it more a "careful avoiding." ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------- The division of a moment into three sub-moments — arising, presence, and dissolution — also seems to be new to the Commentaries. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that is actually just a refinement of the commentarial notion of "moment," and, if anything, I see it as a step back towards a proper perspective. The wave-like behavior of growth, stasis, and dissolution certainly does seem to be a common, though not exclusive, characteristic of change. ----------------------------------------------------------- The organization of material phenomena into groups (kalapa), though implied by the distinction between the primary elements of matter and derived matter, is first spelled out in the Commentaries, as is the specification of the heart-base (hadayavatthu) as the material basis for mind element and mind-consciousness element. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The notion of kalapa seems to be a nod in the direction of "normal experience," inasmuch as differing types of material form do seem to co-occur. Note: For those who believe that only paramattha dhammas have any sort of existence, kalapas, not being such, must be viewed as non-existent and utterly illusory! (Likewise for processes of mind states!) --------------------------------------------------------------- The Commentaries introduce many (though not all) of the categories for classifying kamma, and work out the detailed correlations between kamma and its results. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Which seems to fly in the face of the Buddha having taught that the details of kamma are too complex, and attempting to unravel kamma will only drive one insane! ----------------------------------------------------------------- They also close off the total number of mental factors (cetasika). The phrase in the Dhammasangani, "or whatever other (unmentioned) conditionally arisen immaterial phenomena there are on that occasion," apparently envisages an open-ended universe of mental factors, which the Commentaries delimit by specifying the "or-whatever states" (yevapanaka dhamma). Again, the Commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma). The task of defining specific dhammas is finally rounded off by the extensive employment of the fourfold defining device of characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause, a device derived from a pair of old exegetical texts, the Petakopadesa and the Nettipakarana." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see the foregoing as a scholastic attempt to tidy things up! But reality isn't so tidy. Also, this business of "bearing one's own nature" (as opposed to identifying of rupas as material qualities, some namas as mental qualities, and other namas as mental events/operations), tends towards reification of dhammas, turning rupas into self-existent material "atoms," some namas into mental "atoms," and most namas into agents - like miniature persons. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, the practical use of some of the Abhidhamma is in sitting and finding it to be so, or not so. The rest of it is fodder for and by academics. (Perhaps a greater folly than the one I mentioned before, is to draft a map without surveying the territory :-)) Cheers Herman ==================================== With metta, Howard #85406 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 7, 2008 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why all the long lists in the Abhidhamma? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex & all - In a message dated 5/7/2008 7:42:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: My maintain objection to it is its foundation in the khanavada view of mind states. =============================== The word 'maintain' was meant to be 'main'. LOLOL! I find I must laugh as I think of what a time Dr Freud would have with that slip! Evidently my objection to khanavada is some thing I really want to maintain!! ;-)) With metta, Howard #85407 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 7, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Whoops!! Re: [dsg] Re: Why all the long lists in the Abhidhamma? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman & Alex & all - In a message dated 5/7/2008 7:57:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Alex & all - ============================== I meant Herman, guys! ;-) With metta, Howard #85408 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 7, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Of Bats & Frogs sarahprocter... Dear Connie, (Nina, Robert & all), A little more on this topic. Connie wrote: “Now I think of the question about “the intelligence “of animals ….how was it the 500 bats benefitted – in that lifetime – from hearing Abhidhamma?” Just to review with a few key Pali terms inserted this time: Atthasalini, Introductory Discourse: “Now Saariputta, having learnt the Law taught (by the Teacher) preached it to five hundred bhikkhus, his own pupils. The following is their connection with the past. They, so it is said, were born as bats in the time of the Buddha Kassapa. Hanging from (the roof of) a cave, they heard the voice of two bhikkhus reciting the Abhidhamma and grasped a general idea [sare nimitta.m gahetvaa] that it was the Law, being unable to distinguish the good from the bad. They passed away with only the general idea suggested by the voice [sare nimittagaahamattaken’] and were reborn in the world of gods. They dwelt there during a whole interval between the death of one Buddha and the appearance of the next, and in the time of this Buddha were reborn as men.” S: As I wrote before to Robert: “I take this as referring to the nimitta as object of the last javana cittas as conditioned by previous kamma. I don't take it as evidence for panna being developed in animals.” As I understand, the object of these cittas before death is determined by previous kamma and is one of the 3 kinds of sign (kamma, kamm animitta or gati nimitta). As kamma nimitta, it may be any object experienced through any door-way, such as a sound or visible object, like now. Similar wording is used in the account of the frog: Visuddhimagga, V11, 51: “While the Blessed one was teaching the Dhamma to the inhabitants of the city of Campaa on the banks of the Gaggaraa Lake, it seems, a frog (ma.n.duuka) apprehended a sign in the Blessed One’s voice [sare nimitta.m aggahesi]. A cowherd who was standing leaning on a stick put his stick on the frog’s head and crushed it. He died and was straight away reborn in a gilded divine palace twelve leagues broad in the realm of the Thirty-three (Taavati”mssa). He found himself there, as if waking up from sleep, amidst a host of celestial nymphs, and he exclaimed, ‘So I have actually been reborn here. What deed did I do?’ When he sought for the reason, he found it was none other than his apprehension of the sign in the Blessed One’s voice.[Bhagavato sare nimittaggaahaa] S: Again, the passage is referring to the sign (nimitta) of the last moments, the last javana cittas, conditioned by kamma before death which led to the happy rebirth. After hearing the sound (the kamma nimitta), kamma conditioned the rebirth consciousness. The sound heard was just a sound, but of course it must have been followed by kusala cittas in that process (the 5 javana cittas conditioned by past kamma – janaka kamma, I believe) resulting in the next rebirth consciousness. Actually, it could be now! The sound or the visible object appearing now could be the sign of the last moments of this life if death were to come now. I like this reminder we’re always given. So, I think what I’m stressing is that the sign itself (the sound in these examples) can’t condition rebirth consciousness and the experience of it depends entirely on kamma. There are many signs, many sounds and visible objects now as we write. It depends entirely on past kamma which one is experienced and by what kind of cittas, leading to rebirth consciousness. [It is a complex area and I’ll be glad of any corrections in the detail.] Nina also gave the following summary of the Tiika to the Visuddhimagga on the frog: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/73027 “The Tiika gives as an example the deity’s son Ma.n.duuka, who was a frog in his previous life (Vis. Ch VII, 51), and who apprehended a sign in the Buddha’s voice when he heard the sound of him explaining the Dhamma. This means that he had kusala citta after hearing the sound. Next to the dying-consciousness that was akusala vipaaka, there was for him pa.tisandhicitta with three hetus, thus accompanied by pa~n~naa. We read that he, when listening to the Buddha as a deva, he attained the stage of the sotaapanna.” ***** S: Now with regard to the example given of making the plough with wisdom which Nina recently referred to (#85304) in her response to your (Connie’s) question, we discussed this before. I mentioned that I believed the references to worldly wisdom in the Visuddhimagga , such as the inventing of a plough, were given as an analogy to indicate how there’s a difference between following another blindly and reasoning on one’s own. I don’t see any development of panna as being involved in scientific development, teaching/learning languages, building nests and dwellings or other kinds of worldly skill in themselves. Of course, this isn’t to say that panna cannot develop during such activities just as at any other time for those who have heard and considered what samatha or satipatthana are and who clearly understand the objects of panna and the distinction between kusala and akusala in the case of samatha development. It’s difficult for me to see what possibilities there are for any bhavana when ordinary birds make nests, or frogs or bats hear sounds either. Even cinta maya panna is panna based on wise consideration of the Teachings, of dhammas arising now, which have been heard and carefully reflected on. (Yes, I’m leaving aside the bodhisatta as a wise animal!). Anyway, we may have to agree to differ when it comes to the development of understanding (panna) in these examples of birds, bats and frogs and in the examples of wordly skill unless anyone can point out where I’ve gone wrong in these reflections. Metta, Sarah ========= #85409 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 7, 2008 6:49 am Subject: Perfections Corner (145) nichiconn Dear Friends, Ch.4 continues: The perfection of pa~n~naa is essential for the development of the other perfections in the right way. We should remember that the goal of the development of the perfections is pa~n~naa which penetrates the four noble Truths. Since its development to that degree takes an endlessly long time, pa~n~naa, in its turn, is also dependent on the other perfections. We can notice in this life that someone who has developed the perfections will be inclined to listen to the Dhamma, whereas someone who has not developed the perfections does not see the benefit of the development of pa~n~naa and does not want to listen to the Dhamma. Even though there is still opportunity to listen to the true Dhamma, he is not interested in listening. A person who has already developed the perfection of pa~n~naa to a certain extent, wishes to understand and to know the true nature of realities, no matter where he is born, or even if he is born into a family where there is wrong view. We read in "The Questions of Pi'ngiya" (Cuulaniddesa of the "Khuddhaka Nikaaya") that the Brahmin Pi'ngiya who was hundred and twenty years old asked the Buddha: "I am old and weak, I have lost my beauty, and moreover, my eyesight and my hearing are not clear. Meanwhile, Lord Buddha, may I not go astray, may the Lord explain the Dhamma that he penetrated, the Dhamma that makes an end to birth and old age." A person with pa~n~naa would not ask for anything else but hearing the true Dhamma which makes an end to birth and old age. Although Pi'ngiya was hundred and twenty years old, he wanted to listen to the true Dhamma. He had accumulated pa~n~naa to such degree that he saw the benefit of listening to the Dhamma. We read further on: "The Buddha said to the Brahmin Pi'ngiya: 'People are intoxicated, they are oppressed by physical phenomena, ruupas. It can be seen that people are disturbed because of ruupas. Therefore, Pi'ngiya, you should not be neglectful, you should give up clinging to ruupas so that you will not be reborn.' " ..to be continued, connie #85410 From: "Alex" Date: Wed May 7, 2008 7:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... truth_aerator Hi TG and Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Sukin > > 1) Conditioned phenomena could never be "ultimate." Conditioned phenomena are relative. > > 2) Conditioned phenomena could never be "own" Conditioned phenomena are > completely dependent. > > > 3) Conditioned phenomena are never stable, not even for a billion billion billion billion billion billionths of a second....squared. Conditioned > phenomena are "moving and tottering, wearing away and falling apart." > TRUE! Lets remember also DO... Avijja conditions Sankhara. Sankhara conditions vinnana. Vinnana conditions nama-rupa. Ultimately it is due to avijja that there is rebirth and experience of vinnana, namarupa (citta, cetasika, rupa) Avijja -> vinanna, nama-rupa .... > > 4) The teaching on "elements, aggregates, etc." is NOT done for the purpose > of seeing the elements as "independent (ultimate) realities." The teaching > on "elements, aggregates, etc." IS done for the purpose of breaking down > phenomena in such a way as to more easily "see" conditionality and causal > principles. I.E., for purposes of analysis. > > > Perhaps this will clarify my position. > > > TG > ALso it was done for the purpose to create disenchantment and dispassion towards inherent unsatisfactoriness of anicca-dukkha- anatta in what we call a "living being" where there isn't ANY stability or security at all. Best wishes, Alex #85411 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 7, 2008 4:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/7/2008 8:49:07 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: ALso it was done for the purpose to create disenchantment and dispassion towards inherent unsatisfactoriness of anicca-dukkha- anatta in what we call a "living being" where there isn't ANY stability or security at all. Best wishes, Alex .................................................. Hi Alex Absolutely! That's the heart of the matter. I confined my comments to positions that perhaps most contradicted the "ultimate realities" and "own characteristics" viewpoint. TG #85412 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 7, 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, Herman, All Butting in... (and BTW, hope you are well.) In a message dated 5/6/2008 10:40:53 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Herman & all, Welcome back! --- Herman Hofman <_hhofmeister@hhofmeist_ (mailto:hhofmeister@...) > wrote: > > S: Whatever we reflect on, whatever we imagine, however we spend our > day, > > there are ultimate realities, namas and rupas, which can be known. > > ... > > I hope you don't mind if I add my voice to other requests for > clarification. What is the function of the word "ultimate" in the > above? It seems to me that there are no degrees of reality. ... S: I agree, realities are realities. I was following TG's lead here. My comment was in response to his: ........................................................... TG: What? Alice never had a wonderland this mind stretching. Following TG's lead??? My goodness, I learned the term "ultimate realities" from Nina and Sarah as far as I can remember.. The thing TG does, year after year, is to deny there is any such thing as "ultimate realities." ............................................................ >TG: In Fact, the Satipatthana is asking us to IMAGINE the body to be like a bag > of rice!!! LOL Well, that's a far cry from "Ultimate Reailites." .......................................................... TG: I guess I should have put the obligatory "the so-called" in front of "Ultimate Realities." Consider it retroactively done. .......................................................... .... S: Paramattha (ultimate) is used to make it clear that it is not conventional (sammuti)realities that are being referred to. As you know, people and computers can be said to be conventional realities, but they are concepts (pannatti) and do not have validity in an ultimate sense. They are mentally constructed unlike the paramattha dhammas (highest/final dhammas). ..................................................................... TG: Mind boggling. Just a second ago I thought I was being blamed for a (inadvertent?) use of the word "Ultimate" which you seemed to disavow. Now your tossing it out hand over foot. Doesn't this indicate that you want to use the term? OK enough of that...please read on... One "person" might call an assemblage of elements, normally thought of as a human being -- a "person," and another might call it "5 aggregates," in either case ... the "thing" being referred to is the SAME THING. Granted, the "holders" of these views might have different levels of insight, and then again, they might not. In either case, this is just the use of "conventional language." The Buddha had no problem talking about people, mountains, ships, etc. because he was not fooled by the language. This has nothing to do with a different standard of reality. Even the language of 'elements' and 'aggregates' is conventional. When a sked directly, the Buddha said that feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness were not "separate things, but were merely separated for purposes of analysis. The idea of a "person" is a mental construct. The idea of "elements" is a mental construct... Mental constructs are conditioned, impermanent, afflicted, and nonself. They are coreless, void, insubstantial. They are a dart, a disease, a murderer. They should be rejected and transcended. TG OUT #85413 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (143) nilovg Dear Han, Op 7-mei-2008, om 2:35 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I was not talking about delaying kusala and the development of > satipatthana. I was only asking whether some level of pa~n~naa is > necessary or not for the arising of samvega? I was expecting a yes > or no answer. > > But I will have to do with your comment: pa~n~naa is accompanied by sati that does not waste the opportunity > for kusala, does not delay it, but with pa~n~naa kusala is of a > higher degree, it can be a perfection.> > > From this, I draw the following conclusions. If my conclusions are > wrong, please correct me. > > (1) When there are conditions for the arising of sati and it is > aware of a dhamma appearing now, there is samvega already. It may > or may not be accompanied by pa~n~naa. ------- N: Awareness of a dhamma now is accompanied by pa~n~naa. -------------- > > H: (2) The samvega can arise without pa~n~naa because the sati does > not let pass an opportunity to be aware. -------- N: I gave the example of dana which may occur without pa~n~na. Then there is sati of the level of dana: it does not waste an opportunity for kusala. It does not delay kusala. Can we call this a sense of urgency? I think samvega is used mostly in the case of realizing the danger of birth, old age, etc. and then immediately being aware of nama and rupa. Thus, after all, there must be pa~n~aa, but I find it hard to pinpoint these things. Kusala cittas with pa~n~naa and without pa~n~naa can alternate quickly. Even while giving, there are so many cittas involved. Some cittas may be without understanding, alternated with cittas with understanding that realize kamma and vipaka, or cittas that realize the shortness of life: life existing in only one moment of citta, or cittas that are aware of nama and rupa: no self that is generous. ------- > > H: (3) But samvega with pa~n~naa is of a higher degree, it can lead > to satipatthaana and insight. ------- N: See under 2, I would not measure the degree of samvega. It is really complicated to know exactly how conditions work at such or such moment. Nina. #85414 From: "Alex" Date: Wed May 7, 2008 2:17 pm Subject: The eternity of Now?! Citta feeling eternity. Problems of being unconscious truth_aerator Hello all, One feels as if the current awareness (even if it includes thinking about the past or the future) has always been as one block of experience WITHOUT GAPS where the experience is missing. Example: I was in a hospital once to get checked out for something. I was injected with a tranquilizer. I have imagined that I would drop into some black silent and equanimous void without any sights/sounds/tastes/smells,feelings. However suddenly I have realized that a short procedure was over and some time was mysteriously missing. WITHOUT ME FEELING ITS ABSENCE. Another example: Lets say John is walking down the street and a brick falls on him causing John to go unconscious. One moment John is aware of walking, the other moment of pain and being somehow mysteriously teleported to the hospital - "How did I get there? Ouch! What happened? Why is my forehead red and hurts so much?" Example we all face each night. One moment we are relaxing cozy in a warm bed at night feeling really tired from hard days work, and the next moment we hear the alarm clock and bright sunny morning. 8 hours or more may have passed externally, but the feeling is of the same ONE CONTINUITY OF EXPERIENCE. Subjectively being fully knocked out for minutes, hours, days or weeks feels exactly the same. Somehow consciousness is immune against feeling its own non-existence. True the contents change all the time and personality doesn't survive, even during the same ONE life (5 year old John's personality doesn't exist in 25 year old John, even if it is conventionally "one person" or one individual stream of changes) Examine the above examples, you probably have many of your own cases. It is interesting speculation about what will happen if an injured person under coma, undergoes a surgery where most if not all of the body parts are changed. Will lets say John die, feel the black and silent void, and some "Jack" wake up? Or will it be a continuity of previous stream that was radically changed? Perhaps the person will say "hey what have you done to my body? I don't remember this" or will the person continue as if John hasn't died but has came out of the coma (without a perception of totally new body yet)? This case is almost possible today. Perhaps in few decades brain transplants (or regeneration) will be possible, it may be possible to replace defective body parts (including the brain) with new ones 100%. Even though the change is drastic both mentally and physically, I don't think that John will be aware that I am dead and Jack woke up. The best analogue we have today is is falling asleep and dreaming a vivid dream. Sure one moment you are who you are right now. The next moment it is totally different body, circumstances, feelings, thoughts, memories and personality. But the individual identity (Presence of individual point of experience) is present, even though the difference in everything is too drastic. If you were in negative mind state when falling asleep, then the dream could be negative, a nightmare, but vice versa for the positive mind state. Interesting speculation about Kamma and how it leads to rebirth… The contents have changed, but not the continuity – even though the changes may have been drastic and over long distances of time and space. When one is "unconscious" (as viewed by other beings) the world doesn't disappear. When a person is unconscious, one does NOT COGNIZE "SELF" BEING UNCONSCIOUS. There is only a last feeling/though prior to becoming unconscious and first feeling/though AFTER emerging without perceiving of the gap. In other words subjectively there is no difference AT THE MOMENTS OF TIME HAPPENING NOW between being fully unconscious and conscious. In other words subjectively there can't be subjectively felt unconscious state without being subjectively conscious of it, and only analyzed in retrospection. Only when you are conscious again, then you MAY through conscious retrospection possibly find out if you were unconscious or not. This happens to us all at night when we fall into deep sleep. There is never feeling of non existence or (I don't exist, I am unconscious). It is only through CONSCIOUS inference (by looking at a clock, at the evening or morning or some other physical events) that we can even infer about `missing time'. From my point of view, I can see someone ELSE unconscious at this moment, but I can never feel myself unconscious. The unconscious gap in one's own mind stream, even if it is 100,000 MK long is not felt without conscious. Consciousness cannot ever itself go to sleep or be unconscious, or conscious of itself ceasing. One consciousness can be conscious of some other item ceasing, but not of itself. If the knowing Citta cognizes as if the present moment always exists and has existed, since citta by itself cannot cognize its own boundaries prior its emergence and what happens after it ceases as it just cognizes NOW. It has a finite cognition and thus cannot by itself cognize the infinitude of its non-existence prior and posterior. You may think that it cognizes that it didn't exist before and will cease after this moment, but this itself is a cognition (or arising, passing away, non-existence) and not a lack of cognition (and thus its own limitation) which is supposed to be for eternity stretching to the past and eternity to the future. This wrecks the citta's self- perception of citta's self-impermanence. Of course if one STABLE citta that lasts a very long time could observe OTHER citta arising, enduring and passing away, then there could be perception of other citta being impermanent and so on. So if we assume that individual is made of only ONE citta happening at a time then we have an unintended consequence. Even if one is made of many cittas arising and passing away, A)each citta feels eternity; B)The conventional person (individual stream of changes) who is made up of cittas, cetasikas, rupas always feels NOW - as if one has ALWAYS "existed". The above two wouldn't be a big problem for Rebirths (without survival of any set personality or atta of course). In fact the above written arguments help to explain rebirth. However this totally wrecks the conventional understanding of Nibbana without remainder as mere cessation of all "experience", and as a feeling less black void of nothingess. Conventionally Nibbana is viewed as cessation of 5 Aggregates and no further existence of ANY KIND. This is practically identical to how nihilists/materialists/atheists view death. For them there is 1 life only and then a plunge into black void of nothingness. A Buddhist it seems has almost infinite amount of lives and HAS TO work really hard for the above... Nibbana bhava nirodha. Nibbana is cessation of existence or better translated - Nibbana is cessation of Becoming (or unbecoming) someone or something in kama/rupa/arupa loka. Nibbanam paramam sukham. Nibbana is the highest happiness. However, HOW is this highest happiness felt if there is nothing to feel it and nothing to feel the absence of samsara? Some say that it is highest happiness because nothing is felt. This is said in one of the suttas. Notice the English phrase nothing IS felt. If there isn't any "feeling", then by analogue, the absence of suffering isn't felt either. There has to be awareness of Nibbana without remainder of some sort apart from that of samsara. I think that it is too simplistic and impossible to imagine Final Nibbana as simple cessation of all consciousness, which may be impossible anyway. Again, just as one can't "know" unconsciousness (as argued above) without becoming conscious again and using inferences (such as missing time) thus making subjective stream ALWAYS conscious in one way or another. In the same way how can Final Nibbana in conventional interpretation (of mere extinction) happen? If the stream of rebirths was without beginning (eternal in the past), then it could NEVER END since the today's (or future) date would be eternally into the future from the point of view of eternal past. However if we do posit a finite amount of rebirths, then we run into causality and first cause problem. If we speculate that one's rebirths are finite, but cannot be recollected by oneself (one can't be conscious of non-conscious pre or post non-existence) then one personally cannot witness one's own end either. One's own final nibbana could only be witnessed by others (and only as cessation of the last body), just like one cannot witness one's own unconscious state unless regaining consciousness and being very observant about missing time and changed circumstances. Ok, in the last paragraphs maybe speculating too much about something beyond speculation (PariNibbana). I suspect that we need to study carefully, DO, and exact meaning of such pali words as "Nirodha", "bhava", "Nibbana" (which due to elapsed time and extinction of spoken/native Pali) we may never know exactly what they meant. However we can still practice... :) Any comments, suggestions, critiques? Best wishes, Alex #85415 From: han tun Date: Wed May 7, 2008 3:23 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (143) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanations. Can I ask you one last question, please? Is samvega (1) kusala citta, or (2) akusala citta, or (3) kusala vipaaka citta, or (4) akusala vipaaka citta, or (5) can be any of the above categories depending on the conditions, and it is really complicated to know exactly how conditions work at such or such moment? Thank you very much for your kind patience. Respectfully, Han #85416 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 7, 2008 7:10 pm Subject: Re: Of Bats & Frogs scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for this: S: "Visuddhimagga, V11, 51: 'While the Blessed one was teaching the Dhamma to the inhabitants of the city of Campaa on the banks of the Gaggaraa Lake, it seems, a frog (ma.n.duuka)...When he sought for the reason, he found it was none other than his apprehension of the sign in the Blessed One's voice.[Bhagavato sare nimittaggaahaa]" Scott: I really dig this story. I've liked it since I first read it. I also appreciate the Tiika given by Nina: S: "...The Tiika gives as an example the deity's son Ma.n.duuka, who was a frog in his previous life (Vis. Ch VII, 51), and who apprehended a sign in the Buddha's voice when he heard the sound of him explaining the Dhamma. This means that he had kusala citta after hearing the sound. Next to the dying-consciousness that was akusala vipaaka, there was for him pa.tisandhicitta with three hetus, thus accompanied by pa~n~naa. We read that he, when listening to the Buddha as a deva, he attained the stage of the sotaapanna." Thank you. Sincerely, Scott. #85417 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 7, 2008 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken, Thanks for resuming this discussion. It's going to take a little time to get up to speed again. I've forgotten where we are and what we were talking about. A key element of these two paragraphs is "conformity knowledge". Here is what I was able to dig up: 18. Now when the Blessed One was expounding conformity knowledge, he [asked the question]: 'By means of what forty aspects does he acquire liking that is in conformity? By means of what forty aspects does he enter into the certainty of rightness?' (Ps.ii,238).4 Note 4. ' "Liking that is in conformity" is a liking for knowledge that is in conformity with the attainment of the path. Actually the knowledge itself is the "liking" (khanti) since it likes (khamati), it endures, defining by going into the individual essence of its objective field. The "certainty of rightness" is the noble path; for that is called the rightness beginning with right view and also the certainty of an irreversible trend' (Pm. 784). Larry: Conformity knowledge arises immediately before a change of lineage consciousness (gotrabhuu citta) and will be discussed further in the next chapter. At this stage the meditator is not ready for this knowledge but he is beginning to look at the 5 khandhas in these 40 ways: "So in order to strengthen that same comprehension of impermanence, pain, and not-self in the five aggregates, this [meditator] also comprehends these five aggregates by means of that [kind of comprehension]." I think one might say there are levels of wisdom consciousness (pa~n~naa citta). Here we are at a middle level. Each level experiences an object and understands it as impermanent, for example. When a conformity consciousness arises impermanence is still impermanence but a high level of path inevitability sets in. Or something like that ;-) Larry #85418 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed May 7, 2008 10:51 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Larry, Thanks for your comments on liking that is in conformity. I was pleased read Note 4 where it says "Actually the knowledge itself is the "liking" (khanti) since it likes (khamati), it endures, defining by going into the individual essence of its objective field." Also, in the same note, there was: The "certainty of rightness" is the noble path; for that is called the rightness beginning with right view and also the certainty of an irreversible trend'" Very nicely said! :-) -------------------------- L: > Conformity knowledge arises immediately before a change of lineage consciousness (gotrabhuu citta) and will be discussed further in the next chapter. At this stage the meditator is not ready for this knowledge but he is beginning to look at the 5 khandhas in these 40 ways: --------------------------- We might think it is a little bit laborious to have to read all 40 ways of doing the same thing. But it just gives a little taste of how often right understanding needs to arise. Countless times in countless lifetimes! :-) Ken H "So in order to strengthen that same comprehension of > impermanence, pain, and not-self in the five aggregates, this > [meditator] also comprehends these five aggregates by means of that > [kind of comprehension]." > > I think one might say there are levels of wisdom consciousness (pa~n~naa > citta). Here we are at a middle level. Each level experiences an object > and understands it as impermanent, for example. When a conformity > consciousness arises impermanence is still impermanence but a high level > of path inevitability sets in. > > Or something like that ;-) > > Larry > #85419 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (143) nilovg Dear Han, Op 8-mei-2008, om 0:23 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Is samvega > (1) kusala citta, or > (2) akusala citta, or > (3) kusala vipaaka citta, or > (4) akusala vipaaka citta, or > (5) can be any of the above categories depending on the conditions, > and it is really complicated to know exactly how conditions work at > such or such moment? -------- N: It can only be kusala citta with wise attention, yoniso manaasikara. Nina. #85420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi ken and Larry, Op 8-mei-2008, om 7:51 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > Actually the knowledge itself is > the "liking" (khanti) since it likes (khamati), it endures, defining > by going into the individual essence of its objective field -------- N: Khamati: to be patient, and it can also mean: to approve of. But in this context where I read 'it endures', I think that khanti is patience and khamati to be patient. What do you think? Conformity knowledge, anuloma ~naa.na, yes, as Larry said it arises just before change-of -lineage. It conforms to the attainments just past and to what is to come. Nina. #85421 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 256, 257 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 256, 257 Intro: In the beginning of the exposition of the Dependent Origination it was said that ignorance conditions formations, sankhaara, namely kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma (aruupaavacara kusala citta). Formations condition vi~n~naa.na, rebirth-consciousness. The following sections deal with the purpose or usefulness of the repetition of the fact that kamma conditions becoming. Actually, in this formula of the dependent origination it is said that clinging (upadaana) conditions becoming. As we have seen, becoming, bhava, has two meanings : kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming. In the beginning it was said that kamma formation, sa.nkhaara conditions rebirth consciousness, sa.nkhaara being actually cetanaa cetasika, volition. As to the link: clinging conditions becoming, bhava, here the dhammas associated with volition are also included. The repetition is useful because different aspects are shown. -------------- Text Vis. 256: 3. 'As to purpose': although formations of merit, etc., are of course dealt with in the same way in the description of becoming and in the description of formations (see Vbh. 135 and 137), nevertheless the repetition has a purpose. For in the former case it was because it was a condition, as past kamma, for rebirth-linking here [in this becoming], while in the latter case it is because it is a condition, as present kamma, for rebirth-linking in the future [becoming]. Or alternatively, in the former instance, in the passage beginning, 'Herein, what is the formation of merit? It is profitable volition of the sense sphere' (Vbh. 135), it was only volitions that were called 'formations'; but here, with the words 'All kamma that leads to becoming' (Vbh. 137), the states associated with the volition are also included. And in the former instance it was only such kamma as is a condition for consciousness that was called 'formations'; but now also that which generates non-percipient becoming is included. -------- N: In the former case it was said: formations, sa.nkhaara, conditions consciousness, vi~n~naa.na. But in the latter case it generates also birth with only ruupa, thus no vi~n~naa.na. --------- Text Vis. 257: But why so many words? In the clause 'With ignorance as condition there are formations', only profitable and unprofitable states are expressed as the formation of merit, etc.; but in the clause 'With clinging as condition, becoming', profitable and unprofitable and also functional states are expressed because of the inclusion of rebirth- process becoming. -------- N: The Pali text states abhyaakata, indeterminate, and here this refers to dhammas that are the results of kamma. The term ‘functional states’ used by the translator usually refers to kiriya dhammas which is not correct in this case. Maung Tin translates abhyaakata as indeterminate. It is said that indeterminate dhammas are expressed because of the inclusion of rebirth-process becoming. Since becoming, bhava, also includes upatti bhava, rebirth-process becoming, indeterminate dhammas as the result of kamma are mentioned. -------- Text Vis : So this repetition has a purpose in each case. This is how the exposition should be known 'as to purpose here'. ****** Conclusion. This text reminds us that kamma performed at this moment may be a condition for future rebirth. We should have a precise understanding of the citta at this moment, we should know whether it is kusala or akusala. We may take for kusala what is actually akusala. We may believe that we perform many good deeds, but it should be known that often we think of obtaining some advantage for ourselves such as being beloved by others, and then there is akusala citta. ******** Nina. #85422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 7, 2008 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... nilovg Op 7-mei-2008, om 4:34 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > N: "...I think that upa can also be an intensitive. To contemplate or > investigate thoroughly with wise attention. See PED 4." > > Scott: I see this. This would be due to the presence of manasikaara, > I guess. What is it that gives this mental factor the quality of > 'yoniso'? ------- N: Let us take up the text again: "...Yathaa yathaa na.m - nijjhaayati - yoniso upaparikkhati, Rittaka.m tucchaka.m hoti yo na.m passati yoniso... Etaadisaaya.m santaano maayaaya.m baalalaapinii, Vadhako eso akkhaato saaro ettha na vijjati." Scott: 'Passati yoniso' ("to see" - [and note] - "to recognise, realise, know: only in combn with jaanaati (pres. jaanaati passati;..." This latter is suggesting that, since this form is not used in the sutta, then this sort of 'seeing', while possibly serving as condition for the arising of pa~n~naa, is not yet 'seen' by pa~n~naa.]) But neither is it just thinking or speculating or coming up with one's own ideas about things either. I think this is why the designation 'yoniso' is used. -------- N: First passati: this usually refers to pa~n~naa in contexts as the above. As to yoniso manasikaara, this refers to the mind-door adverting consciousness, in a sense-door process, where it is called votthapanacitta, and in a mind-door process, together with the following kusala cittas. It is called the controller of the javana cittas. Yoniso manasikaara can occur due to accumulations of kusala. Nina. #85423 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 8, 2008 1:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (143) sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Nina), As I recall, samvegga refers specifically to right effort (accompanied by right understanding). Anything can be a prompt - even reflections on the disaster in Myanmar/Burma. When there is right understanding of the reality appearing now, there is samvegga. When there's a concern about a sense of urgency or trying to develop it or doing something for it to arise, it's not right effort, right understanding or samvegga. Metta, Sarah --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > Op 8-mei-2008, om 0:23 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > Is samvega > > (1) kusala citta, or > > (2) akusala citta, or > > (3) kusala vipaaka citta, or > > (4) akusala vipaaka citta, or > > (5) can be any of the above categories depending on the conditions, > > and it is really complicated to know exactly how conditions work at > > such or such moment? > -------- > N: It can only be kusala citta with wise attention, yoniso manaasikara. > Nina. #85424 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 8, 2008 1:26 am Subject: Metta, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Question: It is written that one should recite: “May all beings be free from misfortune, may they be free from sorrow and unhappiness, may they live in happiness. ” Khun Sujin: You wish this for all beings, don’t you? Question: That is right. This is actually the extension of mettå. I have learnt the Påli text, but since I do not know the meaning I use the Thai translation for my recitation. In this way I can understand the words I recite. I think that while I am reciting there is sati. Sometimes it happens that I am reciting and then, without realizing it, I do not go on with the reciting. I am at times distracted and I think of other things. But at other moments I realize that I am reciting and that I should not think of other things. When I notice that I stop reciting is there then sati? When there is sati I can start again from the beginning with the recitation of the text. Khun Sujin: You extend mettå to all beings, but have you attained jhåna already? If that is not so how can you extend mettå to all beings? When there is mettå the citta is calm. When you think of a person you dislike, a person you love or a neutral person and there is no calm at such moments, how can you extend mettå to all beings? As the Visuddhimagga explains, in the beginning it is difficult to have mettå for a person one dislikes, a person one loves or a neutral person. When you recite that you wish happiness for all beings can you truly extend mettå to all beings? You can only have boundless mettå, including all beings, no matter where they are, if you have attained jhåna. People should not believe that they, when they begin to develop mettå, can truly, wholeheartedly, wish happiness to all beings. When they really know themselves, they can find out that they do not mean this. When they think of someone they dislike mettå does not arise. Are they then sincere when they recite that they wish happiness for all beings? As we have seen, the attainment of jhåna is necessary in order to be able to extend mettå to all beings. ******* Nina. #85425 From: han tun Date: Thu May 8, 2008 3:59 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (143) hantun1 Dear Nina, > > Han: Is samvega (1) kusala citta, or (2) akusala citta, or (3) kusala vipaaka citta, or (4) akusala vipaaka citta, or (5) can be any of the above categories depending on the conditions, and it is really complicated to know exactly how conditions work at such or such moment? -------- > Nina: It can only be kusala citta with wise attention, yoniso manaasikara. --------. Han: It is all very clear now. Thank you very much, Nina. Respectfully, Han #85426 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/5/7 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman & all, > > Welcome back! Thank you very much. > p.s I know you've been through a lot as a parent. I just got home from > sitting in on the very final stage of the Appeal of a highly publicised > murder case (which you may have read about last summer, the 'Milk Shake > Murder', in which an American wife killed her extremely wealthy American > banker husband and then hid the body. The jury found her guilty and she > was given a life sentence). > > As it happens, we were invited to attend the last stage of the Appeal by > our friend, her lawyer and a fellow surfer! No judgement given, but I > found myself consoling the mother of the defendant afterwards. She was the > only relative present. Not something one would wish any parent to go > through (extremely gruesome testimony and the defendant herself looked > extremely weak and fragile). I felt a little shaken myself. > > These are all concepts, conceptual realities which I'm thinking about as I > write to you. In truth, in (ultimate) reality, there were only then and > are only now the various namas and rupas, moments of seeing, hearing, > thinking, compassion and aversion and so on. None belonging to anyone. > ======== Thank you also for the clarification about degrees of reality. Most of all, I appreciated your account of your time spent in the court room the day you replied. I understood that "story" all too well, and I felt myself wishing that I could do something, anything, to lessen the suffering of those, including you, that were involved in your account. I realise that you would feel this way sometime, perhaps often, maybe all the time. But it is no relief to me to regard our private and shared histories as "only" thinking. Firstly, because to label something as only thinking, is also thinking. Secondly, because the alternative you offer, that there are only namas and rupas, is also thinking. No such division exists in an unthought reality. In view of the above, and from personal experience, the only real alternative, which is only a stop-gap solution, is the cessation of thinking. (I say stop-gap, because thinking always returns. And if it doesn't return, you won't know about it :-)) There are no winners in this game we're in, and I certainly don't want to suggest that I have a secret weapon in the fight against suffering. But I do not see the identification of thought, by thought, as anything other than a flight from the reality which we share when we are not in jhana. Cheers Herman #85427 From: han tun Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:18 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (143) hantun1 Dear Sarah (Nina), > Sarah: As I recall, samvegga refers specifically to right effort (accompanied by right understanding) . Han: “samvega refers to right effortâ€? is new to me. ------------------- > Sarah: Anything can be a prompt - even reflections on the disaster in Myanmar/Burma. When there is right understanding of the reality appearing now, there is samvegga. Han: Right. -------------------- > Sarah: When there's a concern about a sense of urgency or trying to develop it or doing something for it to arise, it's not right effort, right understanding or samvegga. Han: I cannot speak for others, but for me, I do not have a concern about a sense of urgency, I do not try to develop it, and I won’t do anything specifically for it to arise. As you said above, when I reflect on the disaster in Myanmar with yoniso-manasikaara, the samvega will arise in me without me doing anything for it to arise. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #85428 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott and (Howard), 2008/5/6 Scott Duncan : > Dear TG, > > > This latter is suggesting that, since this form is not used in the > sutta, then this sort of 'seeing', while possibly serving as condition > for the arising of pa~n~naa, is not yet 'seen' by pa~n~naa.]) But > neither is it just thinking or speculating or coming up with one's own > ideas about things either. I think this is why the designation > 'yoniso' is used. > Many of us, including Howard himself, do get a kick out his self-confessed Freudian slips. I'm wondering if your suggestion that it is possible to come up with "one's own ideas" falls under this umbrella? (Freudian slip, that is) Cheers Herman #85429 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Many of us, including Howard himself, do get a kick out his self-confessed Freudian slips. I'm wondering if your suggestion that it is possible to come up with "one's own ideas" falls under this umbrella? (Freudian slip, that is)" Scott: No. Sincerely, Scott. #85430 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/8 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > > Regarding: > > H: "Many of us, including Howard himself, do get a kick out his > self-confessed Freudian slips. I'm wondering if your suggestion that > it is possible to come up with "one's own ideas" falls under this > umbrella? (Freudian slip, that is)" > > Scott: No. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Do you believe that it is possible to come up with "one's own ideas"? Cheers Herman #85431 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 4, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/8/2008 4:27:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Khun Sujin: You extend mettå to all beings, but have you attained jhåna already? If that is not so how can you extend mettå to all beings? When there is mettå the citta is calm. When you think of a person you dislike, a person you love or a neutral person and there is no calm at such moments, how can you extend mettå to all beings? As the Visuddhimagga explains, in the beginning it is difficult to have mettå for a person one dislikes, a person one loves or a neutral person. When you recite that you wish happiness for all beings can you truly extend mettå to all beings? You can only have boundless mettå, including all beings, no matter where they are, if you have attained jhåna. People should not believe that they, when they begin to develop mettå, can truly, wholeheartedly, wish happiness to all beings. When they really know themselves, they can find out that they do not mean this. When they think of someone they dislike mettå does not arise. Are they then sincere when they recite that they wish happiness for all beings? As we have seen, the attainment of jhåna is necessary in order to be able to extend mettå to all beings. ======================================= As the old adage goes, "Rome was not built in a day." Moreover, metta cultivation does not begin by directing loving attention to those whom one dislikes. That comes later. As for jhana, metta meditative practices are a way to induce jhanas. So, it works both ways - calm supports metta, and metta supports calm. With metta (and calm ;-), Howard #85432 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Do you believe that it is possible to come up with "one's own ideas"?" Scott: No. Its just a manner of speech. One's 'own ideas' are just impersonal views. There is right view and wrong view. Sincerely, Scott. #85433 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/8 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "Do you believe that it is possible to come up with "one's own ideas"?" > > Scott: No. Its just a manner of speech. One's 'own ideas' are just > impersonal views. There is right view and wrong view. > I agree with you. Whatever view is held is so held because of conditions. There is no-one who comes up with, or has right or wrong views. But if I would take that a step further, I cannot agree with your second point. The assessment of what is right and/or wrong is also conditioned. If we take conditionality to it's limit, there are no absolutes. Cheers Herman #85434 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:58 am Subject: Perfections Corner (146) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 continues: People who have developed pa~n~naa know that dukkha, suffering, arises because of clinging to ruupa. In order to abandon dukkha, we should eliminate clinging to ruupas. The dukkha in our life is caused by ruupas, because we cling and take delight in the sense objects of colour, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. All these objects are the cause of diverse kinds of dukkha. Further on we read: "The term 'by ruupas' (ruupesu) means: by the four great Elements and the derived ruupas that are dependent on these *1. Beings are disturbed and troubled, they are hurt and killed because of ruupa; ruupa is the condition and the cause of this. *1 The four Great Elements are: Earth or solidity, Water or cohesion, Fire or temperature and Wind, motion or pressure. The derived ruupas are twenty-four ruupas. Ruupas arise and fall away in groups, consisting of at least eight ruupas: the four Great Elements and four derived ruupas. Because of ruupa, Kings commit many kinds of deeds, they inflict many kinds of punishment. They have someone beaten by whips, sticks, split rods. They have people's hands, feet, earlobs, and nose cut off. They have a pot of boiling rice placed on someone's head...." It is because of ruupas that we can experience the effect of being punished, like being beaten by whips etc. We read further on: "The skin of the head is stripped off so that its colour is white as a conchshell...their body is cut up and smeared with a biting liquid...They have their skin stripped off, their bones smashed; they have the body sprinkled with hot oil; they let the dogs eat the flesh of their body, they let their body be pierced by spears, or they have it cut up with a knife.... All beings are bound to be troubled, harmed and killed, because of ruupa. One can see, investigate and consider this so that pa~n~naa develops and one sees clearly that all beings are troubled and harmed in those ways. Therefore the Buddha said that he saw all beings being troubled because of ruupa." .. to be continued, connie #85435 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 5:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the reply: N: Let us take up the text again: "...Yathaa yathaa na.m - nijjhaayati - yoniso upaparikkhati, Rittaka.m tucchaka.m hoti yo na.m passati yoniso... Etaadisaaya.m santaano maayaaya.m baalalaapinii, Vadhako eso akkhaato saaro ettha na vijjati." N: "First passati: this usually refers to pa~n~naa in contexts as the above. As to yoniso manasikaara, this refers to the mind-door adverting consciousness, in a sense-door process, where it is called votthapanacitta, and in a mind-door process, together with the following kusala cittas. It is called the controller of the javana cittas. Yoniso manasikaara can occur due to accumulations of kusala." Scott: I see how the 'yoniso' refers to the kusala nature of the citta that arises. I'm guessing that it is the function of votthapanacitta to serve as 'director' of the process that follows, whether kusala or akusala. I'm also guessing that, citta-viithi aside, it is manasikaara, arising conascently with votthapanacitta which performs the function of directing citta to the object in that moment. If this is so, and if 'passati' in the moment of votthapana-citta refers to pa~n~naa, does this mean that pa~n~naa also arises with votthapana citta? Sincerely, Scott. #85436 From: "S.Ganesh" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 3:59 am Subject: Taking A Stand sganesh77 Taking a Stand By Ven. Abhinaya Some time ago I picked up a Buddhist magazine, on the cover of which was a design purporting to show the hand of the Buddha turning the Dharma-wheel. On the back cover however, there was a commercial advertising , among other things, meat and fish for sale. Strange companions, front and back ! Certainly, I am aware that money must be raised for the publishing of such magazines ; it doesn't grow on trees. But I also think that discretion should be used in the selection of advertisements to be included in Buddhist magazines, even if it means rejecting some and thereby losing some funds ; after all, the purpose of publishing such magazines is to propagate the Dharma, is it not ? If we compromise our principles, we defeat our purpose.By allowing the pages of a Buddhist magazine to be used for advertising meat for sale , we are even if only indirectly condoning killing. Indefensible Feel free to disagree ; it won't prevent me speaking out. Some Buddhists maintain that the Buddha never said we should be vegetarians, and that monks ( who the bulk of the Buddhist rules apply to ), may eat whatever is offered to them, as long as they do not see, hear, or suspect that the animals, fish or fowl were killed especially for them ; if they so see, hear or suspect, they are forbidden to eat the flesh. But this standpoint is totally indefensible, as anyone who look sat things a little objectively can see. And to say, as some people do, that by eating meat, they are helping the animals with their spiritual growth, is too ridiculous and transparent to be seriously considered for a moment. Firstly, the Buddha never called anyone to believe or follow Him ; instead, He urged people to see for themselves and find out what is true. Even so, many Buddhists become prisoners of books, repeating things like parrots or tape-recorders, without investigating, thereby missing the great value of the Buddha's Way, which is a Way of self-reliance. He exhorted people to" Test my Teachings as a gold-smith would test gold ," and " Workout your own salvation with diligence " ( according to the Buddhist scriptures, these were His last words ), and not depend upon Him to save them,because " Buddhas are only Teachers ; they do but point the Way " which is the most that anyone can do ; belief in saviours is regarded as a myth, with no foundation in fact. Metta-Karuna To use scripture to justify the disgusting and cruel habit of eating meat is both dishonest and unworthy. I've never been able to reconcile the preaching of Metta-Karuna ( Loving-Kindness & Compassion ) with the practice of meat-eating ; they contradict each other. And as to seeing, hearing or suspecting that the animal was killed especially for someone, well ,for whom is the animal killed if not for those who eat its flesh ? No amount of twisting , juggling and verbal gymnastics can get around that. If nobody ate meat, the butcher would not kill the animals. This is not only obvious to everyone except those who refuse to see, but is in line with the Buddha's teachings about the Law of Dependent Origination, or Cause-and-Effect in the moral realm, whereby it is shown how one thing leads to another in a chain-like sequence. <....> To conclude : Just as it is natural for a flower to give off scent, so Vegetarianism should be a natural expression of our understanding that, just as we ourselves wish to be happy and avoid pain,other living things feel exactly the same way. Is it really so esoteric that only very few people are able to comprehend this ? I don't think so, and therefore I'll continue to stand up for the animals, and say : Stop killing ! Be kind to animals by not eating them ! About the author Venerable Abhinyana was born in 1946, in England to a Protestant family. In 1970, during summer holidays in India, he made his first contact with Buddhism and found out this religion was what he needed to follow and practice. Finally, in 1972, he left his home and became Buddhist monk in the Thai Theravada Tradition in Malaysia. From 1979 he started his teaching career here and there, to provide the teachings of Buddha for everyone with the purpose of helping them get rid of their suffering and achieve happiness.Especially, he spent much time in helping Vietnamese refugees in Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand. Venerable Abhinyana is constantly travelling to offer the Dharma talk for those wishing to learn and practice Buddhism. Courtesy of Venerable Abhinyana.Universal Dharma Website. Published in PDF by Shabkar.Org, Amsterdam 2006. #85437 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 5:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...But if I would take that a step further, I cannot agree with your second point. The assessment of what is right and/or wrong is also conditioned. If we take conditionality to it's limit, there are no absolutes." Scott: (Sorry, what was my second point?)I don't quite follow this latter phrase above. What do you mean by 'take conditionality to it's limit'? If one agrees that there is either right view or wrong view, is this not 'absolute'? Please clarify, if you would. Sincerely, Scott. #85438 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 5:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/8 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "...But if I would take that a step further, I cannot agree with your > second point. The assessment of what is right and/or wrong is also > conditioned. If we take conditionality to it's limit, there are no > absolutes." > > Scott: (Sorry, what was my second point?) I read your second point as being "there is right and wrong view". I called it a second point because I read it to be in contrast to our agreement that views are impersonal. (which means conditioned to me, but perhaps not to you?) I don't quite follow this > latter phrase above. What do you mean by 'take conditionality to it's > limit'? If one agrees that there is either right view or wrong view, > is this not 'absolute'? Please clarify, if you would. A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes is conditional. Cheers Herman #85439 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - In a message dated 5/8/2008 8:43:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes is conditional. =============================== I would see this as correct only if nothing whatsoever were real - only if there were no reality at all. But thern, it could not be correct, for correctness presumes a reality by which the view is measured! If there is such a thing as reality, by which I mean "the way things actually are," and which I do believe to be the case, then any view is more or less in accord with reality. though we may not know it what respect or to what extent. On the other hand, the premiss of there being no such thing as reality is meaningless, for it could neither be true nor false to any degree (else its having truth-value already presumes a reality), and yet it, as every assertion, asserts its own truth. ;-) I see the no-reality perspective as a thoroughgoing cognitive and ontological nihilism, and I reject it. (I don't mean to imply that I think you need to reject it, however.) With metta, Howard #85440 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 6:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I read your second point as being "there is right and wrong view". I called it a second point because I read it to be in contrast to our agreement that views are impersonal. (which means conditioned to me, but perhaps not to you?)" Scott: Thank you. I don't see that a distinction between right and wrong view is in contrast to agreeing that views are impersonal. I think we differ here. I refer to sammaa-di.t.thi and michaa-ditt.thi. And we may differ in the meaning of 'conditioned' and 'conditionality'. H: "A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes is conditional." Scott: We differ here. I don't have a problem with dhammas having characteristics. We can leave this part of the discussion aside. To say that views don't have characteristics is a bit anarchical. Adherents are conceptual, but I think I get what you are suggesting. Right this moment I am thinking about 'my view' and am thinking about 'your view' and I am thinking 'Herman is wrong' and 'I am right', but this has nothing to do with sammaa-di.t.thi and michaa-di.t.thi. If I think I'm right, this misses the point. The thought, 'I'm right' arises, for example, from the wrong view that someone has a view that is either right or wrong; views condition thinking, which will be either right or wrong. No one thinks, though. No one is right or wrong. And I do think you are using 'conditionally' in the conventional sense here - at least just above - not in reference to Conditions a la Pa.t.thaana (i.e. the 24 conditions sort of thing), but to refer to some sort of exchange of ideas between people. Everything occurs due to conditions, but this has, in my opinion, nothing to do with 'agreement'. Sincerely, Scott. #85441 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 2:26 am Subject: Typo-Corrected Reformulation Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts ... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - In a message dated 5/8/2008 8:43:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes is conditional. =============================== I would see this as correct only if nothing whatsoever were real - only if there were no reality at all. But thern, it could not be correct, for correctness presumes a reality by which the view is measured! If there is such a thing as reality, by which I mean "the way things actually are," and which I do believe to be the case, then any view is more or less in accord with reality, though we may not know in what respect or to what extent. On the other hand, the premiss of there being no such thing as reality is meaningless, for it could neither be true nor false to any degree (else its having truth-value already presumes a reality), and yet it, as every assertion, asserts its own truth. ;-) I see the no-reality perspective as a thoroughgoing cognitive and ontological nihilism, and I reject it. (I don't mean to imply that I think you need to reject it, however.) With metta, Howard #85442 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 6:38 am Subject: Typo-Corrected Reformulation Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts ... walterhorn Hi, Howard and Herman. I'd just add to Howard's post (with which I heartily agree), that where truth has been taken to be an INtrinsic (rather than EXtrinsic) characteristic, as Herman suggests, there has been nothing but philosophical muddles, and self-contradictions (often based on puns). I think it's sometimes necessary to render unto Reid, Russell, Tarski and Quine. Best, Walto #85443 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 8, 2008 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... nilovg Hi Herman, Op 8-mei-2008, om 13:03 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > But it is no relief to me to regard our private and > shared histories as "only" thinking. > > Firstly, because to label something as only thinking, is also > thinking. > > Secondly, because the alternative you offer, that there are only namas > and rupas, is also thinking. No such division exists in an unthought > reality. ------- N: It is only thinking, this may sound harsh and I feel so much with you. I used to feel like you, but now I see it differently. It reall helps to understand different cittas as conditioned elements, thinking included. What can we do about a sad experience we had and that we keep in our thoughts? We can develop a little more understanding of the different cittas and the conditions for whatever we experience or think about. There are only namas and rupas, we often hear this. We may come to understand this more when we realize cause and effect in our life, but I do not like preaching to you. We cannot change the cause of something that happened, it is unavoidable. But gradually our attitude may change. It is possible, it can be done, according to the sutta. Nina. #85444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 8, 2008 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi Howard, there is nothing I disagree with. Op 8-mei-2008, om 13:43 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > As the old adage goes, "Rome was not built in a day." Moreover, metta > cultivation does not begin by directing loving attention to those > whom one > dislikes. That comes later. As for jhana, metta meditative > practices are a way to > induce jhanas. So, it works both ways - calm supports metta, and metta > supports calm. ------- N: I disagree with someone's political ideas, or I find some leading persons in a government dishonest, and then I have aversion, true. That is akusala, no calm. It is best then not to think too much of persons, rather of conditions for the happening of calamities. Nina. #85445 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:13 am Subject: Can anyone enlighten me? pannabahulo Well, perhaps that question isn't going to get many/any replies. But please,what is the difference between yoniso manasikara and Dhamma vicaya? It's confusing me right now. With metta and every best wish, Pannabahulo #85446 From: Ken O Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... ashkenn2k Hi Scott No, bacause panna could only arise in citta with roots or in the javana cittas. votthapana-citta is paccaya for javana citta mostly by anantara-paccaya and samanantara paccaya also other paccaya which I too lazy to find out :-). votthapana determines the object and not determines the next citta. If it determines the next citta, then the whole mental process is fixed and not allow to change. The flexible of the process depends at the javana stage. Why? Because it would mean that objects become the determiner because the object does not change throught the whole process. Objects would then determine what is kusala and aksuala in the votthapana citta stage. panna could arise at javana citta by yoniso manasikaara, it does not implied it should be before javana. As maniskaara is a unversal cetasika, when arise with panna,it is call yoniso manasikaara. Twofold explanation by my personal thinking, it must arise before the 2nd and successive other pana javana cittas could arise. the effects of javana for long lasting effect is on the 2nd javana effect. So to me, wise attention is known as condition for panna as it could mean for 2nd panna onwards. The second reason is that the arisen of the 1st javana citta with panna depends on the prior wise attention that was accumulated. Hence again, it is always used wise attention as condition to panna This is like taints accumulated that causes the arisen of akusala cittas at javana stage. This accumulation could only change through understanding, learning and reading of the dhamma. That is why it is so much fun in Buddhism. Cheers Ken O --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for the reply: > > N: Let us take up the text again: > "...Yathaa yathaa na.m - nijjhaayati - yoniso upaparikkhati, > Rittaka.m tucchaka.m hoti yo na.m passati yoniso... > > Etaadisaaya.m santaano maayaaya.m baalalaapinii, > Vadhako eso akkhaato saaro ettha na vijjati." > > N: "First passati: this usually refers to pa~n~naa in contexts as > the > above. As to yoniso manasikaara, this refers to the mind-door > adverting consciousness, in a sense-door process, where it is > called > votthapanacitta, and in a mind-door process, together with the > following kusala cittas. It is called the controller of the javana > > cittas. Yoniso manasikaara can occur due to accumulations of > kusala." > > Scott: I see how the 'yoniso' refers to the kusala nature of the > citta > that arises. I'm guessing that it is the function of > votthapanacitta > to serve as 'director' of the process that follows, whether kusala > or > akusala. I'm also guessing that, citta-viithi aside, it is > manasikaara, arising conascently with votthapanacitta which > performs > the function of directing citta to the object in that moment. If > this > is so, and if 'passati' in the moment of votthapana-citta refers to > pa~n~naa, does this mean that pa~n~naa also arises with votthapana > citta? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > #85447 From: "Alex" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:47 am Subject: Re: Can anyone enlighten me? truth_aerator Dear Bhante, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > Well, perhaps that question isn't going to get many/any replies. > But please,what is the difference between yoniso manasikara and Dhamma > vicaya? > It's confusing me right now. > With metta and every best wish, > > Pannabahulo > I am not 100% sure if there is big difference. Both focus on discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate, what leads to stress what ends it, etc. Good link to read: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html #part2-g Best wishes, With Metta, Alex #85448 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/8/2008 7:03:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Secondly, because the alternative you offer, that there are only namas and rupas, is also thinking. No such division exists in an unthought reality. ============================= No such division *in terms of name or concept* exists as an unthought reality, but there is in reality a distinction between what we call "nama" and what we call "rupa." The hardness we experience through body sense is completely different from the "hardness thought about" and completely different from the bodily consciousness that is the knowing of it and completely different from the thinking about it. Likewise, that which is seen is different from the seeing and different from the thinking about it and different from the thought-about-sight. This is clear to me. I can only express it to you through speech and concept, for that is what speech and concept are all about - communicating, but what I am discussing here is wordless, concept-free experience. The fact that what is experienced is just "such," just what it is, does not imply no differences. With metta, Howard #85449 From: Ken O Date: Thu May 8, 2008 9:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... ashkenn2k Hi Herman <> KO: stop thinking will lead to a plane called as cessation of preception where the body is in suspended animation. KO: label something is not thinking, just like Buddha label anatta and Nibbana. Label something is just perception, sanna - an aggregate. I am one person who do not care whether it is thinking or not. What matter is whether at the moment, there is understanding of anatta, anicca and dukkha. Instead looking for a stop gap measure does not lead to anywhere, why not use the old age medicine prescribe by Buddha. The 4NT. Cheers Ken O #85450 From: Ken O Date: Thu May 8, 2008 9:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why all the long lists in the Abhidhamma? ashkenn2k Hi Alex what is true or not, that depends on yourself to find out. that is also kamala. If you think that is not good for you, its perfectly fine with me. But there is no need to dispute this with the dinosaurs here because we find it good enough for us, that is also kamala. Cheers Ken O #85451 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/8/2008 6:14:40 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: (Sorry, what was my second point?)I don't quite follow this latter phrase above. What do you mean by 'take conditionality to it's limit'? If one agrees that there is either right view or wrong view, is this not 'absolute'? Please clarify, if you would. ..................................................................... Hi Herman and Scott A "view" is not "its own" thing. It is conditioned. Being conditioned, it is void and empty of anything of "itself." It is a mere by-product of causal interactions. It is impermanent, afflicted (with impermanence) and nonself. It is impermanent because its causes and conditions are impermanent. It is afflicted with impermanence and a source for more affliction by being a basis for craving. As all conditions, it is nonself. What is conditioned, is relative. What is relative, is not absolute. TG #85452 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Herman, Scott To claim that a "view," or any particular "identifiable," is a Reality; is an unreal account. The "things," elements, aggregates, etc. are not "Realities" The "Reality" is that these things have no "individual or own Reality." Yes Howard, there is a Reality, and it is the "ungraspable conditionality" which manifests as impermanent, afflicted (with impermanence), and nonself. TG In a message dated 5/8/2008 7:23:18 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: I would see this as correct only if nothing whatsoever were real - only if there were no reality at all. But thern, it could not be correct, for correctness presumes a reality by which the view is measured! If there is such a thing as reality, by which I mean "the way things actually are," and which I do believe to be the case, then any view is more or less in accord with reality. though we may not know it what respect or to what extent. On the other hand, the premiss of there being no such thing as reality is meaningless, for it could neither be true nor false to any degree (else its having truth-value already presumes a reality), and yet it, as every assertion, asserts its own truth. ;-) I see the no-reality perspective as a thoroughgoing cognitive and ontological nihilism, and I reject it. (I don't mean to imply that I think you need to reject it, however.) With metta, Howard #85453 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 6:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Herman We all can experience different experiences and they do arise. But it is in the regarding of "what" has arisen that marks the difference between right and wrong view...and subsequent afflictions. If the experience is regarded as a "reality with its own intrinsic characteristics," then I would call that just another example of "self-view," a false-view. If the experience is regarded as -- "an impermanent and empty (of its own characteristic) outgrowth of conditional interactions," then I'd see it as in accordance with the causal principles demonstrated in the Suttas and observable in the world (of experience). Experiences do arise, they arise as conditionally relative, effervescent, insubstantial, coreless, "passing on's." Nothing "of their own" at all. But unfortunately, attachment to them is a source of pain. So give them "the bird" and move on. LOL TG In a message dated 5/8/2008 9:59:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: No such division *in terms of name or concept* exists as an unthought reality, but there is in reality a distinction between what we call "nama" and what we call "rupa." The hardness we experience through body sense is completely different from the "hardness thought about" and completely different from the bodily consciousness that is the knowing of it and completely different from the thinking about it. Likewise, that which is seen is different from the seeing and different from the thinking about it and different from the thought-about-thought-about-sight. This is clear to me. I can only express speech and concept, for that is what speech and concept are all about - communicating, but what I am discussing here is wordless, concept-free experience. The fact that what is experienced is just "such," just what it is, does not imply no differences. With metta, Howard #85454 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman & Scott) - In a message dated 5/8/2008 12:40:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard, Herman, Scott To claim that a "view," or any particular "identifiable," is a Reality; is an unreal account. The "things," elements, aggregates, etc. are not "Realities" The "Reality" is that these things have no "individual or own Reality." Yes Howard, there is a Reality, and it is the "ungraspable conditionality" which manifests as impermanent, afflicted (with impermanence), and nonself. TG =============================== Please note that I spoke of "reality," and not "realities." With metta, Howard #85455 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 8, 2008 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Can anyone enlighten me? nilovg Venerable Pannabahulo, Op 8-mei-2008, om 17:13 heeft pannabahulo het volgende geschreven: > But please,what is the difference between yoniso manasikara and Dhamma > vicaya? -------- N: Dhamma vicaya is one of the seven sambojjhangas, factors of enlightenment, and it is pa~n~naa cetasika. Yoniso manasikaara refers to the votthapanacitta in a sense-door process, which is followed by kusala cittas, and to the mind-door adverting consciousness which is followed by kusala cittas, in a mind- door process. These cittas preceding the kusala cittas are kiriyacitta, inoperative citta, and called in this context: the controller of the javana cittas. Strictly speaking yoniso manasikaara refers to the kiriyacitta, but the kusala cittas following in its train are also reckoned as yoniso manasikaara. The proximate cause for each kusala citta is called yoniso manasikaara. With respect, Nina. #85456 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 8, 2008 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... nilovg Dear Scott, Op 8-mei-2008, om 14:03 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I'm also guessing that, citta-viithi aside, it is > manasikaara, arising conascently with votthapanacitta which performs > the function of directing citta to the object in that moment. If this > is so, and if 'passati' in the moment of votthapana-citta refers to > pa~n~naa, does this mean that pa~n~naa also arises with votthapana > citta? ------ N: It could not be, since votthapanacitta is an ahetuka kiriyacitta. It is inoperative, and it does not decide anything, even though it is called the controller of the javanas. The kusala cittas that follow do so because of former accumulations. Nina. #85457 From: "Alex" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 2:26 pm Subject: Akusala, Moha, prompting in rupa/arupavacara, jhana, cittas truth_aerator Hello all, I have few questions: a) In CMA (cittasangaha), why in Rupa/Arupa worlds there isn't any Akusala? Doesn't Brahma Baka (mn49) and others have delusion? b) How can a citta be neither promoted nor unprompted in rupa or arupa worlds? (I don't get the explanation in CMA) c) Same as B but for Jhana. When it comes to Arupa rebirths, what about the distinction in citta between lets say: In base of Nothingness: 1) Alara Kalama (non Buddhist, a Brahmin with atta view which is Moha) Or 2) Ordinary worldling being 3) An ariya reborn in the base of Nothingness. --- Thank you all, Best wishes, Alex #85458 From: mlnease@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why all the long lists in the Abhidhamma? m_nease Hi Ken, > what is true or not, that depends on yourself to find out. > that is also kamala. If you think that is not good for > you, its perfectly fine with me. But there is no need to > dispute this with the dinosaurs here because we find it > good enough for us, that is also kamala. I agree with you insofar as I can understand--but what is 'kamala' Thanks in advance and always a pleasure to see you here. mike #85459 From: han tun Date: Thu May 8, 2008 5:53 pm Subject: Re: Can anyone enlighten me? hantun1 Dear Nina and Venerable Pannabahulo, I am also interested in yoniso-manasikaara. Therefore, I thank Nina very much for the explanation. (1) Yoniso-manasikaara refers to the votthapanacitta in a sense-door process, and the mano-dvaaraavajjana in a mind-door process. (2) Strictly speaking yoniso-manasikaara refers to the kiriyacitta, but the kusala cittas following in its train are also reckoned as yoniso-manasikaara. (3) Yoniso-manasikaara is the proximate cause for each kusala citta. . Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #85460 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 6:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply: N: It could not be, since votthapanacitta is an ahetuka kiriyacitta. It is inoperative, and it does not decide anything, even though it is called the controller of the javanas. The kusala cittas that follow do so because of former accumulations." Scott: I think I have it now. Also, good summaries in the Useful Posts. I think its a very good explanation. Sincerely, Scott. #85461 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 6:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Ken O., Thanks for the reply: K: "No, bacause panna could only arise in citta with roots or in the javana cittas." Scott: Yes, I get that now. K: "votthapana-citta is paccaya for javana citta mostly by anantara-paccaya and samanantara paccaya also other paccaya which I too lazy to find out :-). votthapana determines the object and not determines the next citta. If it determines the next citta, then the whole mental process is fixed and not allow to change. The flexible of the process depends at the javana stage. Why? Because it would mean that objects become the determiner because the object does not change throughout the whole process. Objects would then determine what is kusala and aksuala in the votthapana citta stage." Scott: I'll look at the conditions that apply. Kusala or akusala inheres in the citta, and not in the object, as you say. K: "panna could arise at javana citta by yoniso manasikaara, it does not implied it should be before javana. As maniskaara is a unversal cetasika, when arise with panna,it is call yoniso manasikaara. Twofold explanation by my personal thinking, it must arise before the 2nd and successive other pana javana cittas could arise. the effects of javana for long lasting effect is on the 2nd javana effect. So to me, wise attention is known as condition for panna as it could mean for 2nd panna onwards. The second reason is that the arisen of the 1st javana citta with panna depends on the prior wise attention that was accumulated. Hence again, it is always used wise attention as condition to panna This is like taints accumulated that causes the arisen of akusala cittas at javana stage. This accumulation could only change through understanding, learning and reading of the dhamma. That is why it is so much fun in Buddhism." Scott: It is a lot of fun in Buddhism. Ha Ha! Thanks for this good explanation, Ken. I'll go over it again... Sincerely, Scott. #85462 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Howard and Nina (and K. Sujin), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 5/8/2008 4:27:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Khun Sujin: You extend mettå to all beings, but have you attained jhåna > already? If that is not so how can you extend mettå to all beings? > When there > is mettå the citta is calm. When you think of a person you dislike, a > person you > love or a neutral person and there is no calm at such moments, how > can you > extend mettå to all beings? As the Visuddhimagga explains, in the > beginning it > is difficult to have mettå for a person one dislikes, a person one > loves or a > neutral person. When you recite that you wish happiness for all > beings can > you truly extend mettå to all beings? You can only have boundless mettå, > including all beings, no matter where they are, if you have attained > jhåna. > > People should not believe that they, when they begin to develop > mettå, can > truly, wholeheartedly, wish happiness to all beings. When they really > know > themselves, they can find out that they do not mean this. When they > think of > someone they dislike mettå does not arise. Are they then sincere when > they > recite that they wish happiness for all beings? As we have seen, the > attainment > of jhåna is necessary in order to be able to extend mettå to all beings. > > > ======================================= > As the old adage goes, "Rome was not built in a day." Moreover, metta > cultivation does not begin by directing loving attention to those whom one > dislikes. That comes later. As for jhana, metta meditative practices are a way to > induce jhanas. So, it works both ways - calm supports metta, and metta > supports calm. This is another perfect example of how K. Sujin twists the teaching of the Buddha around to suit her purposes. She asks: how can we extend metta to all beings unless we achieve jhana? That is completely ass-backwards. You achieve jhana by extending metta to all beings! What is her problem? Why does she feel it necessary to completely twist around everything the Buddha teaches? I just have to shake my head and wonder. Anyway, she mentions the Vism. but she completely misparaphrases what the Vism. states. The Vism. describes the process of extending metta to all beings by starting with oneself, a respected person, a neutral person, and then an enemy, and then to all beings. It is a process. K. Sujin phrases it like the Vism. states it is difficult to extend metta to an enemy unless one achieves jhana first. Of course, anyone listening to that cr*p from her wouldn't attempt to extend metta because they haven't achieved jhana. So, no jhana no metta, no metta no jhana. No nothing- except poisonous mind states. K. Sujin is completely evil! K. Sujin is the devil incarnate! ;-)) (Okay, I exaggerate some, but if she can do it so can I! ;-)) The problem that most people have with developing metta is the first step: developing metta toward oneself. This is difficult, especially for Westerners, because we can't forgive ourselves. We believe in kamma, we understand unwholesome mind states, and so we have a hard time forgiving ourselves for the bad things we have done (or do). After all, we should know better! The secret is that once you forgive yourself, and then forgive others, the mind begins to be purified. So, K. Sujin, I forgive you for being so evil :-). Metta, James #85463 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi all, Who spotted the typo in the previous instalment? The last word 'unending' should have been 'unenduring.' Bit of a difference, eh? Continuing from half way through para.19 (about how a monk comprehends each aggregate as impermanent in 40 ways): "'as unenduring' because of collapsing on every occasion and because of lack of solidity; as 'no protection' because of not protecting and because of affording no safety; as 'no shelter' because of unfitness to give shelter, and because of not forming the function of a shelter for the unsheltered; as 'no refuge' because of failure to disperse fear in those who depend on them; as 'empty' because of their emptiness of the lastingness, beauty, pleasure and self that are conceived about them; as 'vain' because of their emptiness, or because of their triviality; for what is trivial is called 'vain' in the world; as 'void' because void of being the state of an owner, abider, doer, experiencer, director; as 'not self' because of itself having no owner, etc.; as 'danger' because of the suffering in the process of becoming and because of the danger in suffering - or alternatively, as 'danger' (adinava) because of the resemblance to misery (adina) that it moves (vati), goes, advances, this being a term for a wretched man, and the aggregates are wretched too: as 'subject to change' because of having the nature of change in two ways, that is, through ageing and through death; 'having no core' because of feebleness, and because of decaying soon like sapwood; as 'the root of calamity' because of being the cause of calamity; as 'murderous' because of breaking faith like an enemy posing as a friend; as 'due to be annihilated because their becoming disappears, and because their non-becoming comes about; as 'subject to cankers' because of being the proximate cause of cankers; as 'formed' because of being formed by causes and conditions; as 'Mara's bait' because of being the bait [laid] by the Mara of death and the Mara of defilement; as 'subject to birth' 'to ageing' 'to illness' and 'to death' because of having birth, ageing, illness and death as their nature; as 'subject to sorrow,' 'to lamentation' and 'to despair' because of being the cause of sorrow, lamentation and despair; as 'subject to defilement' because of being the objective field of the defilements of craving, views and misconduct. "20. Now there are [613] fifty kinds of Contemplation here by taking the following ten in the case of each aggregate; as impermanent, as disintegrating, as fickle, as perishable, as unenduring, as subject to change, as having no core, as due to be annihilated, as formed, as subject to death. There are twenty-five kinds of Contemplation of Not- Self by taking the following five in the case of each aggregate: as alien, as empty, as vain, as void, and as not self. There are one hundred and twenty-five kinds of Contemplation of Pain by taking the rest, beginning with 'as painful, as a disease' in the case of each aggregate. So when a man comprehends the five aggregates by means of this comprehending as impermanent, etc., in its two hundred aspects, his comprehending as impermanent, painful and not-self, which is called 'inductive insight,' is strengthened. These in the first place are the directions for undertaking comprehension here in accordance with the method given in the texts." #85464 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina and Ken H. Regarding the trans. of khanti as "liking", it doesn't really make sense to me. It is used in several places in Ptsm,, most notably in the quote found in Vism. XX,19 on page 401 of Ptsm. There Ven. ~Nanamoli translates it as "choice", which also doesn't make sense to me. But "patience" doesn't make much sense either. "Khanti" is also used in Ptsm. I,494 f.: 494. How is it that understanding due to what is recognized is knowledge as CHOICE [khanti]? 495. Materiality is recognized as impermanent, recognized as painful, recognized as not self; whatever is recognized, that he CHOOSES, thus understanding due to what is recognized is knowledge as CHOICE.. Larry: An alternative might be: "whatever is recognized, that he ENDURES, ... what is recognized is knowledge as PATIENCE. Then we would have: "By means of what forty aspects does he acquire PATIENCE that is in conformity?" "He ENDURES in conformity [with actuality] in forty ways. This seems to be an idiom for which we haven't found a match, but I think I'm leaning toward "fitness" in the sense of "it fits". Conformity knowledge "fits" both insight knowledge and path knowledge, or possibly "fits together" insight knowledge and path knowledge. "Understanding due to what is recognized is knowledge that "FITS" [actuality]. This usage of "fit" I am drawing from "to be fit" in the definition below. 5. Khamati : (page 234) i.40. -- 2. (impers.) to be fit, to seem good; esp. in phrase yathÄ? te khameyya "as may seem good to you; if you please" D i.60, 108; M i.487. sabbaÅ‹ me na khamati "I do not approve of" M i.497 sq.; na khamati "it is not right" D ii.67. -- 3. to be fit for, to indulge in, to approve of, in nijjhÄ?naÅ‹ khamanti M i.133, 480; cp. diá¹¹-- nijjhÄ?na-- kkhanti M i.480 & A i.189. -- ppr. med. Larry: To be sure, "fit" is a bit awkward and unwieldy, but the sense of it might _fit_ the text better than "liking","choice", or "patience". Larry #85465 From: Sukinder Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sukinderpal Hi TG, ============ TG: I have to apologize for not responding to your prior post. Not only did I not miss it, I spent nearly 3 hours responding to it and then gave up. LOL In fact, I did two different attempts with completely different approaches. At first I was responding question for question and then realized I was just running in circles answering "surface features" that were just going to end up where I was with Jon anyway. Sukin: No problem, more or less the same thing happened with me on two occasions just this past week or so. It was good chance to sort out my thoughts though…. ================= TG: It boils down to some fundamental things regarding conditionality and what conditionality means in terms of phenomena... Sukin: To the list below, I think I may add that you do not believe that being mindful of a dhamma as in the practice of Satipatthana, brings forth any deep understanding of the nature of phenomena. Am I right? This is something I read you to be saying in one or more of your posts in the past…. ================ TG: 1) Conditioned phenomena could never be "ultimate." Conditioned phenomena are relative. TG: I think that you may be reading into ‘ultimate reality’ a meaning some of us do not have in mind. Perhaps you are mixing ultimate ‘reality’ with ultimate ‘existence’? With ‘ultimate reality’ I do not say that one arises without any other, in fact as stated many times, no ultimate reality can arise and fall away without a host of other realities arising and falling away at the same time, each conditioning the other. But I don’t see why this fact should then be taken to mean say for example, ‘taste’, that this is not ultimately real? Surely you wouldn’t say that taste is unreal, would you, so why the objection to stating that this is an ultimate reality? The point being that, unlike for example, ‘flavor’ which is a conventional experience involving beside taste, also smell and thinking, taste has a distinct characteristic knowable by panna, as does individually, smell and thinking. That each must arise in dependence upon other realities, never isolated, does not mean that their individual function and characteristic should somehow loose validity, does it? If not, then why can’t a statement about the characteristic, function, proximate cause and manifestation be made? And if ‘ultimate reality’ is just another expression of this fact, why can’t one use it? Or is it that one must in fact, given that one is otherwise often lost in the world of concepts, taking these as real when they are not? Not only this, but we go on to ascribe laws of conditionality to that world which are not real and hence misleading. With regard to your suggestion that “conditioned phenomena are relative”. Given that realities are what they are, each with distinct characteristic and function, and each arising and falling away instantly, to suggest the above seems rather misleading. For example, ‘taste’ is conditioned yes, by yet other realties, but what would it be ‘relative’ to!? ================== TG: 2) Conditioned phenomena could never be "own" Conditioned phenomena are completely dependent. Sukin: You seem to be suggesting that being dependent; one then can’t speak of characteristic and function of any individual reality since it is part of a group? Would you than say that the ‘group’ is real whereas the individual parts are not? If so, why don’t you consider the fact for example, that ‘seeing’ is what it is by virtue of the citta and the cetasikas arising together and each being conditioned by eye-sense and visible object, to perform their individual functions without which ‘seeing’ can’t happen? Hence the “own” is reference to these different characteristics and functions which *must* in fact be? ================== TG: 3) Conditioned phenomena are never stable, not even for a billion billion billion billion billion billionths of a second....squared. Conditioned phenomena are "moving and tottering, wearing away and falling apart." Sukin: So what? If you can make a statement about ‘something’ "moving and tottering, wearing away and falling apart", why can’t we talk more about what goes on during the time, i.e. experiences, contact, feeling etc.? ================= TG: 4) The teaching on "elements, aggregates, etc." is NOT done for the purpose of seeing the elements as "independent (ultimate) realities." Sukin: Who’s ever said anything about “independent”, but tell me, what happens when there is any knowing, with wisdom or other wise, of say, aversion. Does not a characteristic show and is this not knowable as being real by characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause with the development of more understanding? =================== TG: The teaching on "elements, aggregates, etc." IS done for the purpose of breaking down phenomena in such a way as to more easily "see" conditionality and causal principles. I.E., for purposes of analysis. Sukin: This seems to be related to your position I pointed out in the beginning of the post, namely that you do not see much in simply developing mindfulness and understanding of the ‘characteristic’ of the different objects of experience / realities. You believe that one must in addition, also mentally analyze experiences in terms of “conditionality and causal principles”. Failure to see this is what you think is the reason why some of us are *stuck* with identifying experiences as “ultimate realities”, and you think this to be a grave mistake. And this gives you justification to analyze the way you do, ‘conventional realities’ and hence the caution *not* to make the reality / concept distinction that some of us make. I on the other hand, think that the sooner we make the reality / concept distinction, the better off we are with regard to understanding anything the Dhamma says. Before I go on I think it is important to point out that the Path is about the development of “understanding”. Some people see the ‘practice’ as being about developing ‘sati’ with no attention paid to ‘understanding’. When some of us insist that the practice i.e. satipatthana is a level above pariyatti, we are saying that by the time there is any mindfulness of a reality, much development of understanding by way of pariyatti must have preceded this. Even at the level of pariyatti, panna performs its function in a way independent of any conceptual analysis, so when it comes to patipatti, panna also performs its function unrelated to any ‘thinking about’ which may follow. The important point is that it does not matter in fact if we are able to conceptualize in terms of ‘conditionality and causal principles’. Panna accumulates by sankhara and it *knows*! One thing a correct development of understanding starting with pariyatti does, is that in recognizing the reality / concept distinction, it recognizes better and better that one can’t think one’s way to insight, let alone enlightenment. It is with this that one sees the development of Satipatthana, which does not involve thinking, as being the “One Path”. In short, satipatthana is not ‘limited’ and it does not need to be accompanied by ‘thinking about’ conditionality ‘out there’ in the conventional world. Rather in the development of understanding, the more one recognizes such thinking for what it is, the closer one gets to knowing the present moment. And it is only in this that all about conditionality and causal principles is known truly. Therefore while you are warning some of us against ‘attachment’ to the idea of ultimate realities, according to whom attachment is one of those realities to be known, I think you should be careful to consider whether your so called “analysis”, if at the heart of this is some kind of attachment to result and / or wrong understanding of the Path. ================= TG: Perhaps this will clarify my position. Sukin: I hope you understand my own position better too. Metta, Sukin. Ps: I’ll respond to your other post later. #85466 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 256, 257 and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, I didn't understand this part: "Maung Tin translates abhyaakata as indeterminate. It is said that indeterminate dhammas are expressed because of the inclusion of rebirth-process becoming. Since becoming, bhava, also includes upatti bhava, rebirth-process becoming, indeterminate dhammas as the result of kamma are mentioned." Is "indeterminate" here another word for "resultant"? I haven't had many questions for a while, but I have been appreciating each installment. Like drinking rich creamy chai. mmmm Larry #85467 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 8, 2008 8:51 pm Subject: Re: A question for Han about the way Dhamma is taught to householders in Asia philofillet Hi Han Thank you for your feedback and picking two points on which to agree. Basically, that is all I what from Dhamma discussion these days. Agreement on obvious points and encouragment from friends to press on in persevering with respect to these obvious points. Not much room for subtlety for me these days - though I know that the subtle and deep points that are discussed at DSG do need to be discussed when there is room for it. Han >>> (1) I agree with you that the good thing about meditation is that, it conditions more living heedfully the rest of the day, which is to say that a person who meditates faithfully an hour a day is far less likely to find him or herself swept away by unwise attention, there is far more resilience to objects. Sayadaw’s only concern was one might take a daily meditation as a duty that one performs like other daily duties of a householder, and not that faithfully as you have described. If a person meditates faithfully what you said is very correct in that he/she is less likely to live heedlessly for the rest of the day. Ph: Yes, I do find this is so. I don't know if this is "bhavana" but it doesn't matter to me as long as it is conditioning more wholesome behaviour. (Which is easily defined and recognized as absent or present, I think, at my level of defilements.) I like very much this sutta passage from AN IV,11: "If while walking, standing, sitting or reclinging when awake, a sensual though, a thought of ill will, or a violent thought arises in a monk, and he tolerates it, does not abandon it, dispel it, eliminate it and abolish it, that monk - who in such a manner is ever and again lacking in earnest endeavour and moral shame - is called indolent and devoid of energy." And this one, from AN IV,5 - "Of what nature is one who goes again the stream - it is one who does not indulge sensual desire and commit wrong deeds. He lives the holy lfie, though in painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing and in tears." This is simple and straightforward teaching from the Buddha - following it/applying it/giving rise to it is not easy, but one strives diligently to whatever degree one can (ie there are conditioons for it) I find just writing down these passages is helpful and will probably condition more attention to them during this day to come. And if one says, as I have heard in a talk, that if there is too much "trying" one is going wrong, the person who said that has gone wrong. Three guess who I am talking about!!! :) There must be trying, as the sutta passage above makes clear. Sometimes the holy life is led "in painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing and in tears." If there is a commentary that says that it is individual dhammas that are "in painful struggle, with difficult, signing and in tears" I will choose to ignore that commentary as irrelevant. (While, of course, continuing to have interest in commentaries that treat paramattha dhammas in their proper realm, the paramattha.) > Han > (2) I agree with your doubt about being mindful of characteristics of nama and rupa in daily life. For example, even when I am busy doing something, I can still take note of my breathing, and when I observe the end of out-breath and the beginning of in-breath, I would consider the end of the out-breath as anicca. That contemplation of anicca might not be the correct way. I might be contemplating on the anicca of pannatti rather than that of paramattha dhammas. I do not know for sure. But at least I think I can have samvega, if not vipassana ~naana. Half a loaf is better than none, don’t you think? Ph: Yes, I've been thinking about this too. Even if we are just playing with concepts about the three characteristics, it is a good topic to be thinking of. If we are to think, as we will of course, almost constantly, the content of thinking should and can be aimed more and more towards the dhamma. And the pannati can more and more be pannati about the paramattha. (I forget the terms that are taught in AS's "Concept and Realities" - a very good book by the way - but there is pannati about things that are real and pannati about things that are not. Our spinning out of pannati can be more and more about the paramattha. Which is fine as long as we don't get too excited about this thinking about the paramattha and start thinking that we are really having insight into it. If that happens, one starts denying, for instance, that people doing wholesome deeds is helpful, they start seeing the world as all paramattha and lose sight of the very, very helpful sorting out of concepts in a wholesome way. (ie. stories about people doing this and that to avoid harming other people, etc - this is where I live and practice, personally.) By the way, re samvega and the breath, I find it very helpful to think of the space of one breath, that sutta in which the Buddha says that we should hope to live long enough to practice for the space of a breath. I find it very helpful for calming the mind during daily life and bringing oneself back to the Buddha's teaching, and often a sense of samvega. I thank Antony Woods for pointing me toward that sutta. (AN VIII, 73) Thank you for giving me a weekly chance to talk about Dhamma, Han. In the autumn I will have more time. Metta, Phil #85468 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 8, 2008 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (143) sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Nina), --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah (Nina), > > > Sarah: As I recall, samvega refers specifically to right effort > (accompanied by right understanding) . > > Han: "samvega refers to right effort"? is new to me. .... S: I'm going to give a few quotes - apologies for typos - I know you like to see the Pali and I hope they clarify. *** Pls see Dhammasangani 1375 - 1377 in 'Nikkhepa Ka.n.da' "1375.Yathaadi.t.thissa ca padhaananti – yo cetasiko viiriyaarambho…pe… sammaavaayaamo. 1376.Sa.mvegoti – jaatibhaya.m jaraabhaya.m byaadhibhaya.m mara.nabhaya.m. Sa.mvejaniya.m [sa.mvejaniiya.m (sii.)] .thaananti – jaati jaraa byaadhi mara.na.m. 1377.Sa.mviggassa ca yoniso padhaananti – idha bhikkhu anuppannaana.m paapakaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m anuppaadaaya chanda.m janeti vaayamati viiriya.m aarabhati citta.m pagga.nhaati padahati, uppannaana.m ...." [S: followed by the other 3 padhaanas] .... S: I'll give the 2 translations I have access to as neither is ideal: Kline translation: "(ii) 1375. Endeavour fitting to purity of view means: mental endeavour...p.....Right Effort. (39) Samvega Duka (i) 1376. Emotional religious awakening means feeling of apprehension at seeing the danger of rebirth, the danger of ageing, the danger of illness, the danger of death. The cause of the apprehension are rebirth, ageing, illness and death. (ii) 1377. The endeavour appropriate to the emotional religious awakening are: In this Teaching, the bhikkhu - (1) generates, will, makes effort, rouses energy, applies his mind, and strives most ardently to prevent the arising of evil demeritorious states of mind that have not yet arisen....." [S: followed by the other 3 right efforts] **** C.Rhys Davids translation: (ii) In the phrase "Änd as the struggle of him who holds certain views", "struggle" means that inception of energy etc. (iii) The phrase "agitation" implies dread of birth, dread of old age, dread of sickness, dread of death. (iv) The phrase "occasion of agitation" means birth, old age, sickness, death. (v) The phrase "And the earnest struggle of him who is agitated" refers to [the four Right Struggles]: - When a bhikkhu brings forth the desire (a) that bad and wicked states which have not arisen should not arise,...." [S: followed by the other 3 Right Efforts again]. ***** S: Also please see the following 2 references in the Atthasalini: 1) Atth.173 and Pe Maung Tin transl (PTS) under "Sutta Phrases in the Maatikaa": "173. Sa.mvego ti jaatiadiini pa.ticca samuppanna bhaya sa"nkhaata.m sa.mvijjana.m Sa.mvejaniiya.m .thaanan ti sa.mvejanaka.m jaaitiaadikaara.na.m sa.mvigassa ca yoniso padhaanan ti eva.m sa.mvegajaatassa upadhaanapadhaana.m. 174. Asantu.t.thitaa ca kusalesu dhammesuu ti kusala-dhammapuura.ne asantu.t.thibhaavo. 175. Appa.tivaanitaa ca padhaanasmin ti arahatta.m appatvaa padhaanasmi.m anivattanataa anosakkanataa." **** "The term agitation (AN ii. 115) refers to fear arisen in connection with birth, etc. The causes, namely, birth, etc., productive of agitation, are termed 'occasions for agitation.' By 'the proper effort of the agitated' is meant his adequate exertions. By 'discontent in good states' is meant want of content in the accomplishment thereof. By 'non-retreat in effort' is meant the not stepping back, the not faltering in effort without reaching Arahantship." *** S: I included the last sentence because I find it such a good reminder. 2) Atth.305, under "Moral Consciousness in the Worlds of Sense": "Aparo nayo. Ussaahana-lakkha.na.m viriya.m, sahajaataana.m upatthambhana-rasa.m asa.msiidana-bhaava-paccupa.t.taana.m. Sa.mviggo yoniso padahatii ti vacanato sa.mvega-pada.t.thaana.m viriyaarambha-vatthupada.t.thaana.m vaa sammaa aaraddha.m sabbaasa.m sampattiina.m muula.m hotii ti veditabba.m." "Another view is that energy has exerting as its characteristic, strengthening the co-existent states as function, and opposition to giving way as manifestation. It has been said: 'He being agitated, makes a rational effort,'(Dhs. #14) hence it has agitation, or the basic condition of making energy as proximate cause. Right energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments." **** I'll be glad to hear any further comments. Metta, Sarah p.s We agree on these other points:-) > > Sarah: Anything can be a prompt - even reflections on the disaster in > Myanmar/Burma. When there is right understanding of the reality > appearing now, there is samvega. > > Han: Right. ... > > Sarah: When there's a concern about a sense of urgency or trying to > develop it or doing something for it to arise, it's not right effort, > right understanding or samvegga. > > Han: I cannot speak for others, but for me, I do not have a concern > about a sense of urgency, I do not try to develop it, and I won’t do > anything specifically for it to arise. As you said above, when I reflect > on the disaster in Myanmar with yoniso-manasikaara, the samvega will > arise in me without me doing anything for it to arise. **** #85469 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2008 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sarahprocter... Hi TG, Thanks for all the good-humoured responses. --- TGrand458@... wrote: > Even the language of 'elements' and 'aggregates' is conventional. ... S: Well of course any language is 'conventional'. Some of it points towards realities and some doesn't. Of course, whether 'elements' or 'aggregates' does will depend on the understanding of such terms. ... >When > asked directly, the Buddha said that feeling, perception, mental > formations, and > consciousness were not "separate things, but were merely separated for > purposes of analysis. ... S: They cannot be separated in the sense that they cannot arise without the support of the other nama khandhas. ... > The idea of a "person" is a mental construct. The idea of "elements" > is a > mental construct... ... S: Yes. However, in reality there are elements (dhatus) as used in a Buddhist sense. In reality there is not a 'person'. '... >Mental constructs are conditioned, impermanent, afflicted, and nonself. They are coreless, void, insubstantial. They > are a dart, a > disease, a murderer. They should be rejected and transcended. ... S: The thinking itself (cittas and cetasikas) are conditioned, impermanent etc. The idea/construct of 'person' or the idea/construct of 'elements' is not - by the definition you give, it is just a construct. Metta, Sarah ============ #85470 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 9:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Sukin In a message dated 5/8/2008 9:38:39 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: TG: It boils down to some fundamental things regarding conditionality and what conditionality means in terms of phenomena... Sukin: To the list below, I think I may add that you do not believe that being mindful of a dhamma as in the practice of Satipatthana, brings forth any deep understanding of the nature of phenomena. Am I right? This is something I read you to be saying in one or more of your posts in the past…. ....................................................... NEW TG: Mindful of "a dhamma" no. I don't believe in "a dhamma." Mindful of "the dhamma" and conditionality as it appears in experiences, yes. In other words, I believe in mindfulness of "the natural order of events." I don't believe in mindfulness of "something having its own characteristic" because this is just a projection of false-view IMO. ....................................................... ================ TG: 1) Conditioned phenomena could never be "ultimate." Conditioned phenomena are relative. TG: I think that you may be reading into ‘ultimate reality’ a meaning some of us do not have in mind. Perhaps you are mixing ultimate ‘reality’ with ultimate ‘existence’? With ‘ultimate reality’ I do not say that one arises without any other, in fact as stated many times, no ultimate reality can arise and fall away without a host of other realities arising and falling away at the same time, each conditioning the other. But I don’t see why this fact should then be taken to mean say for example, ‘taste’, that this is not ultimately real? Surely you wouldn’t say that taste is unreal, would you, so why the objection to stating that this is an ultimate reality? The point being that, unlike for example, ‘flavor’ which is a conventional experience involving beside taste, also smell and thinking, taste has a distinct characteristic knowable by panna, as does individually, smell and thinking. ......................................................... NEW TG: Taste is neither an ultimately real or unreal. Both views are extremes. The Buddha taught the middle way...conditioned arising... This being, that is, with the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not, with the ceasing of this, that ceases. To take it a step beyond and say "this is an ultimate reality" is a form of "self-view." To say it is "an unreality" is "nihilistic-view." You're playing with fire my friend. ............................................................... That each must arise in dependence upon other realities, never isolated, does not mean that their individual function and characteristic should somehow loose validity, does it? If not, then why can’t a statement about the characteristic, function, proximate cause and manifestation be made? And if ‘ultimate reality’ is just another expression of this fact, why can’t one use it? Or is it that one must in fact, given that one is otherwise often lost in the world of concepts, taking these as real when they are not? Not only this, but we go on to ascribe laws of conditionality to that world which are not real and hence misleading. ............................................................... NEW TG: There is being lost in concepts. There is indeed. The theory based descriptions above seem to fit that bill. All the ideas above are subjective outlooks and evaluations of phenomena that don't give a damn. We are being crushed and killed by phenomena. How's that for "Ultimate Reality"? Phenomena are empty of all the things you describe above because they are the result of "other forces," they are not their "own force." Elements, for example, are a complex matrix of interacting transitions. Better off seeing the elements as "apparitions" than "realities." A Christian believes they are dependent on God and can experience some peace and lose some "self attachment" due to that belief...but it is limited. I view the belief in "Dhammas" as being effective to a similar degree. ....................................................................... With regard to your suggestion that “conditioned phenomena are relativeâ€?. Given that realities are what they are, each with distinct characteristic and function, and each arising and falling away instantly, to suggest the above seems rather misleading. For example, ‘taste’ is conditioned yes, by yet other realties, but what would it be ‘relative’ to!? .................................................................... NEW TG: I completely disagree with all your premises above so I think I'll pass. .......................................................................... ================== TG: 2) Conditioned phenomena could never be "own" Conditioned phenomena are completely dependent. Sukin: You seem to be suggesting that being dependent; one then can’t speak of characteristic and function of any individual reality since it is part of a group? Would you than say that the ‘group’ is real whereas the individual parts are not? ........................................................ NEW TG: No. Sukin, this is exactly the type of post I decided not to deal with in the first place...chasing around in circles I think. Anyway, its too long. If you're interested in my outlook, if you could ask a just a couple of question at a time, that would help. Anyway, I'll continue this time around ... but not again... ........................................................ If so, why don’t you consider the fact for example, that ‘seeing’ is what it is by virtue of the citta and the cetasikas arising together and each being conditioned by eye-sense and visible object, to perform their individual functions without which ‘seeing’ can’t happen? Hence the “ownâ€? is reference to these different characteristics and functions which *must* in fact be? ================== TG: 3) Conditioned phenomena are never stable, not even for a billion billion billion billion billion billionths of a second....squared. Conditioned phenomena are "moving and tottering, wearing away and falling apart." Sukin: So what? If you can make a statement about ‘something’ "moving and tottering, wearing away and falling apart", why can’t we talk more about what goes on during the time, i.e. experiences, contact, feeling etc.? ................................................ NEW TG: I don't understand your question. Here's one for you...do you believe phenomena (elements, etc.) are moving? As far as discussing contact, feeling, etc. that's fine. But it is YOU folks who are claiming an ontology of "realities." Therefore, these discussions get stuck in a debate about the "nature of existence." Feeling arises due to contact. It does happen yes. But there is no need to overlay the concept of "realities" on top of that. The Buddha said these things when carefully investigated appear hollow, void, empty, and insubstantial. But you seem to think they appear chalk full of "characteristics." Granted, I think this Sutta is dealing at a higher ontological level then your "characteristic" outlook...yet it doesn't call them "realities." Seems that's the last thing he would have called them when dealing at a high level. Contact, feeling, consciousness, etc. do occur. But they occur as dependencies, not realities. You folks are so highly invested in "ultimate realities." Who gives a blank? Feeling arises due to the appropriate conditions. That's it. End of story. What arise, arises; what doesn't arise, doesn't arise. That's it. End of story. Why do we have to wave a "reality flag" above an experience and say...here...look...I discovered an "ultimate reality"? I know why...because it caters to self-view...and the sense-of-self is looking for an "out." The commentaries have convoluted the Buddha's teachings so as to protect self-view...in a way that confounds its followers into thinking they have surmounted it. That's the extreme perniciousness of that teaching. It sounds so tantalizing close to the Suttas as to seem authoritative, but when looked at closely, it won't hold up to the Suttas and much more importantly, it won't hold up to natural occurrences. These things that you can't seem to bear not calling 'ultimate realities" are the very same things the Buddha told us to relinquish and be liberated from. Seems that focusing on them as "ultimate realities" is driving in reverse. ......................................................................... ================= TG: 4) The teaching on "elements, aggregates, etc." is NOT done for the purpose of seeing the elements as "independent (ultimate) realities." Sukin: Who’s ever said anything about “independentâ€?, but tell me, what happens when there is any knowing, with wisdom or other wise, of say, aversion. Does not a characteristic show and is this not knowable as being real by characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause with the development of more understanding? ....................................................... NEW TG: Once the word "own" is used, independent is implied...as well as self. I think your question above is "leading on." I think it has hidden motives. ;-) ...................................................... =================== TG: The teaching on "elements, aggregates, etc." IS done for the purpose of breaking down phenomena in such a way as to more easily "see" conditionality and causal principles. I.E., for purposes of analysis. Sukin: This seems to be related to your position I pointed out in the beginning of the post, namely that you do not see much in simply developing mindfulness and understanding of the ‘characteristic’ of the different objects of experience / realities. You believe that one must in addition, also mentally analyze experiences in terms of “conditionality and causal principlesâ€?. Failure to see this is what you think is the reason why some of us are *stuck* with identifying experiences as “ultimate realitiesâ€?, and you think this to be a grave mistake. And this gives you justification to analyze the way you do, ‘conventional realities’ and hence the caution *not* to make the reality / concept distinction that some of us make. ............................................................ NEW TG: "I" analyze in the way the Suttas analyze. Sorry if that seems a poor approach for you. I'm not aware of the Suttas dealing with "conventional realities." Source? ................................................................. I on the other hand, think that the sooner we make the reality / concept distinction, the better off we are with regard to understanding anything the Dhamma says. Before I go on I think it is important to point out that the Path is about the development of “understandingâ€?. Some people see the ‘practice’ as being about developing ‘sati’ with no attention paid to ‘understanding’. When some of us insist that the practice i.e. satipatthana is a level above pariyatti, we are saying that by the time there is any mindfulness of a reality, much development of understanding by way of pariyatti must have preceded this. Even at the level of pariyatti, panna performs its function in a way independent of any conceptual analysis, so when it comes to patipatti, panna also performs its function unrelated to any ‘thinking about’ which may follow. The important point is that it does not matter in fact if we are able to conceptualize in terms of ‘conditionality and causal principles’. Panna accumulates by sankhara and it *knows*! .............................................................................. . NEW TG: This quote sums up my response to your above... “Among the characteristic features of any object, physical or mental, there is often one characteristic we over look due to hasty or superficial attention, and which therefore needs to be treated separately. This is the relatedness of the object. The objects relatedness extends back to its past – to its origin, causes, reasons and logical precedents; it also extends outward to embrace the total context – its background, environment and presently active influences. We can never fully understand things if we view them in artificial isolation. We have to see them as part of a wider pattern, in their conditioned and conditioning nature; and this can be done only with the help of sustained attention.â€? (Nyanaponika Thera . . . The Vision of Dhamma, Pg. 101 - 102) .............................................................................. One thing a correct development of understanding starting with pariyatti does, is that in recognizing the reality / concept distinction, it recognizes better and better that one can’t think one’s way to insight, let alone enlightenment. It is with this that one sees the development of Satipatthana, which does not involve thinking, as being the “One Pathâ€?. In short, satipatthana is not ‘limited’ and it does not need to be accompanied by ‘thinking about’ conditionality ‘out there’ in the conventional world. Rather in the development of understanding, the more one recognizes such thinking for what it is, the closer one gets to knowing the present moment. And it is only in this that all about conditionality and causal principles is known truly. Therefore while you are warning some of us against ‘attachment’ to the idea of ultimate realities, according to whom attachment is one of those realities to be known, I think you should be careful to consider whether your so called “analysisâ€?, if at the heart of this is some kind of attachment to result and / or wrong understanding of the Path. ......................................................... NEW TG: I guess you haven't paid a lot of attention to my posts. As I'll always say...mindfulness and directly knowing are extremely important. But there is a lot of analysis that plays its part as well. Its amazing to me all the conceptual analysis you commentary friendly folks do without seemingly knowing that you're doing it...probably more than me! But my analysis is primarily in comparing the teachings in the Suttas to internal and external events of experience. (Although external is technically inference. Oh, lots of advice in the Satipatthana to contemplate the external ... and the causal factors of the external too!!!)) As far as the distinction between concept and not concept... that's something I think I was able to handle some 26 years ago. Its something I don't highlight in this group much because I think its somewhat remedial for the serious level we see in here. However, here again, I question whether someone who say a "house" is a concept but a "eye" or "eye base" is not is up to speed on conceptual distinction. It seems to me a lot of it is guided by doctrine and not clear thinking. Never again a post this long please!!!!! Prior warning, I'll just ignore it if its too long. I'm not even going to proof what I've written here so there may be a few mistakes. TG ================= TG: Perhaps this will clarify my position. Sukin: I hope you understand my own position better too. Metta, Sukin. Ps: I’ll respond to your other post later. #85471 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 8, 2008 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Thanks for taking my comments with good nature. :-) In a message dated 5/9/2008 1:09:36 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, Thanks for all the good-humoured responses. --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > Even the language of 'elements' and 'aggregates' is conventional. ... S: Well of course any language is 'conventional'S: Well of course a towards realities and some doesn't. Of course, whether 'elements' or 'aggregates' does will depend on the understanding of such terms. ................................................. NEW TG: That's true in whatever language you're dealing with. The Buddha spoke the same language as his people, but the vast majority would not have understood the subtleties of his higher teachings anyway. So, the insistence on using Pali is problematic. Doesn't really mean a thing, yet, it very well could. Depends if the Dhamma (Buddha's teaching) is understood better by using it. Theoretically, it could be. ........................................ ... >When > asked directly, the Buddha said that feeling, perception, mental > formations, and > consciousness were not "separate things, but were merely separated for > purposes of analysis. ... S: They cannot be separated in the sense that they cannot arise without the support of the other nama khandhas. .............................................. NEW TG: That WAS NOT the question or the concern in the Sutta. Your comment makes no sense in context to my point or the Suttas point. Sorry I don't have a reference handy, but I think maybe you would already be familiar with it, as it so intimately pertains to your viewpoint....in opposition perhaps. Clarifying...the Sutta referred solely to feeling, perception, mental-formations, and consciousness...and whether they were actually separate from each other or ONLY separated for purposes of analysis. ............................................... ... > The idea of a "person" is a mental construct. The idea of "elements" > is a > mental construct... ... S: Yes. However, in reality there are elements (dhatus) as used in a Buddhist sense. In reality there is not a 'person'. ...................................................... NEW TG: Well, there's no "self." Not in the 5 Aggregates (sometimes called a person) or in the elements. All of these are just labels. What needs to be known are conditionality principles which entail, by necessity, that any "self" is an impossibility. The mere breakdown into aggregates or elements DOES NOT even touch self-view unless one combines it with sufficient causal awareness. ...................................................... '... >Mental constructs are conditioned, impermanent, afflicted, and nonself. They are coreless, void, insubstantial. They > are a dart, a > disease, a murderer. They should be rejected and transcended. ... S: The thinking itself (cittas and cetasikas) are conditioned, impermanent etc. The idea/construct of 'person' or the idea/construct of 'elements' is not - by the definition you give, it is just a construct. .......................................................... NEW TG: 1) A mental "construct-tion" IS the mentality which you label as cittas and cetasikas...just different labels. 2) The "idea" of person is also conditioned, impermanent, afflicted, and nonself. Concepts are also conditions...conditionally arisen, etc. Better check out this Sutta where conceptual Views are analyzed as conditioned, impermanent, suffering..... AN 10.93 Ditthi Sutta Views Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: A v 185 ____________________________________ Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. ____________________________________ Copyright © 1994 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 1994 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. ____________________________________ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Anathapindika the householder left Savatthi in the middle of the day to see the Blessed One, but the thought then occurred to him, "Now is not the right time to see the Blessed One, for he is in seclusion. And it is not the right time to see the monks who are developing their minds [in meditation], for they are in seclusion. What if I were to visit the park of the wanderers of other persuasions?" So he headed to the park of the wanderers of other persuasions. Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of bestial topics,_1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html#n-1) making a great noise and racket. They saw Anathapindika the householder coming from afar, and on seeing him, hushed one another: "Be quiet, good sirs. Don't make any noise. Here comes Anathapindika the householder, a disciple of the contemplative Gotama. He is one of those disciples of the contemplative Gotama, clad in white, who lives in Savatthi. These people are fond of quietude and speak in praise of quietude. Maybe, if he perceives our group as quiet, he will consider it worth his while to come our way." So the wanderers fell silent. Then Anathapindika the householder went to where the wanderers of other persuasions were staying. On arrival he greeted them courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the wanderers said to him, "Tell us, householder, what views the contemplative Gotama has." "Venerable sirs, I don't know entirely what views the Blessed One has." "Well, well. So you don't know entirely what views the contemplative Gotama has. Then tell us what views the monks have." "I don't even know entirely what views the monks have." "So you don't know entirely what views the contemplative Gotama has or even that the monks have. Then tell us what views you have." "It wouldn't be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have. But please let the venerable ones expound each in line with his position, and then it won't be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have." When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have." Another wanderer said to Anathapindika, "The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have." Another wanderer said, "The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have." When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,' his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress." (Similarly for the other positions.) When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have." "Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have." "So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress." "Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present." When this had been said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words. Anathapindika the householder, perceiving that the wanderers were silent, abashed... at a loss for words, got up & went to where the Blessed One was staying. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was seated there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his conversation with the wanderers. [The Blessed One said:] "Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically refute those foolish men with the Dhamma." Then he instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged Anathapindika the householder with a talk on Dhamma. When Anathapindika the householder had been instructed, urged, roused and encouraged by the Blessed One with a talk on Dhamma, he got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One, left, keeping the Blessed One on his right side. Not long afterward, the Blessed One addressed the monks: "Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done." TG OUT Metta, Sarah #85472 From: han tun Date: Fri May 9, 2008 2:07 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (143) hantun1 Dear Sarah (Nina), I am sorry I caused you so much trouble. You had to type a long post with various quotes. But one is enough! 1377.Sa.mviggassa ca yoniso padhaananti – idha bhikkhu anuppannaana. m paapakaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m anuppaadaaya chanda.m janeti vaayamati viiriya.m aarabhati citta.m pagga.nhaati padahati, is enough to support your statement. I have Dhammasangani in Burmese and Pali in Burmese script, and I could find the passage you have quoted. Thank you very much. ------------------- I am also happy that you quoted 1376.Sa.mvegoti – jaatibhaya.m jaraabhaya.m byaadhibhaya. m mara.nabhaya. m. Sa.mvejaniya. m [sa.mvejaniiya. m (sii.)] .thaananti – jaati jaraa byaadhi mara.na.m. because I find there my dear byaadhi:>)) Respectfully, Han P.S. I must read more of Dhammasangani in future. #85473 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/5/9 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > ------- > N: It is only thinking, this may sound harsh and I feel so much with > you. I used to feel like you, but now I see it differently. > It reall helps to understand different cittas as conditioned > elements, thinking included. What can we do about a sad experience we > had and that we keep in our thoughts? We can develop a little more > understanding of the different cittas and the conditions for whatever > we experience or think about. > There are only namas and rupas, we often hear this. We may come to > understand this more when we realize cause and effect in our life, > but I do not like preaching to you. We cannot change the cause of > something that happened, it is unavoidable. But gradually our > attitude may change. It is possible, it can be done, according to the > sutta. I will reply to your points later, but I would like to share a true story. This morning, Vicki's uncle, a well-known and respected solicitor in our town of some 30,000 people, went to his morning shower humming a happy tune as he always did. Shortly afterwards, he came out of the bathroom feeling very ill, and by the time the ambulance arrived, he was in a coma. He died five hours later, surrounded by his family who loved him dearly. He was 69. Cheers Herman #85474 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2008 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (143) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > I am sorry I caused you so much trouble. You had to type a long post > with various quotes. > But one is enough! .... S: No trouble at all....I was interested to do so. ... > 1377.Sa.mviggassa ca yoniso padhaananti – idha bhikkhu anuppannaana. m > paapakaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m anuppaadaaya chanda.m janeti > vaayamati viiriya.m aarabhati citta.m pagga.nhaati padahati, > > is enough to support your statement. I have Dhammasangani in Burmese and > Pali in Burmese script, and I could find the passage you have quoted. > Thank you very much. ... S: Yes, this was the key line. .... > I am also happy that you quoted > 1376.Sa.mvegoti jaatibhaya.m jaraabhaya.m byaadhibhaya. m > mara.nabhaya. m. Sa.mvejaniya. m [sa.mvejaniiya. m (sii.)] .thaananti > jaati jaraa byaadhi mara.na.m. > > because I find there my dear byaadhi:>)) ... S: dear byaadhi(sickness) now :>)) Akusala vipaka, the body consciousness accompanied by painful/unpleasant feeling..... It depends on accumulations whether this is followed by any yoniso manasikara or not.... Metta, Sarah ======= #85475 From: han tun Date: Fri May 9, 2008 2:32 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (143) hantun1 Dear Sarah, > Sarah: dear byaadhi (sickness) now :>)) Akusala vipaka, the body consciousness accompanied by painful/unpleasant feeling..... It depends on accumulations whether this is followed by any yoniso manasikara or not.... Han: Right you are! It was definitely akusala vipaaka, and it was followed by dosa, and not yoniso-manasikaara! Respectfully, Han #85476 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2008 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sarahprocter... Hi Herman, Please pass on our condolences to Vicki and family. We truly never know what will happen next or what kamma will bring its result. Life goes on.....with wise or unwise attention. Metta and sympathy, Sarah (& Jon) --- Herman Hofman wrote: >This morning, Vicki's uncle, a well-known and respected > solicitor in our town of some 30,000 people, went to his morning > shower humming a happy tune as he always did. Shortly afterwards, he > came out of the bathroom feeling very ill, and by the time the > ambulance arrived, he was in a coma. He died five hours later, > surrounded by his family who loved him dearly. He was 69. #85477 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sarahprocter... Dear Alex, Good to see you back! --- Alex wrote: > > S: Throughout the Tipitaka. Take the sutta you quoted - it is about > these same ultimate realities, namas and rupas to be known: > > > > Lets take one of the earliest suttas: > > The Fire Sermon. > > The sutta using very graphic similies for everything being on fire, > basically burning with fevers of greed/anger/delusion. ... S: And what is 'everything' that is on fire? Namas and rupas beginning with visible objects, eye-consciousness, contact(phassa cetasika), feelings.... ... > It ends with: > "He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, > disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with > contact at the intellect. <...> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html ... S: Disenchanted with the mind, mind-contact and feelings, in other words with all cittas and cetasikas too.... By understanding the 'all', the various namas and rupas appearing, for what they are....anicca, dukkha and anatta and 'burning' with 'the fire of lust, the fire of hatred ad the fire of delusion; burning with birth, agin, and death; with sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair'(Bodhi transl), there is dispassion, the turning away from all that is conditioned. "Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated." Through the understanding of conditioned dhammas and dispassion towards them, there is the turning to the unconditioned dhamma that cannot be clung to. ... > > >S: In other words all ultimate realities are anatta and can be > known as such according to the degree of wisdom accumulated. > >>>> > > How can anatta be ultimate reality? ... S: I didn't say that. "All ultimate realities are anatta". They have the characteristic of anatta. ... > Another question: And how does one accumulate wisdom? ... S: One doesn't! Panna accumulates. As Ken H would say, panna now is the condition for more panna to develop. ... > > Furthermore. If an object is unreal because it is made of smaller > parts, then what about parts themselves? .... S: A concept is unreal because it is conceived, imagined, and can never be directly known. Seeing cannot see a house, hearing cannot hear a house etc. On the other hand, a visible object can be seen, a sound can be heard etc. ... > IMHO, the ONLY ultimate reality is NIBBANA since it is not further > reducible and is unconditioned. To put citta, cetasika and rupa on > the SAME plane as Nibbana is wrong. ... S: No one is putting them on 'the same plane'. However, both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma are ultimate dhammas.....they can be experienced or known by the wise. Metta, Sarah p.s I did take a look at your long post, 'the eternity of Now?!...'', but to be honest, I think it strays way off-track and starting with the first para, doesn't really relate to the Buddha's teachings, the knowing of the 'all' at this moment, at all. Apologies for being rather direct with this comment. In any case, I know you won't agree:-). ================ #85478 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, Thanks for your replies. 2008/5/8 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > H: "I read your second point as being "there is right and wrong view". > I called it a second point because I read it to be in contrast to our > agreement that views are impersonal. (which means conditioned to me, > but perhaps not to you?)" > > Scott: Thank you. I don't see that a distinction between right and > wrong view is in contrast to agreeing that views are impersonal. I > think we differ here. I refer to sammaa-di.t.thi and michaa-ditt.thi. I'm not sure how to proceed here. It almost is like you are saying that some views have their own, absolute existence / nature? > And we may differ in the meaning of 'conditioned' and 'conditionality'. > > H: "A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of > being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the > views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, > it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes > is conditional." > > Scott: We differ here. I don't have a problem with dhammas having > characteristics. We can leave this part of the discussion aside. I don't want to pursue the point if you don't want to, but dhammas, IMO, ARE characteristics. To characterise dhammas as HAVING characteristics suggests they have a being apart from their characteristic. Which to me reeks of atta-belief through and through. > > To say that views don't have characteristics is a bit anarchical. > Adherents are conceptual, but I think I get what you are suggesting. > Right this moment I am thinking about 'my view' and am thinking about > 'your view' and I am thinking 'Herman is wrong' and 'I am right', but > this has nothing to do with sammaa-di.t.thi and michaa-di.t.thi. If I > think I'm right, this misses the point. The thought, 'I'm right' > arises, for example, from the wrong view that someone has a view that > is either right or wrong; views condition thinking, which will be > either right or wrong. No one thinks, though. No one is right or wrong. Yes, I agree with the overall thrust of what you are saying here. But I don't see how sammaa-di.t.thi and michaa-di.t.thi become things in their own right because of the above. > > And I do think you are using 'conditionally' in the conventional sense > here - at least just above - not in reference to Conditions a la > Pa.t.thaana (i.e. the 24 conditions sort of thing), but to refer to > some sort of exchange of ideas between people. Everything occurs due > to conditions, but this has, in my opinion, nothing to do with > 'agreement'. > I hope I am not missing your point, and please tell me if I have misunderstood, but I do not know what could be different between conventional and Pa.t.thaana - type conditionality. What is the same about all conditionality is that it is always inferred (thought), simply because conditionality has no characteristics, it cannot be experienced. We say, and agree, that everything occurs due to conditions, but we do not, for example, see that the eye is seeing, or hear that the ear is hearing. We might agree, or disagree, about that, after thinking it to be so. As a parallel to my argument, you are perhaps aware of the discussions that have gone on over the millenia about the intrinsic desirability or undesirability of dhammas. In the Dispeller of Delusions, Buddhagosa announces that the matter is settled by whatever the agreement between landowners, merchants, government officials etc is from time to time. In other words, what is intrinsically desirable is what the middle class agree to from time to time. How then, would views not be subjects of and to agreement? Cheers Herman #85479 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- TGrand458@... wrote: > TG: ..... Conceptual reasoning, thinking, pondering, > investigating, all crucially important.... ... S: I agree with this anyway. I don't however think that when the Buddha was teaching about the khandhas (as in the Sutta you quoted and which I responed to), that he was just pointing to pariyatti or right conceptual reasoning about the khandhas. I think he was indicating that by listening and considering these khandhas, there could be (and must be for insight to develop) a direct understanding of them as they appear. ... Metta, Sarah ========= #85480 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... walterhorn Dear Sarah, > > > Even the language of 'elements' and 'aggregates' is conventional. > ... > S: Well of course any language is 'conventional'. Some of it points > towards realities and some doesn't. Of course, whether 'elements' or > 'aggregates' does will depend on the understanding of such terms. Yes, very good. ... > >When > > asked directly, the Buddha said that feeling, perception, mental > > formations, and > > consciousness were not "separate things, but were merely separated for > > purposes of analysis. > ... > S: They cannot be separated in the sense that they cannot arise without > the support of the other nama khandhas. Right. ... > > The idea of a "person" is a mental construct. The idea of "elements" > > is a > > mental construct... > ... > S: Yes. However, in reality there are elements (dhatus) as used in a > Buddhist sense. In reality there is not a 'person'. > '... > >Mental constructs are conditioned, impermanent, afflicted, and nonself. > They are coreless, void, insubstantial. They > > are a dart, a > > disease, a murderer. They should be rejected and transcended. > ... > S: The thinking itself (cittas and cetasikas) are conditioned, impermanent > etc. The idea/construct of 'person' or the idea/construct of 'elements' is > not - by the definition you give, it is just a construct. > Bingo. Those are important distinctions, often lost or confused. Thanks for this excellent post. Best, Walto #85481 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& TG), --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Back to 'paccavekkhati', which is used in the sutta to refer to what > occurs in relation to these concepts 'bodily parts': In Note 647 to > the Mahasatipa.t.thaana Sutta is stated: > > "Paccavekkhati. The same verb-stem is used in paccavekkha.na-~naa.na > 'reviewing knowledge..." ... S: This is true, but I think that in the context of the Satipatthana sutta and your discussion with TG, it is definitely not referring to 'reviewing knowledge', but to its ordinary meaning of reviewing, reflecting. I haven't checked the text carefully or the Pali, but I assume from your discussion it is referring to the reviewing/reflecting on the body parts as part of samatha development for those bhikkhus. As Sukin stressed, this is a description of the daily life of these bhikkhus, the point being that there could be awareness at such times too. (his good post #85377) .... > > The reader is referred to a passage in DN 9 (The Long Discourses of > the Buddha, Maurice Walshe): <...> > And Note 213: >... 'Knowledge' the immediately following > 'reviewing-knowledge' (paccavekkha-~naa.na.m):...But in fact reviewing > knowledge is said also to occur at lower stages on the enlightenment > path. It is, however, this 'reviewing-knowledge' which best seems to > explain just how one is supposed to know that perception arises first > and then knowledge." .... S: The notes were all very interesting, but not only is the SS not referring to 'reviewing knowledge', I doubt that in context paccavekkhana is referring to 'lower stages on the enlightenment path' either. ... > > Scott: The reviewing, I would suggest (subject to correction) would be > that which relates to the (mundane) and now past penetration of > pa~n~naa into the true nature of the realities that are 'constituents' > of 'things'..... ... S: I don't mean to sound as though I'm correcting you, so let me just say I'm questioning this in context. Sometimes it is just the ordinary meaning in use at the time (before the Buddha) that we need to consider. When the text uses "kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati" and "sampajaana", it's clearly referring to right awareness and right understanding of satipatthana, of course. Subtle points to consider. I'm only responding to it because I was confused by the same term in another context until the ordinary meaning was pointed out to me. Metta, Sarah ======= #85482 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/8 : > > Hi, Herman (and Scott) - > > In a message dated 5/8/2008 8:43:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of > being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the > views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, > it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes > is conditional. > > > > =============================== > I would see this as correct only if nothing whatsoever were real - only > if there were no reality at all. But thern, it could not be correct, for > correctness presumes a reality by which the view is measured! > If there is such a thing as reality, by which I mean "the way things > actually are," and which I do believe to be the case, then any view is more or > less in accord with reality. though we may not know it what respect or to what > extent. On the other hand, the premiss of there being no such thing as > reality is meaningless, for it could neither be true nor false to any degree (else > its having truth-value already presumes a reality), and yet it, as every > assertion, asserts its own truth. ;-) > I see the no-reality perspective as a thoroughgoing cognitive and > ontological nihilism, and I reject it. (I don't mean to imply that I think you need > to reject it, however.) Thanks, Howard. I think the above is very good, perhaps that's why I agree with it :-). I am not convinced that I denied reality, though. Nonetheless, I would not hesitate in flat-out rejecting a view that reality is "the way things actually are". It is a matter of tense. The only reality I know and can know is the past. And that past is certainly absolute, in that it is immutable and beyond doubt. On the other hand, the way things ARE is entirely unknowable, in fact the present moment is an inference, or as is said at dsg, it is "only thinking" :-) (This is reflected in the sense door/mind door model). What I did deny was that views about the way things were (the only reality knowable) can have an intrinsic characteristic of being true or false. As to whether this absolute past was conditioned or somehow free in it's generation, this can only be a matter of thought, which we will come to know as being past thought :-) Hope that clarifies, and if not, please ask for further clarification. Cheers Herman #85483 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/9/2008 5:55:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Herman, Please pass on our condolences to Vicki and family. We truly never know what will happen next or what kamma will bring its result. Life goes on.....with wise or unwise attention. Metta and sympathy, Sarah (& Jon) ================================ My sympathy to Vicki & you as well, Herman. This is news that is very sad and, I'm sure, very shocking. With metta, Howard #85484 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/5/8 kenhowardau : > Hi Larry, > > > We might think it is a little bit laborious to have to read all 40 > ways of doing the same thing. But it just gives a little taste of how > often right understanding needs to arise. Countless times in > countless lifetimes! :-) > From what I have read of your writings over the years, you are very much a present-moment-man. I was therefore stunned and amazed :-) that you would contemplate a future that is driven by a need. Not that I disagree with that, in fact I totally agree that that is the nature of the future. What I don't get is where your past dogmatic assertions that there can only be this present moment have gone? Cheers Herman #85485 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply. Also, condolences for the death of Vicki's uncle. I find myself comtemplating death every day, and sometimes consider the suddeness of the moment when life in this existence ends. H: "I'm not sure how to proceed here. It almost is like you are saying that some views have their own, absolute existence / nature?" Scott: I was responding to this earlier statement you made: "A view is a view. Views do not have an inherent characteristic of being either right or wrong, those qualities are attributed to the views by their adherents, conditionally. It is precisely as you say, it comes down to agreement, or in other words, a belief in absolutes is conditional." Scott: If I'm following this, it is suggested that the rightness or wrongness of a view is determined by what I consider to be ethereal factors - some sort of consensus amongst people. Is it fair to suggest that a 'view' is conceptual? If so, then I can see where you might be coming from, but I don't agree that the rightness and wrongness is simply a matter of consensus. I consider concepts to be devoid of characteristics. I consider rightness and wrongness, however, to stem from the presence of dhammas, which do have characteristics (see below). I'm looking at di.t.thi, and, in particular, whether there can be legitimate reason to accept that di.t.thi can be either right or wrong. First of all, I consider that the dichotomy kusala/akusala is valid. I consider this dichotomy to rest on the characteristics which are inherent in the constituents of a given moment of consciousness. Secondly, I consider I think that when it is sammaa-di.t.thi, one is dealing with pa~n~naa, which arises with kusala-citta. When it is michaa-di.t.thi, one is dealing with views associated, at times, with akusala-citta. Wrong-view exists as anusaya, as aasava, as upaadaana, and as vipallaasa, and since these involve dhammas and the effects of dhammas via conditions, then they are more than simply attributed qualities. H: "... dhammas, IMO, ARE characteristics. To characterise dhammas as HAVING characteristics suggests they have a being apart from their characteristic..." Scott: I see where you are coming from here. To be precise I think you are correct to say that the dhamma is the characteristic, and to say it has a given characteristic is just a manner of speech. In other words, the dhamma is what it does. H: "I hope I am not missing your point, and please tell me if I have misunderstood, but I do not know what could be different between conventional and Pa.t.thaana - type conditionality. What is the same about all conditionality is that it is always inferred (thought), simply because conditionality has no characteristics, it cannot be experienced. We say, and agree, that everything occurs due to conditions, but we do not, for example, see that the eye is seeing, or hear that the ear is hearing. We might agree, or disagree, about that, after thinking it to be so." Scott: Ahh, we've travelled this road before. Conditionality refers to the dynamics of dhammas. Given that it deals with the ways in which dhammas in the moment, and from moment-to-moment have their effect; and given that dhammas are paramattha, with characteristics which are the stuff of 'experience', then conditionality is not merely inference. H: "...In the Dispeller of Delusions, Buddhagosa announces that the matter is settled by whatever the agreement between landowners, merchants, government officials etc is from time to time. In other words, what is intrinsically desirable is what the middle class agree to from time to time. How then, would views not be subjects of and to agreement?" Scott: I had a discussion with Larry about this, and couldn't follow it with him. I don't really understand this. I recall this refers to whether the object of vipaaka-citta is pleasant or unpleasant. Despite not having a clue, I think this is a whole other area than the one we are discussing. Sincerely, Scott. #85486 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... nilovg H Herman, Op 9-mei-2008, om 11:12 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > He died five hours later, > surrounded by his family who loved him dearly. He was 69. ------- N: A lesson for us all how sudden death comes. I sympahytize with all the family members. Nina. #85487 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (143) nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 9-mei-2008, om 8:34 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Kline translation: > > "(ii) 1375. Endeavour fitting to purity of view means: mental > endeavour...p.....Right Effort. > > (39) Samvega Duka > > (i) 1376. Emotional religious awakening means feeling of > apprehension at > seeing the danger of rebirth, the danger of ageing, the danger of > illness, > the danger of death. The cause of the apprehension are rebirth, > ageing, > illness and death. > > (ii) 1377. The endeavour appropriate to the emotional religious > awakening > are: ------ N: Good texts from the Dhammasangani. could we say: the right efforts arise on account of the samvega, religious emotion? Nina. #85488 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 1:43 am Subject: The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, all - Whatever is actually experienced and not merely imagined is real, and could be called "a reality," provided that the meaning of that is only that the item is unimagined (and not that it is self-existent). However, 'real' means "real." Either an item is imagined/projected or is actually experienced. What, then, is the sense of 'ultimate' in the phrase 'ultimate realities', inasmuch as there aren't items that are somewhat imagined yet somewhat unimagined? I say that if it is to have any genuine sense at all, reality must be accorded to aggregations as well as to individual namas and rupas. I see two possibilities: One possibility is that the adjective 'ultimate' in 'ultimate realities' should simply be banished, leaving just the term 'realities' referring to any and all items that are real in the sense of being actually experienced and not merely imagined. In this case, one could say of the pain s/he is feeling that it is a reality in the sense of unimagined. The problem with that is that trees and cars and trees are not imagined, but are actually experienced via the mind door ... unless, of course, they are viewed as individuals as opposed to collections, in which case they are merely imagined. Another possibility is to include both aggregations (qua aggregations) and paramattha dhammas as real, and apply 'paramattha' (or 'ultimate') only to the namas and rupas. For me, this latter usage makes sense, for the paramattha dhammas are the individuals of which aggregations are composed. In this usage, what we call "ultimate realities" are NOT ultimate in terms of how real they are, for whatever is real is real, but ultimate in terms of composition, their being individuals and not collections. So, the ultimacy is in terms of degree of decomposability, the less decomposable, the closer to ultimate, but is not in terms of degree of reality. This last point is the main point I am making here. My body, as an aggregation, is real. It is decomposable into a variety of interacting component aggregations, and these are decomposable as well, and so on, eventually leading to relatively simple aggregations consisting of multitudes of rupas. So, my body as aggregation is real, but only the rupas that are its ultimate constituents are the "ultimate realities" of my body. But I add cautionary note: "My body" as an individual thing is mere imagination and unreal. Not only is it not an ultimate reality - it isn't real at all. It is concept-only. With metta, Howard #85489 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi James, Op 9-mei-2008, om 4:39 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > K. Sujin is completely evil! K. Sujin is the devil incarnate! ;-)) > (Okay, I exaggerate some, but if she can do it so can I! ;-)) ------ N: Is that metta? We are back at the old James. You know you exaggerate, then regret it later, and after a while, you are back. It shows how stubborn accumulated tendencies are. I would be happier if you first write your post in concept, keep it for a day before you send it. As I said before: let us just discuss Dhamma. You can simply say that you disagree with Kh S. --------- > > J: The problem that most people have with developing metta is the > first > step: developing metta toward oneself. ------- N: Please read the Vis. IX, 10 (and we discussed this before): Thus we do not take it literally to have metta towards himself. It is explained that when jhana is developed metta can be boundless, all around. ReadVis. IX, 44: I like the expression: breaking down the barriers. Nina #85490 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/9/2008 7:30:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: On the other hand, the way things ARE is entirely unknowable, in fact the present moment is an inference, or as is said at dsg, it is "only thinking" :-) ================================ I don't understand this. It seems to me that when we are seeing, that is knowing in the present. Likewise, when we are hearing, that is knowing in the present. Why would it not be? With metta, Howard #85491 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 5:56 am Subject: Metta, Ch 4, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, When we think of a person we like, attachment is likely to arise and this is not mettå. When we think of someone we hate or of someone who is a hostile person there is no calm and we are simply not sincere when we recite for ourselves the text of the mettå sutta: “May all beings be happy”. If someone wants to develop calm, he should remember that calm is a wholesome quality arising with kusala citta. When kusala citta arises there are no defilements and then there is calm. If the characteristic of calm is known, it can grow, stage by stage. Mettå is a meditation subject of samatha which can condition the growth of calm, and it can also condition moments of calm in daily life. However, in order to develop mettå in the right way, it is not sufficient to think of mettå, but we should know first of all the characteristic of mettå. It is actually the same as in the case of the development of satipatthåna. We cannot develop it if we do not know the characteristic of sati, mindfulness. We may take thinking for mindfulness but thinking is different from mindfulness. Sati of satipatthåna is not forgetful, it is directly aware of the reality which appears at the present moment and it considers the characteristic of that reality. For the development of mettå mindfulness is necessary. If there is mindfulness of mettå when it appears, its characteristic can be known through direct experience. We read in the Atthasåliní (II, Book II, Part II, The Summary, II, 362) about adosa, non-aversion. The Atthasåliní which is a commentary to the Dhammasangani, the first book of the Abhidhamma, explains in this context the terms used in the Dhammasangani to define the reality of adosa: “...having love” is exercising love, “loving” is the method of exercising love; lovingness is the nature of citta which is endowed with love, is productive of love. Tender care is watchfulness, the meaning is that one protects. Tenderly caring is the method of such care. Tender carefulness is the state of tenderly caring. Beneficence is seeking to do good. “Compassion” is the exercising of compassion... Before mettå can be developed we should first of all become familiar with the characteristic of mettå. We should carefully consider the nature of our citta at this moment: is it really accompanied by mettå or not? In this way we can begin to develop mettå very gradually, by showing kindness to someone else, and then mettå can increase. We should consider the words of the “Atthasåliní” about friendship and the attitude of intimacy, of closeness. When we are sitting together with others, do we have a kind disposition towards them, do we have sincere friendship? If that is the case, we can learn what the characteristic of mettå is. ****** Nina. #85492 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 256, 257 and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, Op 9-mei-2008, om 5:49 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > "Maung Tin translates abhyaakata as indeterminate. > It is said that indeterminate dhammas are expressed because of the > inclusion of rebirth-process becoming. Since becoming, bhava, also > includes upatti bhava, rebirth-process becoming, indeterminate dhammas > as the result of kamma are mentioned." > > Is "indeterminate" here another word for "resultant"? ------- N: Indeterminate dhammas include vipaakacittas, kiriyacittas, rupas and nibbaana, thus, all dhammas that are neither kusala nor akusala. Here it refers to resultant, and also to the ruupa that is the result of kamma producing rebirth as asa~n~nasatta, as was just mentioned in the text: Vis. 256: And in the former instance it was only such kamma as is a condition for consciousness that was called 'formations'; but now also that which generates non-percipient becoming is included. -------- N: In the former case it was said: formations, sa.nkhaara, conditions consciousness, vi~n~naa.na. But in the latter case it generates also birth with only ruupa, thus no vi~n~naa.na. --------- I was put off at first by the translation of abhyaakata as functional, since this suggests to me kiriyacitta. I am glad you enjoy the postings. Nina. #85493 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' nilovg Hi Howard, Op 9-mei-2008, om 14:43 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > One possibility is that the adjective 'ultimate' in 'ultimate > realities' > should simply be banished, leaving just the term 'realities' > referring to > any and all items that are real in the sense of being actually > experienced and > not merely imagined. In this case, one could say of the pain s/he > is feeling > that it is a reality in the sense of unimagined. ------ N: I would like to simplify things, and therefore I take out only one part of your post that may be a key. We can leave out all terms of realities and the like and simply refer to pain as a dhamma. Understanding of pain as a dhamma can deepen: it is conditioned, beyond control, it cannot be altered, it cannot be manipulated with. It arises and appears when there are conditions for it to arise. The same for seeing: without eyesense and visible object there could not be seeing. It is a mere dhamma, not my seeing. The more we consider this and understand this, the more we shall understand what is real and what is imagined. Nina. #85494 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:55 am Subject: Perfections Corner (147) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 continues: When we depart from this world, we do not know where we will go. It may happen that we shall receive punishment in the aforesaid ways. So long as we have a body we do not know what will happen to it, but when there is a cause for receiving tortures, which is the result of akusala kamma, ruupa is the cause, the reason for experiencing painful feeling. We read further on: "When the eyesight declines, or even disappears altogether, people are troubled. Apart from trouble caused by the ear, the nose, the tongue, visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object, it is caused by the family (which supports the monk), by the fellow monks of the monastery, gain, honour, praise, wellbeing, robes, almsfood, dwelling, medicines; when these things decline or disappear altogether so that one is without them, people are troubled. Because of these reasons it is said that everybody is disturbed because of ruupa. One should eliminate attachment to ruupa so that one can give it up in this life. With regard to Pi'ngiya, he attained enlightenment when the Buddha had finished this Dhamma discourse." We see from this example that although Pi'ngiya had accumulated perfections through listening to the Dhamma, he also needed the perfection of energy and of patience because pa~n~naa develops only very gradually, it is a long and difficult process. The perfection of truthfulness and the perfection of determination are a necessary foundation for being able to listen to the Dhamma. One should be unshakable in one's determination to listen, no matter in what circumstances one may be. .. to be continued, connie #85495 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 7:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' truth_aerator Hi Nina, Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I would like to simplify things, and therefore I take out only one part of your post that may be a key. We can leave out all terms of realities and the like and simply refer to pain as a dhamma. Understanding of pain as a dhamma can deepen: it > is conditioned, beyond control, it cannot be altered, it cannot be > manipulated with. It arises and appears when there are conditions for it to arise. >>> What about pain killers, tranquilizers, etc? Apparently scientists have found genes for pain and so on. In fact many scientists today believe that ALL mind states and so on are higher level products of lower level material processes - thus making only one ultimate basic block of reality "Matter" from which everything else is derived... Best wishes, Alex #85496 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - I'm in basic agreement with what you say below. It doesn't address the intended meaning of 'paramattha' (or 'ultimate') in reference to namas and rupas, which is what I was after in my post, but what it does address is unobjectionable to me, and I thank you for replying. With metta, Howard P. S. I note that aggregations of paramattha dhammas are also conditioned, beyond control (in that they are what they are, not what we would like them to be), and arising entirely in dependence on conditions (both preconditions and co-occurring conditions, including most especially the dhammas of which they are composed). Our bodies, for example, come into existence at the moment of conception and then continually change throughout a lifetime entirely in dependence on conditions until death. We cannot (successfully) simply command "Let my body be healthy, strong, and more youthful." We cannot reverse the aging process. We cannot prevent eventual death of the body. The body, just as paramattha dhammas, is anicca, dukkha, and anatta. It is not, however, nothing at all. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/9/2008 9:16:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 9-mei-2008, om 14:43 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > One possibility is that the adjective 'ultimate' in 'ultimate > realities' > should simply be banished, leaving just the term 'realities' > referring to > any and all items that are real in the sense of being actually > experienced and > not merely imagined. In this case, one could say of the pain s/he > is feeling > that it is a reality in the sense of unimagined. ------ N: I would like to simplify things, and therefore I take out only one part of your post that may be a key. We can leave out all terms of realities and the like and simply refer to pain as a dhamma. Understanding of pain as a dhamma can deepen: it is conditioned, beyond control, it cannot be altered, it cannot be manipulated with. It arises and appears when there are conditions for it to arise. The same for seeing: without eyesense and visible object there could not be seeing. It is a mere dhamma, not my seeing. The more we consider this and understand this, the more we shall understand what is real and what is imagined. Nina. #85497 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 5/9/2008 10:36:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Nina, Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I would like to simplify things, and therefore I take out only one part of your post that may be a key. We can leave out all terms of realities and the like and simply refer to pain as a dhamma. Understanding of pain as a dhamma can deepen: it > is conditioned, beyond control, it cannot be altered, it cannot be > manipulated with. It arises and appears when there are conditions for it to arise. >>> What about pain killers, tranquilizers, etc? Apparently scientists have found genes for pain and so on. In fact many scientists today believe that ALL mind states and so on are higher level products of lower level material processes - thus making only one ultimate basic block of reality "Matter" from which everything else is derived... ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And a majority of people throughout the world believe that humans have souls, and a plurality of people believe that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet, and lots of people believe that jhanas are trance states to be avoided. I don't put too much stock in what people merely believe, even if they belong to that 21st century priesthood called "Scientists". ;-) --------------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Alex ============================ With metta, Howard #85498 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 8:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' nilovg Hi Howard, I like your touch of humour. Nina. Op 9-mei-2008, om 16:58 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > And a majority of people throughout the world believe that humans have > souls, and a plurality of people believe that there is no God but > Allah, and > Mohammed is his Prophet, and lots of people believe that jhanas are > trance > states to be avoided. I don't put too much stock in what people > merely believe, > even if they belong to that 21st century priesthood called > "Scientists". ;-) > --------------------------------------------------------- #85499 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Within the limits of what you stated below, I totally agree. Its when you go toward the "outer limits" that things become science-fiction. ;-) TG In a message dated 5/9/2008 4:26:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > TG: ..... Conceptual reasoning, thinking, pondering, > investigating, all crucially important... ... S: I agree with this anyway. I don't however think that when the Buddha was teaching about the khandhas (as in the Sutta you quoted and which I responed to), that he was just pointing to pariyatti or right conceptual reasoning about the khandhas. I think he was indicating that by listening and considering these khandhas, there could be (and must be for insight to develop) a direct understanding of them as they appear. ... Metta, Sarah #85500 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 5:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 5/9/2008 8:59:46 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Apparently scientists have found genes for pain and so on. In fact many scientists today believe that ALL mind states and so on are higher level products of lower level material processes - thus making only one ultimate basic block of reality "Matter" from which everything else is derived... ............................................... I found this interesting. I was unaware of it and yet it is similar to my outlook except...I don't necessarily believe in "matter." I believe the Four Great Elements are "interactive forces or momentums that structure physical and mental phenomena. Common sense would dictate that mentality and physically interrelate seamlessly due to the interaction of common forces. Hence, the principles of conditionality are identical for both. So from my point of view, mind and matter are just two more "perceptual-reference-points" and not "realities" in their own right. Just like the rest of the elements, aggregates, or composites thereof. These "identifiers" are just ways of viewing 'occasions of phenomena' and are not things unto themselves. Just some ramblings. TG #85501 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/9/2008 8:59:46 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: And a majority of people throughout the world believe that humans have souls, and a plurality of people believe that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet, and lots of people believe that jhanas are trance states to be avoided. I don't put too much stock in what people merely believe, even if they belong to that 21st century priesthood called "Scientists"even ............................................. Hi Howard IMO, science should neither be disparaged or exalted. But what is well considered should be regarded as such and what is ill considered should be regarded as such. Most of the Buddhists I respect believe that science is "coming closer" to Buddhism as they discover more and more about phenomenal behaviors. Buddhism is the only "religion" that can claim that. I view science as a "limited" friend of Buddhism, and not a threat. TG #85502 From: "Alex" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 10:01 am Subject: Re: The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' truth_aerator Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi Alex > > I found this interesting. I was unaware of it and yet it is similar to my > outlook except...I don't necessarily believe in "matter." I believe the Four Great Elements are "interactive forces or momentums that structure physical and mental phenomena. >>> There is a lot of debate upon what "matter" precisely mean. However what you've said about 4great elements, doesn't seem to fatally contradict what modern materialist scientists believe. >>> Common sense would dictate that mentality and physically interrelate seamlessly due to the interaction of common forces. Hence, the principles of conditionality are identical for both. >>>> There is a BIG question regarding what "mind, consciousness, mentality" is. Some believe that consciousness is merely a byproduct of neurons found in the brain and that mind states do not exist. Well, they do exist as material by products - but not as a dualistic thing. On the first glance the theory is concrete (except for some weird findings). If you damage your brain, the consciousness will be altered... If you take alchohol or drugs, or painkillers same as well. etc etc... > So from my point of view, mind and matter are just two more "perceptual-reference-points" and not "realities" in their own right. >>> Isn't "reality" a concept? Anyhow if I understand what you trying to say, it is this: We may be arguing about words, concepts and semantics. One group of people take "matter only" as their reference point, another group of people take "mind only" as their reference point and so on. It is interesting that in one way of analyzing the Buddha talked about 6 consciousnesses (which sounded idealistic) and in another mode of analysis he talked about nama(+vinnana?)&rupa (where 1 is physical and another or two are mental). Best wishes, Alex #85503 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' TGrand458@... Hi All (Ramblings) I'll try not to shock you but I don't care for the idea of "realities" ... ultimate or otherwise. I don't think discerning "realities" (plural) has anything to do with the Buddha's teaching. I think the Buddha merely broke down factors of experience in the rudimentary ways necessary to help the mind "see" conditionality, impermanence, affliction, and nonself so as to inculcate dispassion, cessation, and escape from the suffering associated with "dhammas." The things (elements, etc.) getting called "realities" here seem to me to be mere "identifiables," or "perceptual-reference-points. Signs. Appearances. Apparitions. There are only two things...what arises and what doesn't arise. What doesn't arise is beyond discussion. Therefore, what are we comparing a "reality" to??? Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can call anything that arises a "reality." So what? If something is a "reality," there must be something that is a "non-reality." A concept? A concept is an idea, it is mental-ity. Concepts are conditionally generated from experiences. Stored as memories. Altering in accordance to conditional forces. Sorry, there are no "appearances" that do not appear. BTW, The last I looked I actually experienced "my" imaginations. Because imaginations are just that....imaginations. There's no different standard or level of "reality," there's no experiencing things that do no arise. There are phenomenal interactions that are really happening yes. But the formations thereof are just coreless resultants. They don't deserve a wit of the stature of "realities." "Appearances" will do for me. "Apparitions" even better I suspect. There is delusion and there is insight, and there are stages in between. Insight is not the mere experience of phenomena. A new born baby does that. Insight is the experience along with the developed intuitive knowing that the experience is conditioned, impermanent, an affliction, nonself, empty, coreless, a disease, etc. I will look forward to why I am technically wrong due to this dhamma or that dhammas characteristic, function, post-nasal condition, etc. (Yes, I am aware.) TG #85504 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/9/2008 11:02:27 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Some believe that consciousness is merely a byproduct of neurons found in the brain and that mind states do not exist. Well, they do exist as material by products - but not as a dualistic thing. Hi Alex I like the term "by-product." All conditions are by-products and mentality no different. How the mind actually "mechanically" works, I can't say. Interesting stuff. Thanks. TG #85505 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' nilovg Hi Howard, Op 9-mei-2008, om 16:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > We cannot reverse the > aging process. We cannot prevent eventual death of the body. The > body, just as > paramattha dhammas, is anicca, dukkha, and anatta. It is not, > however, nothing > at all. ------- N: But the body is rupa paramattha dhammas, and at each moment, all these rupas, some produced by kamma, some by citta, some by heat, some by nutrition, fall away and are replaced so long as conditions permit. But the impermanence of rupas can only directly by realized by isight. The body is something that can be blown away, it is a mere nothing. I think of Herman's story: one moment the body was still a living body, and within splitseconds there was only a corpse, and so unforeseeable. No time to prepare. Nina. #85506 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Khanti. Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry, Op 9-mei-2008, om 5:37 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Regarding the trans. of khanti as "liking", it doesn't really make > sense > to me. It is used in several places in Ptsm,, most notably in the > quote > found in Vism. XX,19 on page 401 of Ptsm. There Ven. ~Nanamoli > translates it as "choice", which also doesn't make sense to me. But > "patience" doesn't make much sense either. > > "Khanti" is also used in Ptsm. I,494 f.: > > 494. How is it that understanding due to what is recognized is > knowledge > as CHOICE [khanti]? > > 495. Materiality is recognized as impermanent, recognized as painful, > recognized as not self; whatever is recognized, that he CHOOSES, thus > understanding due to what is recognized is knowledge as CHOICE.. ---------- N: We discussed before Ven. Bodhi's note in the Perfections: anulomiyam khantiyam .thito: acquiescence in conformity . He said that khanti refers to acceptance of difficult to understand doctrines. Anyway, it refers to insight. I checked (with regard to worldly understanding, inventing a plough for the benefit of others, etc.) Vis. Ch XIV, and tiika, about khanti, khamati, anuloma. ------ Tiika: saccaanulomikanti vipassanaa~naa.na.m. As to the words, what is in conformity with truth, this is insight knowledge. ta.m hi saccapa.tivedhassa anulomanato ``saccaanulomika''nti vuccati. That is called in comformity with truth, because of comformity with the penetration of the truth. idaanissa pavattanaakaara.m dassetu.m ``ruupa.m aniccanti vaa''tiaadi vutta.m. Now in order to show the way it occurs, it is said, materiality is impermanent, or... and so on. tattha vaa-saddena aniyamatthena dukkhaanattalakkha.naanipi gahitaanevaati da.t.thabba.m naanantariyakabhaavato. Here with the indefinite word “or” also the characteristics of dukkha and non-self are thus taken and should be understood, although not handed down. ya.m hi anicca.m, ta.m dukkha.m. ya.m dukkha.m, tadanattaati. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is dukkha is non-self, has been said... anulomika.m khantintiaadiini pa~n~naavevacanaani. Conformable acceptance and so on are synonyms for understanding. saa hi he.t.thaa vuttaana.m kammaayatanaadiina.m apaccaniikadassanena anulomanato, For that is in conformity since it shows non-opposition to the spheres of work and so on, which were explained above. Tiika: words: khamati: endure, approve of, indulge in nijjhåna: understanding, insight, indulgence. nijjhåyati: meditate, reflect on. khanti: patience, acceptance. Tiika text: sabbaanipi etaani kaara.naani khamati da.t.thu.m sakkotiiti khanti. It accepts, it is able to see all these reasons, thus it is acceptance. passatiiti di.t.thi. rocetiiti ruci. munaatiiti muti. pekkhatiiti pekkhaa. It sees, it is view. It approves, it is approval. It knows, it is understanding. It observes, it is consideration. te ca kammaayatanaadayo dhammaa etaaya nijjhaayamaanaa nijjhaana.m khamantiiti dhammanijjhaanakhanti. And these subjects beginning with the spheres of work that are reflected on incline to understanding, and thus it is acceptance of the understanding of them. Perhaps this gives you some ideas. I always like to return to Vis. XIV, I find it very good. Nina. #85507 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 12:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Of Bats & Frogs nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 7-mei-2008, om 14:30 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I don’t see any development of panna as being involved in > scientific development, teaching/learning languages, building nests > and > dwellings or other kinds of worldly skill in themselves. ------- N: Because of Larry's question I went back again to Vis. XIV, the beginning about worldly pa~n~naa. I just made a few notes of what interested me. We read in the Visuddhimagga: . The Dispeller of Delusion explains that a wise man invents things for people’s confort, such as dwellings, tools for ploughing, sorts of science, etc. This is wisdom with regard to worldly matters. Thus, there is wisdom in behaviour beneficial to beings, and higher degrees of understanding, namely: understanding of the Path, and the realization of nibbana. What I found interesting that is that even worldly understanding is a level of pa~n~naa, that together with other conditions can support the arising of higher wisdom later on. I am thinking of the Atthasaalinii (p. 100): His teaching of worldly matters must be with kusala citta to help others, and as we see this is not the only condition, there are other conditions as we see in the text. Nina. #85508 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2008 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Akusala, Moha, prompting in rupa/arupavacara, jhana, cittas nilovg Dear Alex, Op 8-mei-2008, om 23:26 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > In CMA (cittasangaha), why in Rupa/Arupa worlds there isn't any > Akusala? ------- N: We have to distinguish between plane or sphere of citta and plane of existence as place where one is born. As to sphere of citta: rupa-jhaanacittas and aruupa jhaanacittas cannot be akusala. But as to planes of rebirth: even in the highest brahmaplanes lobha can still occur. alas no time for your other q. Nina. #85509 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/9/2008 2:45:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 9-mei-2008, om 16:46 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > We cannot reverse the > aging process. We cannot prevent eventual death of the body. The > body, just as > paramattha dhammas, is anicca, dukkha, and anatta. It is not, > however, nothing > at all. ------- N: But the body is rupa paramattha dhammas, and at each moment, all these rupas, some produced by kamma, some by citta, some by heat, some by nutrition, fall away and are replaced so long as conditions permit. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is not that the body *is* rupa paramattha dhammas, but that the body is a mere collection of rupa paramattha dhammas. And the same is true of automobiles, trees, houses, and clouds! The body is no more rupa paramattha dhammas than are any of the other material aggregations - all mere collections. ------------------------------------------------------ But the impermanence of rupas can only directly by realized by insight. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: The impermanence of rupas is indeed knowable by direct awareness and insight. We can, for example, be directly aware of a bodily sensation occurring and of it ending, of willing occurring and of it ceasing, and so on. It is also true that our bodies are impermanent, and we can be aware of that impermanence as well. Actually, it is even easier to observe the impermanence of our bodies than that of paramattha dhammas. Of course, the impermanence of our bodies and all the other facts about them depend entirely on the properties of, and interrelationships among, the rupas of which they are composed. The main difference is that liberation is finally accomplished not by the (albeit useful) observing of the impermanence of aggregations, which is a very common and widely remarked upon fact in all religions and by such writer-philosopher-psychologists as Shakespeare, but by directly observing the tilakkhana in the ultimate constituents of aggregations, the paramattha dhammas. I have no doubt that it is the direct awareness and realization of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, conditionality & impersonality of paramattha dhammas that constitutes liberating wisdom and is the portal to nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------- The body is something that can be blown away, it is a mere nothing. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it and every one of its constituents, each, "a bubble in a stream," and, each, "a phantom and a dream." ;-) --------------------------------------------------- I think of Herman's story: one moment the body was still a living body, and within splitseconds there was only a corpse, and so unforeseeable. No time to prepare. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Now is the time to prepare, Nina. Be ever watchful, ever mindful. ------------------------------------------------- Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard #85510 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/9 : > > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 5/8/2008 7:03:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Secondly, because the alternative you offer, that there are only namas > and rupas, is also thinking. No such division exists in an unthought > reality. > > > ============================= > No such division *in terms of name or concept* exists as an unthought > reality, but there is in reality a distinction between what we call "nama" and > what we call "rupa." Thanks for your reply. Also thank you for your efforts in another thread to tidy up terminology. My reply to you here could just as usefully be posted in your terminology thread, because I think that mostly we are referring to the same things, but using different concepts to do so. The hardness we experience through body sense is > completely different from the "hardness thought about" and completely different from > the bodily consciousness that is the knowing of it and completely different > from the thinking about it. Likewise, that which is seen is different from > the seeing and different from the thinking about it and different from the > thought-about-sight. This is clear to me. I can only express it to you through > speech and concept, for that is what speech and concept are all about - > communicating, but what I am discussing here is wordless, concept-free experience. > The fact that what is experienced is just "such," just what it is, does not > imply no differences. I think that a useful distinction to make is one between description and explanation. And another concept that would be useful to introduce would be mode. Allow me to expand. We both know that there is experience unmediated by concepts, and to descibe that experience as "such" is very apt and uncontroversial. Also, there is no going outside of suchness in describing an experience as "going to the fridge" or"eating an apple" or any other turn of phrase, when those words are just used to refer to what was experienced. Of course, we do both understand that when describing an experience, we are not in the same mode as when the experience occured. In contrast, when we talk about the hardness we experience through body sense, or distinguish between the seeing and the seen, we need to be aware that we are no longer just describing, we have introduced explanation into our dialogue. We have started to include things we have not experienced, namely the reasons or conditions why or how things occurred. In the mode of suchness there is no split between the seen and what caused it, there is only the seen. It is only in the mode of reflection on the seen that objects and actions become divorced, and/or have a subject as recipient and/or agent introduced. And the reality is that in the mode of reflection, what is reflected on has no suchness, but the process of reflection is "such". Now, I must add, that there is no default or proper mode, but what is experienced is conditional upon the mode of experience. In the mode of reflection, which could also be referred to as mode of analysis, or the mode of duality, it is true enough to say there is a distinction between nama and rupa, but that does not translate into that distinction being relevant to other modes, or having some overarching reality. (For completeness sake, nibbana would be yet another mode) Cheers Herman #85511 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Op 9-mei-2008, om 4:39 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > K. Sujin is completely evil! K. Sujin is the devil incarnate! ;- )) > > (Okay, I exaggerate some, but if she can do it so can I! ;-)) > ------ > N: Is that metta? We are back at the old James. James: Yes it is metta; it just isn't fake metta. ... You know you > exaggerate, then regret it later, and after a while, you are back. It > shows how stubborn accumulated tendencies are. James: I don't regret it. It is the next day and I don't regret it. I am relaxing with my morning coffee (yeah, I had to go back! ;- )); I am very relaxed; and I don't regret it. I would be happier if > you first write your post in concept, keep it for a day before you > send it. James: I would still send the same post. ... > As I said before: let us just discuss Dhamma. You can simply say that > you disagree with Kh S. James: I did say that. I just added some humor. You know I have an outrageous sense of humor. ... > --------- > > > > J: The problem that most people have with developing metta is the > > first > > step: developing metta toward oneself. > ------- > N: Please read the Vis. IX, 10 (and we discussed this before): this [initial development towards oneself] refers to [making oneself] > an example. ...Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want > to live and not to die, so do other beings, too, making himself the > example, then desire for other beings' welfare and happiness arises > in him> > Thus we do not take it literally to have metta towards himself. James: This is one interpretation and, sure, we could discuss that. But now I am tired. ... > It is explained that when jhana is developed metta can be boundless, > all around. > ReadVis. IX, 44: consciousness has reached absorption in the first jhana and the rest.> > I like the expression: breaking down the barriers. James: Don't follow how this is related to the subject of which comes first: metta or jhana? > Nina > Metta, James #85513 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sukinderpal Hi TG, I have a little time so I'll respond to this one. ============= TG: Personally, I practice breaking down phenomena into elements all the time. Love it! The difference is, I don't break them down to see them as "ultimate realities." Sukin: As you probably know by now, I don't encourage any such breakdown, including seeing them as "ultimate realities". This is not to say that I don't "Think" a lot, I do and this includes analyzing in terms of what are concepts and what are realities. However, I also know to some extent, that this is only "thinking" and find this to be of importance, rather than any exercise in conceptual breaking down into elements. Why? Because, if there is no understanding of the reality of the moment and one is drawn in instead, by any conceptualizing, this is likely the result of ignorance and conditions hence, attachment. This seems to be the case especially when one is at the level of `conventional realities' and thinks to break down those in terms of concepts one has heard about, namely elements and conditionality etc. Do you not find it important to determine what it is that conditions such thinking, rather than be drawn in by the particular line of thought? TG: I break them down to "see" how they are working. And they are working like the Buddha taught them to be working...conditionally, impermanently, afflictedly (with impermanence, and more), and selflessly. They are conditionally relative, and void, empty, and coreless of anything that could be ascribed as being "there own." Sukin: When I think about something being `ultimate reality' as against `concept', I do not insist on much more than simply making that particular distinction. When I suggested in my post yesterday, that this was pointing to the fact of characteristic, function, manifestation and cause of realities, this conclusion I made only then as I was typing the letter. I only thought to try and determine "what it is that was being stated when the reference to "ultimate reality" is being made"? It appeared then that that was what it was. When we study about the moment, is it not in fact about these, depending on the level of understanding? But the thought to "do" this is not what drives me. I acknowledge where the ignorance is at, namely at all levels, sense door as well as the mind door which follows. Why would I want to overreach and think about things that do nothing to reduce the kind of ignorance?! The thinking happens, but this is the result either of ignorance or not. If it is the result of "knowing", what did that in fact know? You seem to think that detachment can happen by thinking in these terms and you believe that you do `notice' them happening in experience. I believe, that given that we are in fact ignorant of the experiences through all six doorways, the thinking remains only thinking and rooted in attachment if not also wrong view. Time to go now. Metta, Sukin #85514 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Khanti. Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina, Thanks for all the info on khanti in relation to understanding. Conformity knowledge seems to be the transition from mundane to supramundane and that makes "khanti" as a descriptor rather important. We will see more on conformity knowledge in XXI. Larry #85515 From: "colette" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 6:10 pm Subject: Blessings ksheri3 Hi Group, Today I received a card purchased from the Tibetan Aid Project by a friend that knows how difficult things are for me, understands, and still has compassion enough to stay in touch with me. I opened the envelope and immediately said "Prayer Flags". As I read the description on the back it is a picture of Samye valley taken from Hepo-ri. It is things like this that make so beautiful and exciting to live and experience. Love ya all. toodles, colette #85516 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 9, 2008 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/9/2008 7:11:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: In the mode of suchness there is no split between the seen and what caused it, there is only the seen. It is only in the mode of reflection on the seen that objects and actions become divorced, and/or have a subject as recipient and/or agent introduced. ============================== I am close to agreeing with this. But there is not only the seen. There is also its presence. (I'm confused, BTW, by your talk of "what caused" the seen.) What I see no split between is the seen and the seeing of it. In the mode of suchness, what there is is not only the seen, but also its presence, with these being inseparable, co-occurring, conjoined, and mutually dependent. The presence of the sight and the seeing of it are one and the same. Seeing is no more than presence of a sight. With metta, Howard #85517 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 9, 2008 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Blessings egberdina Hi colette, 2008/5/10 colette : > Hi Group, > > Today I received a card purchased from the Tibetan Aid Project by a > friend that knows how difficult things are for me, understands, and > still has compassion enough to stay in touch with me. > > I opened the envelope and immediately said "Prayer Flags". As I read > the description on the back it is a picture of Samye valley taken from > Hepo-ri. > > It is things like this that make so beautiful and exciting to live and > experience. > > Love ya all. I am sorry that things are difficult for you. If you feel that I could do anything to help, feel free to contact me off-line. But I would like to publicly thank you for being a blessing to me. You blow me away with the broadness and depth of what you know. Not only that, what you know isn't dry, encyclopedia stuff, it IS you, it is living stuff. I truly appreciate your contributions to dsg, colette Herman #85518 From: han tun Date: Sat May 10, 2008 3:45 am Subject: Re: A question for Han about the way Dhamma is taught to householders in Asia hantun1 Dear Phil, I always get useful sutta quotes from you. This time, you gave me three sutta quotes all of which I like very much, and I am grateful to you for that. The passage from AN IV,11: Cara Sutta: "If while walking, standing, sitting or reclining when awake, a sensual though (kaama-vitakka), a thought of ill will (byaapaada-vitakka), or a violent thought (vihimsaa-vitakka) arises in a monk, and he tolerates it (adhivaaseti), does not abandon it (nappajahati), dispel it (na vinodeti), eliminate it (na byantiikaroti)and abolish it (na anabhaavam gamete), that monk - who in such a manner is ever and again lacking in earnest endeavour (anaataapii) and moral shame (anottaapii) - is called indolent and devoid of energy(satatam samitam kusiito hiinaviiriyo)." "If while walking, standing, sitting or reclining while awake, a sensual though (kaama-vitakka), a thought of ill will (byaapaada-vitakka), or a violent thought (vihimsaa-vitakka) arises in him, and he does not tolerates it (naadhivaaseti), but abandons it (pajahati), dispels it (vinodeti), eliminates it (byantiikaroti)and abolishes it (anabhaavam gamete), that monk - who in such a manner is ever and again shows earnest endeavour (anaataapii) and moral shame (anottaapii) - is called energetic and resolute (satatam samitam aaraddhaviiriyo pahitatto)." The Buddha uses beautiful words with regard to what the first monk does with a sensual though (kaama-vitakka), or a thought of ill will (byaapaada-vitakka), or a violent thought (vihimsaa-vitakka) when it arises in him, and what a second monk does in a similar situation. tolerates it (adhivaaseti); does not tolerates it (naadhivaaseti) does not abandon it (nappajahati); abandons it (pajahati) does not dispel it (na vinodeti); dispels it (vinodeti) does not eliminate it (na byantiikaroti); eliminates it (byantiikaroti) does not abolish it (na anabhaavam gamete); abolishes it (anabhaavam gamete) -------------------- The passage from AN IV,5: Anusota Sutta: "Of what nature is one who goes again the stream? It is one who does not indulge sensual desire and commit wrong deeds. He lives the holy life, though in painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing and in tears." Bhikkhu Bodhi noted that according to AA, this refers to stream-enterers and once-returners (particularly to those whose path of progress is difficult) and to virtuous persons who are still unliberated worldlings (puthujjana). I agree with your comments with regard to this passage: “This is simple and straightforward teaching from the Buddha - following it/applying it/giving rise to it is not easy, but one strives diligently to whatever degree one can (i.e. there are conditions for it) I find just writing down these passages is helpful and will probably condition more attention to them during this day to come.â€? To try or not to try is a big controversial issue, and I have long since given up discussing on this issue. I will not change my stance, and the other party will not change their stance. So it will not be profitable for both parties. -------------------- The passage from AN VIII, 73 Pathama Maranassati Sutta: “I think in this way, Lord: ‘Oh were I to live just for the time I breathe in after the out-breath, or breathe out after the in-breath, I would direct my mind on the Blessed One’s teaching. Much, indeed, could then be done by me!’ Thus, Lord, do I develop mindfulness of death.â€? Whenever I read this sutta, or AN V, 57 Abhinha-paccavekkhitabba-tthaana Sutta (Upajjhatthana Sutta), or DN 16 Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta, samvega arises in me. I had discussed with Nina and Sarah what samvega is, and I will not repeat our discussions here, but let us see what PTS Dictionary has to say. SaÅ‹vega : (page 658) religious emotion (caused by contemplation of the miseries of this world). Eight objects inducing emotion: birth, old age, illness, death, misery in the apaayas, and the misery caused by samsaara in past, present and future stages. A Burmese Sayadaw said that samvega is not enough for insight; one must develop vipassanaa ~naanas for insight. But for a mediocre puthujjana like me, I will be happy if I can get samvega with yoniso-manasikaara. Respectfully, Han #85519 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 10, 2008 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi again, Herman - Just a drop more: In a message dated 5/9/2008 10:36:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/9/2008 7:11:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: In the mode of suchness there is no split between the seen and what caused it, there is only the seen. It is only in the mode of reflection on the seen that objects and actions become divorced, and/or have a subject as recipient and/or agent introduced. ============================== I am close to agreeing with this. But there is not only the seen. There is also its presence. (I'm confused, BTW, by your talk of "what caused" the seen.) What I see no split between is the seen and the seeing of it. In the mode of suchness, what there is is not only the seen, but also its presence, with these being inseparable, co-occurring, conjoined, and mutually dependent. The presence of the sight and the seeing of it are one and the same. Seeing is no more than presence of a sight. With metta, Howard ================================ We *are* aware of presence. A strange sound occurs, and instantly our eyes widen and our head turns. Someone asks "What was that?", and instantly we answer "I don't know!!" It is true that we are aware of presence characterized AS presence, AS content of consciousness, only after the fact, during a process of conceptual evaluation and labeling. That is a second-hand knowing - useful, but beyond the original suchness. But prior to this, the presence is part and parcel of the experience - in fact, the presence of the seen IS the seeing of it. The seeing is nothing more than the presence of the sight. With metta, Howard #85520 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Perfections Corner (148) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 continues: The perfection of pa~n~naa can be developed when we perform deeds of generosity, but we should know to what purpose we give things away: to eliminate defilements. Someone who does not know that pa~n~naa has to be developed in order to realize the four noble Truths, gives without pa~n~naa, and he may expect a reward for his good deed. However, someone who gives things away with understanding of realities is aware of the fact that, in truth, no beings, people or self are to be found; he knows that birth leads to suffering and trouble, life after life. He knows that the end to rebirth is the end to suffering. This means that seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or the experience of tangible object and all the sufferings caused by them will not arise any more. All kinds of kusala have to be developed to the degree of a perfection, so that the four noble Truths can be realized and defilements be eradicated. When someone has become a streamwinner, sotaapanna, he will not more than seven times be reborn and then attain arahatship. When sati and pa~n~naa have become keener and more refined, we shall see that we have many different kinds of defilements through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind, the whole day. It is extremely difficult to eradicate them completely. This can only be achieved by developing every kind of kusala to the degree of a perfection. If someone has right understanding of the significance of the perfections, he will, when he performs generous deeds, not aim for anything else but the realization of the noble Truths so that defilements can be completely eradicated. We can only know ourselves whether our kusala is a perfection or not. If someone has no understanding of the way to eradicate defilements, his generosity is not a perfection. Someone who has listened to the Dhamma and notices his defilements, may perform kusala of the degree of a perfection, but it all depends on the strenghth of his pa~n~naa. Some people who have just begun to listen to the Dhamma say that they do not need to attain nibbaana, and that they do not need to be a "streamwinner", sotaapanna, who will not be reborn more than seven times. They want to be reborn more than seven times. Thus, it is evident that in their case pa~n~naa of the level of listening is still weak. For the development of the perfections it is necessary that pa~n~naa clearly sees the benefit of developing them, be it the perfection of generosity, of siila, of renunciation or any of the other perfections. Thus, it all depends on the degree of pa~n~naa to what extent the perfections can be developed. .. to be continued, connie #85521 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 6:05 am Subject: Vinaya Pitaka szmicio I know Sutta Pitaka. But I've never read Abhidhamma Pitaka or Vinaya Pitaka. Where sholud I start? Which book of Vinaya Pitaka sholud I read first? Is there any profit from reading Vinaya Pitaka? bye Lukas #85522 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 7:33 am Subject: The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . truth_aerator Hello all, I am sure that at least some of you have heard a typical teachings of "Be mindful! Just observe! Observe without any reaction to whatever is happening see ultimate realities!" I have a question: According to dependent origination, avijja -> sankhara -> vinnana -> namarupa -> etc. Thus avijja ->... Vinanana avijja ->... nama How does one make sure that one's "bare" observation isn't tainted by a Avijja (gross or subtle)? One of the toughest thing is that a deluded person doesn't know that s/he is deluded! :) ---- Also, how does one make sure that when one studies AP one doesn't replace one attachement (to conventional realities) with attachement to "Ultimate realities" ? "There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk relishes them, welcomes them, & remains fastened to them, he is said to be a monk fettered to ideas cognizable by the intellect. He has gone over to Mara's camp; he has come under Mara's power. The Evil One can do with him as he wills... "There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, he is said to be a monk freed from ideas cognizable by the intellect. He has not gone over to Mara's camp; he has not come under Mara's power. The Evil One cannot do with him as he wills." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.115.than.html ---- Best wishes, Alex #85523 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 7:50 am Subject: Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the reply. Please 'correct' me anytime. This is what I want from you. I will often try to state it as I see it and hope that if you see it otherwise you will show me. I know that you are learning as well, and so am not automatically thinking you are right, but you have been considering this material for longer than I so I'll accept your work-in-progress and make it part of mine. I feel at home with the stated aims of the list and so only want to learn these materials as well as possible. S: "...it is definitely not referring to 'reviewing knowledge', but to its ordinary meaning of reviewing, reflecting. I haven't checked the text carefully or the Pali, but I assume from your discussion it is referring to the reviewing/reflecting on the body parts as part of samatha development for those bhikkhus..." Scott: That makes sense. I was wondering the same thing. If this is the case, that is if these sorts of reflections were the object of concentration, as they would be in the development of samatha, then this would not at all be like the day-to-day development of satipa.t.thaana. Is this reviewing of the bodily part in the development of samatha just thinking about them, where the thoughts, as in the use of thoughts of mettaa for the development of samatha, become the focus and condition the arising of jhaana? S: The notes were all very interesting, but not only is the SS not referring to 'reviewing knowledge', I doubt that in context paccavekkhana is referring to 'lower stages on the enlightenment path' either." Scott: Okay. How does this differ from just thinking about something? S: "...Sometimes it is just the ordinary meaning in use at the time (before the Buddha) that we need to consider. When the text uses "kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati" and "sampajaana", it's clearly referring to right awareness and right understanding of satipatthana, of course." Scott: Thanks, Sarah. Sincerely, Scott. #85524 From: han tun Date: Sat May 10, 2008 8:12 am Subject: Correction: Re: A question for Han about the way Dhamma is taught to householders in Asia hantun1 Correction Dear Phil, In my last post with regard to the passage from AN IV,11: Cara Sutta, I had written the second paragraph as follows: "If while walking, standing, sitting or reclining while awake, a sensual though (kaama-vitakka), a thought of ill will (byaapaada-vitakka), or a violent thought (vihimsaa-vitakka) arises in him, and he does not tolerates it (naadhivaaseti), but abandons it (pajahati), dispels it (vinodeti), eliminates it (byantiikaroti)and abolishes it (anabhaavam gamete), that monk - who in such a manner is ever and again shows earnest endeavour (anaataapii) and moral shame (anottaapii) - is called energetic and resolute (satatam samitam aaraddhaviiriyo pahitatto)." There were two mistakes in Pali inserts. Please correct them as follows: ----------that monk - who in such a manner is ever and again shows earnest endeavour (aataapii) and moral shame (ottaapii) - is called energetic and resolute (satatam samitam aaraddhaviiriyo pahitatto)." I am sorry for the mistakes. Respectfully, Han #85525 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 10, 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... TGrand458@... Hi Sukin First a question then sone comments below... Question: Do phenomena move in relation to each other? In a message dated 5/9/2008 7:38:55 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: Sukin: As you probably know by now, I don't encourage any such breakdown, including seeing them as "ultimate realities". ...................................................... NEW TG: Now this I just don't get. The Abhidhamma Pitaka is a "breakdown extraordinarie." I guess its OK for you guys to break things down, but not the rest of us? ................................................. This is not to say that I don't "Think" a lot, I do and this includes analyzing in terms of what are concepts and what are realities. However, I also know to some extent, that this is only "thinking" and find this to be of importance, rather than any exercise in conceptual breaking down into elements. Why? Because, if there is no understanding of the reality of the moment and one is drawn in instead, by any conceptualizing, this is likely the result of ignorance and conditions hence, attachment. This seems to be the case especially when one is at the level of `conventional realities' and thinks to break down those in terms of concepts one has heard about, namely elements and conditionality etc. Do you not find it important to determine what it is that conditions such thinking, rather than be drawn in by the particular line of thought? TG: I break them down to "see" how they are working. And they are working like the Buddha taught them to be working...conditionworkin impermanently, afflictedly (with impermanence, and more), and selflessly. They are conditionally relative, and void, empty, and coreless of anything that could be ascribed as being "there own." Sukin: When I think about something being `ultimate reality' as against `concept', I do not insist on much more than simply making that particular distinction. When I suggested in my post yesterday, that this was pointing to the fact of characteristic, function, manifestation and cause of realities, this conclusion I made only then as I was typing the letter. I only thought to try and determine "what it is that was being stated when the reference to "ultimate reality" is being made"? It appeared then that that was what it was. When we study about the moment, is it not in fact about these, depending on the level of understanding? But the thought to "do" this is not what drives me. I acknowledge where the ignorance is at, namely at all levels, sense door as well as the mind door which follows. Why would I want to overreach and think about things that do nothing to reduce the kind of ignorance?! ................................................. NEW TG: It would be foolish to waste time in that way. What you should do, is spend time thinking about things that lead toward greater insight and relinquishment from conditionality. The things I'm talking about have "everything" to do with reducing ignorance. I'm just wondering, your comments don't seem to reflect the contents of the Suttas at all. The Buddha says time and again to "think about things this way, think about them that way, reflect this way...contemplate this way...etc. It seems to me your outlook is incongruous with much of the advice from the Buddha. ...................................................................... The thinking happens, but this is the result either of ignorance or not. If it is the result of "knowing", what did that in fact know? You seem to think that detachment can happen by thinking in these terms and you believe that you do `notice' them happening in experience. I believe, that given that we are in fact ignorant of the experiences through all six doorways, the thinking remains only thinking and rooted in attachment if not also wrong view. ...................................................................... NEW TG: Here we just flat disagree. It seems you prescribe a "Path" to a "destination" that has no "Path." Almost a futile outlook. Anyway, hope you answer the question on ?movement." Take care. TG ................................................................. Time to go now. Metta, Sukin #85526 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 10, 2008 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . TGrand458@... Hi Alex In a message dated 5/10/2008 8:33:54 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, I am sure that at least some of you have heard a typical teachings of "Be mindful! Just observe! Observe without any reaction to whatever is happening see ultimate realities!" I have a question: According to dependent origination, avijja -> sankhara -> vinnana -> namarupa -> etc. Thus avijja ->... Vinanana avijja ->... nama How does one make sure that one's "bare" observation isn't tainted by a Avijja (gross or subtle)? ............................................... TG: IMO, by knowing that the totality of conditioned phenomena and all experiences are impermanent, afflicted (with impermanence), and nonself. This takes a huge amount of "preliminary work" in investigating conditional principles and seeing/feeling them function through the body and mind. The Buddha's teaching being an invaluable resource. The mind needs to be "reset" so that it intuitively knows these things. Then, "bare attention" is a nice field for cultivation. Otherwise, your concerns of how efficacious such a "bare attention" practice would be are well founded IMO. ............................................................. One of the toughest thing is that a deluded person doesn't know that s/he is deluded! :) ....................................................... TG: Yea .......................................................... ---- Also, how does one make sure that when one studies AP one doesn't replace one attachement (to conventional realities) with attachement to "Ultimate realities" ? .................................................... TG: Yea... All in all its just another "brick in the wall" (I made that up.) ;-) Whether Suttas or Abhidhamma, or commentaries; they won't help too much unless the "in-formation" that gets "transferred" to the mind is able to destroy attachment...and they are only helpful to whatever extent they do destroy attachment. TG OUT ...................................................... "There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk relishes them, welcomes them, & remains fastened to them, he is said to be a monk fettered to ideas cognizable by the intellect. He has gone over to Mara's camp; he has come under Mara's power. The Evil One can do with him as he wills... "There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, he is said to be a monk freed from ideas cognizable by the intellect. He has not gone over to Mara's camp; he has not come under Mara's power. The Evil One cannot do with him as he wills." _http://www.accesstohttp://www.ahttp://wwhttp://www.achttp://wwhttp_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.115.than.html) ---- Best wishes, Alex #85527 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 1:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya Pitaka m_nease Hi Lukas, I do think the Abhidhammapi.taka's great but I'll leave it to others to suggest where to begin. If you liked the Suttapi.taka, you'll like the Vinayapi.taka. Great reading with many wonderful discourses and anecdotes and a fascinating history (incidentally) of the evolution of the bhikkhusangha. I have the six-volume PTS English translation (I.B. Horner's) which is incomplete (and bowdlerized) but I'm told there are better translations into English now. About Polish translations I don't know. Best Wishes, mike szmicio wrote: > > I know Sutta Pitaka. But I've never read Abhidhamma Pitaka or Vinaya > Pitaka. Where sholud I start? Which book of Vinaya Pitaka sholud I > read first? > > Is there any profit from reading Vinaya Pitaka? > > bye > Lukas > > #85528 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 12:13 pm Subject: Socially Sound in 6 Directions! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Golden Buddhist Life Standards are the Primary Laws! The golden Buddhist's life standards make harmony for oneself and others. This layman's code of discipline = (gihi-vinaya) organize social relationships so that they produce a society of happy being and beings: Law 3 is: Law 3: Maintain good and sound social relations in all 6 directions: First direction: How should Children behave towards Parents and Parents behave towards children? Children should honour their parents by: 1. Having been raised by them, one looks after them in return. 2. One helps them in their business and work. 3. One continues & maintains the family line. 4. One conducts oneself as is proper for an heir. 5. After their death, one makes offerings, dedicating the merit to them. Parents should help their children by: 1. Cautioning and protecting them from evil. 2. Nurturing and training them in goodness. 3. Providing a suitable & proper education. 4. Seeing to it that they obtain suitable spouses. 5. Bequeathing the inheritance to them at the right time. Second direction: How should Students behave towards Teachers and Teachers behave towards students? Students should respect their teachers by: 1. One rises to greet the teacher when he arrives and shows respect towards the teacher. 2. One approaches the teacher to attend to & serve him, to consult, to query & to receive advice from him. 3. One listens well & pay full undivided attention so as to gain complete understanding. 4. One performs any practical task and runs errands for the teacher. 5. One learns the subject earnestly, giving this task of learning right priority. Teachers should support his students by: 1. Teaching and training them to be good and skilful. 2. Guiding them to thorough & penetrating understanding. 3. Teaching the subject in full, holding nothing back. 4. Encouraging and praising the student's qualities and abilities. 5. Providing learning that both can make a living & induce behaviour producing happy prosperity. Third direction: How should Husband behave towards Wife and Wife behave towards Husband? A husband, one should honour and support the wife by: 1. One honours her in accordance with her status as a wife. 2. One does not disparage, criticize, undervalue or belittle her. 3. One does not commit adultery with any other women. 4. One gives her control of & responsibility for all the household affairs. 5. One gives her occasional gifts of ornaments and clothing. A wife supports her husband by: 1. Keeping the household clean, proper and tidy. 2. Helping the relations and friends of both family sides. 3. Not committing adultery with any other men. 4. Safeguarding any wealth that has been acquired. 5. Being energetic and enduring in all her works. Fourth direction: How should Friend behave towards Friend? A real friend maintains his friendships by: 1. He shares with them. 2. He speaks kindly to and about them. 3. He helps them whenever needed. 4. He is constant & faithful despite their ups and downs. 5. He is understanding and sincere. Friends then reciprocate by: 1. Protecting their friend when he is off guard. 2. Protecting their friend's property when one is off guard. 3. Being a safe refuge and shelter in times of danger. 4. Not desert or leave their good friend in times of need. 5. Respecting all their friend's family and relations. Fifth direction: How should Employer behave towards employees, & Employees towards employer? 1. The Employer assigns the work in accordance with the workers strength, sex, age, and abilities. 2. He pays them wages compatible with their work and adequate for their livelihood. 3. He grants them fringe benefits and provides medical care in times of sickness. 4. He shares with them a portion of any special profits that may arise. 5. He gives them appropriate holidays and suitable time to rest. The Employee helps the employer by: 1. Starting work before the employer. 2. Stopping work after the employer. 3. Taking only what is given by his employer. 4. Doing the job well and always seeking ways to improve on it. 5. Spreading a good reputation about the employer and his business. Sixth direction: How should the lay Buddhist behave towards monks and nuns, & they towards him? The Lay Buddhist honours and respects the ordained Sangha by: 1. He acts towards them in goodwill. 2. He speaks to them with goodwill. 3. He thinks of them with goodwill. 4. He receives them willingly. 5. He supports them with the four requisites of almsfood, robes, shelter and medicine. All Monks and nuns help the lay people by: 1. Protecting them from evil actions which inevitably produces painful consequences. 2. Encouraging them in goodness, which inevitably produces pleasurable consequences. . 3. Assisting them in all activities with kind intentions. 4. Making known to them the things they have not heard before. 5. Enhancing and clarifying those things they have already heard. 6. Pointing out the way to heaven, & teaching them the way to happy prosperity here & now. Source: A constitution for Living. Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life. Ven. P.A. Payutto. Thailand. Buddhist Publication Society 2007: BP 620S http://www.bps.lk The Golden Buddhist Life Standards are the Primary Laws! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ...... #85529 From: han tun Date: Sat May 10, 2008 3:43 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (148) hantun1 Dear Connie, Nina and others, Text: Some people who have just begun to listen to the Dhamma say that they do not need to attain nibbaana, and that they do not need to be a "streamwinner" , sotaapanna, who will not be reborn more than seven times. They want to be reborn more than seven times. Han: I know that I cannot be a sotaapanna in this life. So I said I will do my best to do meritorious deeds and leave the results to my kamma. Am I then included in the above category? Respectfully, Han #85530 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/9 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > Thanks for the reply. Also, condolences for the death of Vicki's > uncle. I find myself comtemplating death every day, and sometimes > consider the suddeness of the moment when life in this existence ends. > Thanks for your kind thoughts. > > Scott: If I'm following this, it is suggested that the rightness or > wrongness of a view is determined by what I consider to be ethereal > factors - some sort of consensus amongst people. Is it fair to > suggest that a 'view' is conceptual? If so, then I can see where you > might be coming from, but I don't agree that the rightness and > wrongness is simply a matter of consensus. I consider concepts to be > devoid of characteristics. I consider rightness and wrongness, > however, to stem from the presence of dhammas, which do have > characteristics (see below). Nicely put. > I'm looking at di.t.thi, and, in particular, whether there can be > legitimate reason to accept that di.t.thi can be either right or > wrong. First of all, I consider that the dichotomy kusala/akusala is > valid. I consider this dichotomy to rest on the characteristics which > are inherent in the constituents of a given moment of consciousness. > Secondly, I consider I think that when it is sammaa-di.t.thi, one is > dealing with pa~n~naa, which arises with kusala-citta. When it is > michaa-di.t.thi, one is dealing with views associated, at times, with > akusala-citta. Wrong-view exists as anusaya, as aasava, as upaadaana, > and as vipallaasa, and since these involve dhammas and the effects of > dhammas via conditions, then they are more than simply attributed > qualities. What you say would certainly apply to reviewing the recent past, and categorising it as being of this or that kind. But what about the largest source of views, views about causation / conditionality? There is no dhamma that has the characteristic of making it true that this dhamma here was a condition for the arising of that dhamma there. Views about conditionality are conceptst, and as you say, that means they lack characteristics, and certainly a characteristic of being true or false, right or wrong. Causally linking dhammas here with other dhammas there is the "seeing" of a relationship that isn't there to be seen. > > H: "I hope I am not missing your point, and please tell me if I have > misunderstood, but I do not know what could be different between > conventional and Pa.t.thaana - type conditionality. What is the same > about all conditionality is that it is always inferred (thought), > simply because conditionality has no characteristics, it cannot be > experienced. We say, and agree, that everything occurs due to > conditions, but we do not, for example, see that the eye is seeing, or > hear that the ear is hearing. We might agree, or disagree, about that, > after thinking it to be so." > > Scott: Ahh, we've travelled this road before. Conditionality refers > to the dynamics of dhammas. Given that it deals with the ways in > which dhammas in the moment, and from moment-to-moment have their > effect; and given that dhammas are paramattha, with characteristics > which are the stuff of 'experience', then conditionality is not merely > inference. You have given me no option but to disagree with you. The temporal sequence of dhammas is limited, as experience, to only that. It takes the form: this is followed by that which is followed by that. But conditionality proceeds to an explanation of that sequence. It selects from everything that happens, and says x was causally relevant to y, but z wasn't. Unless you can tell me by which other means this can become known, I have no option but to assume that it is all inference, which can be right or wrong. > > Scott: I had a discussion with Larry about this, and couldn't follow > it with him. I don't really understand this. I recall this refers to > whether the object of vipaaka-citta is pleasant or unpleasant. > Despite not having a clue, I think this is a whole other area than the > one we are discussing. > I'm happy to leave it out. Cheers Herman #85531 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/9 : > > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 5/9/2008 7:30:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > On the > other hand, the way things ARE is entirely unknowable, in fact the > present moment is an inference, or as is said at dsg, it is "only > thinking" :-) > > ================================ > I don't understand this. It seems to me that when we are seeing, that is > knowing in the present. Likewise, when we are hearing, that is knowing in > the present. Why would it not be? I owe you a few replies, but time is a limiting factor. (Isn't that always the case? :-)) Anyway, here's one of the replies I owe you I think that "we are hearing, we are seeing" are post-hoc inferences, that require switching from a non-dual mode to a dual mode. This switching takes time and whatever sight or sound gave rise to that sequence of events, is no longer in play. We are, IMO, thinking about the past, when we say we are hearing or seeing. I'll try and make it a bit clearer. One might say "I see red". This is a dualistic description of affairs in which an object is known by something other than the object. It is an introduction of a Point Of View on what is merely presence ie "red". There is no necessity for red to become consciousness of red, red is fully what it is, nothing is gained by it, but as we all know, this cleaving of reality does happen, and is what I would think is meant by samsara. Because much loss is introduced in cleaving "red" into consciousness on the one had, and red on the other. Because the consciousness is not there as presence. It has no characteristic, unlike our red. It has to be thought. In order to find the consciousness, another cleaving of reality is applied. Which then becomes a consciousness of "consciousness of red". And again, that consciousness is not there as presence, but as thought, and in order to find it, another cleaving is applied. Ad infinitum. Little wonder that with the multitude of layers of abstraction, there can be a belief that there is consciousness apart from it's object, but in reality, all that is there is the object. But if you try to find it, in order to know it, it will be gone, It is (the) past. Cheers Herman #85532 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat May 10, 2008 6:46 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,258-260 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 258. 4. 'As to analysis, synthesis' means as to both the analysis and the synthesis of becoming that has clinging as its condition. The kamma with sense-desire clinging as its condition that is performed and generates sense-desire becoming is 'kamma-process becoming'. The aggregates generated by that are 'rebirth-process becoming'; similarly in the case of fine-material and immaterial becoming. So there are two kinds of sense-desire becoming with sense-desire clinging as condition, included in which are percipient becoming and five-constituent becoming. And there are two kinds of fine-material becoming, included in which are percipient, non-percipient, one-constituent, and five-constituent becoming. And there are two kinds of immaterial becoming, included in which are percipient becoming, neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient becoming, and four-constituent becoming. So, together with what is included by them, there are six kinds of becoming with sense-desire clinging as condition. Similarly too with the [three] remaining kinds of clinging as condition. So as to analysis, there are, together with what is included by them, twenty-four kinds of becoming with clinging as condition. 259. 5. 'As to synthesis', however, by uniting kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming there is, together with what is included by it, one kind of sense-desire becoming with sense-desire clinging as its condition. Similarly with fine-material and immaterial becoming. So there are three kinds of becoming. And similarly with the remaining [three] kinds of clinging as condition. So by synthesis, there are, together with what is included by them, twelve kinds of becoming with clinging as condition. 260. Furthermore, without distinction the kamma with clinging as its condition that attains sense-desire becoming is kamma-process becoming. The aggregates generated by that are rebirth-process becoming. Similarly in the fine-material and immaterial becoming. So, together with what is included by them, there are two kinds of sense-desire becoming, two kinds of fine-material becoming, and two kinds of immaterial becoming. So, by synthesis, there are six kinds of becoming by this other method. Or again, without making the division into kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming, there are, together with what is included by them, three kinds of becoming as sense-desire becoming, and so on. Or again, without making the division into sense-desire becoming, etc., there are, together with what is included by them, two kinds of becoming, as kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming. And also without making the division into kamma process and rebirth process there is, according to the words 'With clinging as condition, becoming', only one kind of becoming. This is how the exposition of becoming with clinging as condition should be known here 'as to analysis and synthesis'. *************************** 258. bhedasa"ngahaati upaadaanapaccayaa bhavassa bhedato ceva sa"ngahato ca. ya~nhi kaamupaadaanapaccayaa kaamabhavanibbattaka.m kamma.m kariiyati, so kammabhavo. tadabhinibbattaa khandhaa upapattibhavo. esa nayo ruupaaruupabhavesu. eva.m kaamupaadaanapaccayaa dve kaamabhavaa, tadantogadhaa ca sa~n~naabhavapa~ncavokaarabhavaa, dve ruupabhavaa, tadantogadhaa ca sa~n~naabhavaasa~n~naabhavaekavokaarabhavapa~ncavokaarabhavaa, dve aruupabhavaa, tadantogadhaa ca sa~n~naabhavanevasa~n~naanaasa~n~naabhavacatuvokaarabhavaati saddhi.m antogadhehi cha bhavaa. yathaa ca kaamupaadaanapaccayaa saddhi.m antogadhehi cha bhavaa. tathaa sesupaadaanapaccayaapiiti eva.m upaadaanapaccayaa bhedato saddhi.m antogadhehi catuviisati bhavaa. 259. sa"ngahato pana kammabhava.m upapattibhava~nca ekato katvaa kaamupaadaanapaccayaa saddhi.m antogadhehi eko kaamabhavo. tathaa ruupaaruupabhavaati tayo bhavaa. tathaa sesupaadaanapaccayaa piiti. eva.m upaadaanapaccayaa sa"ngahato saddhi.m antogadhehi dvaadasa bhavaa. 260. apica avisesena upaadaanapaccayaa kaamabhavuupaga.m kamma.m kammabhavo. tadabhinibbattaa khandhaa upapattibhavo. esa nayo ruupaaruupabhavesu. eva.m upaadaanapaccayaa saddhi.m antogadhehi dve kaamabhavaa, dve ruupabhavaa, dve aruupabhavaati aparena pariyaayena sa"ngahato cha bhavaa. kammabhavaupapattibhavabheda.m vaa anupagamma saddhi.m antogadhehi kaamabhavaadivasena tayo bhavaa honti. kaamabhavaadibhedampi anupagamma kammabhavaupapattibhavavasena dve bhavaa honti. kammupapattibheda~ncaapi anupagamma upaadaanapaccayaa bhavoti bhavavasena ekova bhavo hotiiti evamettha upaadaanapaccayassa bhavassa bhedasa"ngahaapi vi~n~naatabbo vinicchayo. #85533 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 7:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Herman, A belated welcome-back from me! Ken H--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > 2008/5/8 kenhowardau : > > Hi Larry, > > > > > > We might think it is a little bit laborious to have to read all 40 > > ways of doing the same thing. But it just gives a little taste of how > > often right understanding needs to arise. Countless times in > > countless lifetimes! :-) > > > > From what I have read of your writings over the years, you are very > much a present-moment-man. I was therefore stunned and amazed :-) > that you would contemplate a future that is driven by a need. Not that > I disagree with that, in fact I totally agree that that is the nature > of the future. What I don't get is where your past dogmatic assertions > that there can only be this present moment have gone? > ----------- This might sound pompous, but the secret is to be interested in anatta. After that, the rest is plain sailing. I have no trouble in seeing how the need for repeated right understanding is perfectly compatible with a present-moment-only reality. And I am no more intelligent than anyone else on this list. :-) I think most people here are happy with their beliefs in conventional reality. And good luck to them! But they can't have it both ways. They will inevitably find the present-moment world very hard to see - even theoretically. Ken H #85534 From: "Alex" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 7:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... truth_aerator Dear Herman and ALL Abhidhammikas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > I think that "we are hearing, we are seeing" are post-hoc inferences, >>>> According to science there is a "reaction time". We have ~1/4 or so reaction time, so what we call present is generally already past and gone (unless it exists in the past). We NEVER percieve presently arisen moment since perception of an object and object itself happen at different times (two cittas cannot coexist simulteneously acc to Abhidhamma). >>> We are, IMO, thinking about the past, when we say we are hearing or seeing. > Agree 100% . ---- Existence of 3 segments of time argument ------ A) It is possible to see one's citta. B) The seen state of citta cannot simulteneously arise with seeing citta as 2 cittas cannot arise together. c) However what is (lobha or dosa for example) cognized by the Citta, MUST exist. But since the seen citta (akusala or kusala) citta isn't found in the present - then it exists and is real in another non-present moment of time. In this case in the past. D) We can see the truths about the arisen state of citta example: i) Anger or greed are unskillful (akusala) ii) Akusala leads to suffering iii) Akusala should be removed iv) Akusala leads to future suffering The above i-iv involve seeing the future in some way or another. The iv point cannot be seen simulteneously with Akusala itself as cause precedes the effect. However what is cognized, as a cognition must be real, and the i-iv points relate to the future that is TRUE (Law of Dhamma is timeless and eternal) so the true non-present (future) is seen. Or to simplify the above: All seeing of presently arisen dhammas require to see the past state of mind (citta). Present moment of seeing also can see true future outcome (Or result) in a sense of that Akusala leads to future suffering and Kusala to future happiness. The past kusala or akusala citta isn't non-existent (otherwise it would not produce effect) and the future is fixed according to the Law of Dhamma (akusala -> future suffering, kusala > future happiness). So not only the "present" but past and the future exist. Please don't say that past/present/future are mere conventions. If 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) is correct, and if entropy is changing (scientists say it is increasing) then past & future are asymmetric and are NOT mere conventions (figures of speach). Thus, in some way the past, present and future exist. Can Abhidhammika refute the above arguments? Best wishes, Alex #85535 From: "connie" Date: Sat May 10, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,258-260 nichiconn 649. Bhedasa"ngahaati upaadaanapaccayaa bhavassa bhedato ceva sa"ngahato ca. Ya~nhi kaamupaadaanapaccayaa kaamabhavanibbattaka.m kamma.m kariiyati, so kammabhavo. Tadabhinibbattaa khandhaa upapattibhavo. Esa nayo ruupaaruupabhavesu. Eva.m kaamupaadaanapaccayaa dve kaamabhavaa, tadantogadhaa ca sa~n~naabhavapa~ncavokaarabhavaa, dve ruupabhavaa, tadantogadhaa ca sa~n~naabhava-asa~n~naabhava-ekavokaarabhavapa~ncavokaarabhavaa, dve aruupabhavaa, tadantogadhaa ca sa~n~naabhavanevasa~n~naanaasa~n~naabhavacatuvokaarabhavaati saddhi.m antogadhehi cha bhavaa. Yathaa ca kaamupaadaanapaccayaa saddhi.m antogadhehi cha bhavaa. Tathaa sesupaadaanapaccayaapiiti eva.m upaadaanapaccayaa bhedato saddhi.m antogadhehi catuviisati bhavaa. Path of Purification, xvii, 258. 4. As to analysis, synthesis means as to both the analysis and the synthesis of becoming that has clinging as its condition. The kamma with sense-desire clinging as its condition that is performed and generates sense-desire becoming is 'kamma-process becoming'. The aggregates generated by that are 'rebirth-process becoming'. The aggregates generated by that are 'rebirth-process becoming', similarly in the case of fine-material and immaterial becoming. So [573] there are two kinds of sense-desire becoming with sense-desire clinging as condition, included in which are percipient becoming and five-constituent becoming. And there are two kinds of fine-material becoming, included in which are percipient, non-percipient, one-constituent, and five-constituent, becoming. And there are two kinds of immaterial becoming, included in which are percipient becoming, neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient becoming, and four-constituent becoming. So, together with what is included by them, there are six kinds of becoming with sense-desire clinging as condition. Similarly too with the [three] remaining kinds of clinging as condition. So, as to analysis, there are, together with what is included by them, twenty-four kinds of becoming with clinging as condition. Path of Purity, p.688-9: "By group, difference": - by the difference and grouping of becoming, conditioned by grasping. For the karma which, conditioned by grasping of sense-desires, produces becoming of sense-desire is the becoming of karma. The aggregates produced by it are rebirth-becoming. And the same with becoming of matter and non-matter. Thus [573] there are two becomings of sense-desires conditioned by the grasping of sense-desires. In them are included the becomings of perception and of the five constituents. There are two becomings of matter, in which are included the becomings of perception, of non-perception, of one and five constituents. There are two becomings of non-matter, in which are included the becomings of perception, of neither perception nor non-perception, and of the four constituents. Thus there are six becomings, with those which are included therein. As there are six becomings conditioned by the grasping of sense-desires, together with the included states, so is it the same with becomings which are conditioned by the remaining graspings. Thus there are twenty-four different kinds of becomings conditioned by the graspings together with the included states. Sa"ngahato pana kammabhava.m upapattibhava~nca ekato katvaa kaamupaadaanapaccayaa saddhi.m antogadhehi eko kaamabhavo. Tathaa ruupaaruupabhavaati tayo bhavaa. Tathaa sesupaadaanapaccayaa piiti. Eva.m upaadaanapaccayaa sa"ngahato saddhi.m antogadhehi dvaadasa bhavaa. PPn. xvii, 259. 5. As to synthesis, however, by uniting kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming there is together with what is included by it, one kind of sense-desire becoming with sense-desire clinging as its condition. Similarly with fine-material and immaterial becoming. So there are three kinds of becoming. And similarly with the remaining [three] kinds of clinging as condition. So by synthesis, there are, together with what is included by them, twelve kinds of becoming with clinging as condition. Path of Purity, p.689: "By groups": - grouping the karma-becoming and the rebirth-becoming, we get one becoming of sense-desires, conditioned by the grasping of sense-desires, together with the included states. Similarly with the becoming of matter and non-matter. Thus we get three becomings. Similarly with those conditioned by the remaining graspings. Thus by way of groups together with the included states there are twelve becomings conditioned by the graspings. Apica avisesena upaadaanapaccayaa kaamabhavuupaga.m kamma.m kammabhavo. Tadabhinibbattaa khandhaa upapattibhavo. Esa nayo ruupaaruupabhavesu. Eva.m upaadaanapaccayaa saddhi.m antogadhehi dve kaamabhavaa, dve ruupabhavaa, dve aruupabhavaati aparena pariyaayena sa"ngahato cha bhavaa. Kammabhava-upapattibhavabheda.m vaa anupagamma saddhi.m antogadhehi kaamabhavaadivasena tayo bhavaa honti. Kaamabhavaadibhedampi anupagamma kammabhava-upapattibhavavasena dve bhavaa honti. Kammupapattibheda~ncaapi anupagamma upaadaanapaccayaa bhavoti bhavavasena ekova bhavo hotiiti evamettha upaadaanapaccayassa bhavassa bhedasa"ngahaapi vi~n~naatabbo vinicchayo. PPn. xvii, 260. Furthermore, without distinction the kamma with clinging as its condition that attains sense-desire becoming is kamma-process becoming. The aggregates generated by that are rebirth-process becoming. So, together with what is included by them, there are two kinds of sense-desire becoming, two kinds of fine-material becoming, and two kinds of immaterial becoming. So, by synthesis, there are six kinds of becoming by this other method. Or again, without making the division into kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming there are, together with what is included by them, three kinds of becoming as sense-desire becoming, and so on. Or again, without making the division into sense-desire becoming, etc., there are together with what is included by them two kinds of becoming, as kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming. And also without making the division into kamma process and rebirth process there is, according to the words 'With clinging as condition becoming', only one kind of becoming. This is how the exposition of becoming with clinging as condition should be known here 'as to analysis and synthesis'. Path of Purity, p.689: But generally speaking, the karma which, conditioned by grasping, leads to the becoming of sense-desires is becoming of karma. The aggregates produced by it are the becoming of rebirth. And the same with the becomings of matter and non-matter. Thus, conditioned by grasping together with the included states, there are two becomings of sense-desires, two of matter, two of non-matter. In this other way then there are altogether six becomings. Or, without having recourse to the divisions of karma-becoming and rebirth-becoming, there are three becomings by way of the becomings of sense-desires and so on, together with the included states. Again, without having recourse to the divisions of becomings of sense-desires and so on, there are two becomings: karma-becoming and rebirth-becoming. And without having recourse to the division of karma and rebirth, there is a single becoming: viz., becoming as stated in "Conditioned by grasping, becoming comes to pass." Thus here by way of the different kinds and groupings of "becoming conditioned by grasping" is the conclusion to be understood. #85536 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 10, 2008 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/10/2008 8:17:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: I owe you a few replies, but time is a limiting factor. (Isn't that always the case? :-)) Anyway, here's one of the replies I owe you I think that "we are hearing, we are seeing" are post-hoc inferences, that require switching from a non-dual mode to a dual mode. This switching takes time and whatever sight or sound gave rise to that sequence of events, is no longer in play. We are, IMO, thinking about the past, when we say we are hearing or seeing. I'll try and make it a bit clearer. One might say "I see red". This is a dualistic description of affairs in which an object is known by something other than the object. It is an introduction of a Point Of View on what is merely presence ie "red". -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: When we say (or think) that we see red, it is, indeed, after the fact, dualistic, and secondary. But when we DO see red [There is no other way to express this, though this misses the mark, because the event is nameless], there is no conceptualizing and it is immediate (unmediated, not secondary, not derivative). Do you not want us to be able to think or talk, however? -------------------------------------------------------- There is no necessity for red to become consciousness of red, red is fully what it is, nothing is gained by it, but as we all know, this cleaving of reality does happen, and is what I would think is meant by samsara. Because much loss is introduced in cleaving "red" into consciousness on the one had, and red on the other. Because the consciousness is not there as presence. It has no characteristic, unlike our red. It has to be thought. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, consciousness does not have to be thought. The presence of red is a reality when there is red. But identifying that presence as presence is something different. -------------------------------------------------------- In order to find the consciousness, another cleaving of reality is applied. Which then becomes a consciousness of "consciousness of red". And again, that consciousness is not there as presence, but as thought, and in order to find it, another cleaving is applied. Ad infinitum. Little wonder that with the multitude of layers of abstraction, there can be a belief that there is consciousness apart from it's object, but in reality, all that is there is the object. But if you try to find it, in order to know it, it will be gone, It is (the) past. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Herman, I don't think we are actually in disagreement on this. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cheers ============================ With metta, Howard #85537 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 1:16 am Subject: Re: Vinaya Pitaka szmicio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > Hi Lukas, > > I do think the Abhidhammapi.taka's great but I'll leave it to others to > suggest where to begin. > > If you liked the Suttapi.taka, you'll like the Vinayapi.taka. Great > reading with many wonderful discourses and anecdotes and a fascinating > history (incidentally) of the evolution of the bhikkhusangha. > > I have the six-volume PTS English translation (I.B. Horner's) which is > incomplete (and bowdlerized) but I'm told there are better translations > into English now. About Polish translations I don't know. > > Best Wishes, > > mike > hi mike, thx:> for your response. I think English translation is OK. Where can I get this translations? bye Lukas #85538 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 1:51 am Subject: Metta, Ch 4, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, No matter whether we meet people in a room, or outside, on the street or in the bus, do we consider everybody we meet as a friend? If that is not so we should not recite the words about extending mettå to all beings, that will not be of any use. If we see someone now, at this moment, and we feel misgivings about him, we should not try to extend mettå to all beings. Only those who have attained jhåna are able to do this. When the meditation subject of mettå brahma-vihåra has been developed mettå can become boundless. However, we should begin with simply applying sincere mettå in daily life. Question: My aim is not jhåna-citta, I do not expect to attain jhåna. Khun Sujin: Therefore mettå cannot yet be extended to all beings. Question: I recite the words about extending mettå to all beings with the aim to have kusala citta. Khun Sujin: But when you see a hostile person or when you think of him annoyance is likely to arise. Question: Yes, that is possible. Khun Sujin: Therefore you should not try to extend mettå to all beings, because you don’t mean it. Question: I think that it is useful because while I am reciting the citta is kusala. Khun Sujin: This is not possible if you do not start in the right way, that is, knowing the true characteristic of mettå. Question: It is stated in the Visuddhimagga that one should begin with extending mettå towards oneself. Khun Sujin: In the beginning people are not yet ready to extend mettå to others and therefore they can take themselves as an example. They can remind themselves that they should treat others in the same way as they would like to be treated themselves. That is the meaning of extending mettå towards oneself. Question: Thus the aim is to sympathize? Khun Sujin: To sympathize with other people. Question: Thus we have to extend mettå towards ourselves, towards a disagreeable person, towards a loved person and towards a neutral person. Khun Sujin: If you cannot yet have mettå for a disagreeable person, you cannot extend mettå at all. If you try to extend mettå towards a dearly loved person, attachment is likely to arise and attachment has a characteristic which is different from the characteristic of mettå. Thus in that case you are not successful either. Towards whom should we first extend mettå? Question: I think towards oneself. Khun Sujin: This is said only by way of reminder as we have seen. Those who are beginners and not yet accomplished should think of someone else who excels in síla, who has many good qualities which inspire love and respect. It can be one’s teacher or someone who is the equivalent of one’s teacher, someone who is full of mettå and other kusala dhammas. When we think of such a person our citta becomes soft and malleable and we can then be intent on ways to have kusala citta. We will do everything we can for the benefit and wellbeing of that person. That is how we can begin with the development of mettå. ****** Nina. #85539 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 2:45 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (148) nilovg Dear Han, Op 11-mei-2008, om 0:43 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Text: Some people who have just begun to listen to the Dhamma say > that they do not need to attain nibbaana, and that they do not need > to be a "streamwinner" , sotaapanna, who will not be reborn more > than seven times. They want to be reborn more than seven times. > > Han: I know that I cannot be a sotaapanna in this life. So I said I > will do my best to do meritorious deeds and leave the results to my > kamma. Am I then included in the above category? -------- N: We should see the above text in the context. Just before it was said: Thus the isue here is: does one see the benefit of having less defilements? As you say, you will do meritorious deeds, but, to what purpose? To have less defilements since you see the disadvantage of defilements? People perform kusala with different aims. They may think of gaining merit for themselves. As we read in the quoted text: This refers again to the same question as above. Nina. #85540 From: han tun Date: Sun May 11, 2008 3:57 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (148) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your very useful comments. I will pick up some of the points. > Nina: As you say, you will do meritorious deeds, but, to what purpose? To have less defilements since you see the disadvantage of defilements? People perform kusala with different aims. They may think of gaining merit for themselves. Han: I am doing meritorious deeds in accordance with my guiding principle of Dhammapada verse 183: not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one’s mind. Previously, I had expectations for becoming at least cula-sotaapanna in this life. Now, I do not cling to any expectations, leaving the results to my kamma. Do I see the disadvantages of defilements? Yes, I do. Am I doing meritorious deeds to have less defilements? Yes, I am. The guiding principle of not to do evil and to purify one’s mind means to have less defilements. I take note of your other comments. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #85541 From: "connie" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 5:27 am Subject: Perfections Corner (149) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 continues: We may not have understood that the defilements and all dukkha, suffering, arising in this life originate in "our personality", which is the naama dhammas and ruupa dhammas we take for me, for self. The true cessation of dukkha is that naama dhamma and ruupa dhamma do not have to be reborn. We read in the "Mahaaniddesa, "Attada.n.da Sutta": "The word 'man' (nara *1) is used here with regard to someone who is inclined to nibbaana. This means, that 'men' are people in this world who perform generous deeds, undertake siila, observe the fastday, prepare water for drinking and for other uses, sweep the grounds, pay respect to the stupa, develop kusala of the three dhaatus, elements *1, that should be developed. They do not develop kusala because of rebirth, because of a plane of existence they want to attain, because they want to continue in the cycle of birth and death. They have as their goal to depart from dukkha, they are humble and they are inclined to nibbaana. Because of this goal they will develop all kinds of kusala. They are called 'men', because they are inclined to nibbaana." *1 Nara, here translated as man, can mean: valiant, heroic, strong. *1 These are: kusala which is of the sense sphere, kusala which is ruupa jhaana and kusala which is aruupa jhaana. Someone who has not understood the true meaning of dukkha may hope for the end of dukkha in as far as he sees dukkha as merely getting what he does not wish for. Or he may just want to have no more suffering. However, when someone has understanding of the meaning of dukkha, his goal is departing from dukkha, in the sense of being inclined to nibbaana, which is the end of dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas. This kind of understanding has as foundation listening to the Dhamma and seeing the danger in akusala, seeing the disadvantage, suffering and danger of rebirth, of the arising of naama dhammas and ruupa dhammas. Akusala dhammas arise very often, since they are conditioned by all the akusala we have accumulated. If we see the benefit of the development of the perfections, we should find out whether in our daily life kusala arises often or whether it arises very seldom. When kusala arises we should know whether it has become firmer and whether it has reached already the degree of a perfection. Someone may have performed kusala time and again, also before he listened to the Dhamma but, after he listened to the Dhamma and he learnt that the perfections are an essential condition for the realization of the four noble Truths, his sincerity and unshakable determination to further develop kusala increases. ..to be continued, connie #85542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (148) nilovg Dear Han, Well said. I did not answer your question because a person can only answer this for himself. Nina. Op 11-mei-2008, om 12:57 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Am I doing meritorious deeds to have less defilements? Yes, I am. > The guiding principle of not to do evil and to purify one’s mind > means to have less defilements. #85543 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya Pitaka nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 10-mei-2008, om 15:05 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Is there any profit from reading Vinaya Pitaka? ----- N: Mike answered you and I can add an example, quoting what I wrote before : It depends on your time and inclination what you will read. Nina. #85544 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Akusala, Moha, prompting in rupa/arupavacara, jhana, cittas nilovg Hi Alex, Op 8-mei-2008, om 23:26 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > How can a citta be neither promoted nor unprompted in rupa or > arupa worlds? (I don't get the explanation in CMA) > > c) Same as B but for Jhana. ------- N: As to cittas of the sense sphere, unprompted and prompted indicate the strength of the kusala or akusala. When the citta is prompted it is said: with some hesitation, and this is a conventional way of explaining that it is weaker. As to jhana, this is more complicated. There is preparation necessary but there will not be success if one is not born with three sobhana hetus, thus, with pa~n~naa as well. The Co. (Abhidhamma Topics) explains that it does not arise by 'right' alone (adhikaara, this means rebirth with pa~n~naa) and without practice, nor only by practice without 'right', adhikaara. In the first case one cannot say that it is unprompted, and in the latter case one cannot say that it is prompted. Inspite of preparation it may not arise if reborn without pa~n~naa. ---- Your other question as to rebirth In base of Nothingness, we should say: as a result of the attainment of base of Nothingness. Birth as an aruupa brahma. I do not see much point to consider whether they can be worldling or ariyan. Nina. #85545 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . nilovg Hi Alex, Op 10-mei-2008, om 16:33 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Also, how does one make sure that when one studies AP one doesn't > replace one attachement (to conventional realities) with attachement > to "Ultimate realities" ? ------ N: We are attached to ultimate realities all the time, but we do not realize that they are ultimate realities. Thus, attachment cannot be eradicated in the beginning but we can learn what the realities are we are attached to. We are attached to colour, to sound, to all sense objects, and these are ultimate realities, appearing one at a time through one of the doorways. The purpose of the study of AP is having more understanding of what realities are. This leads to detachment. Nina. #85546 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' nilovg Hi Howard, Op 9-mei-2008, om 22:11 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I > think of Herman's story: one moment the body was still a living body, > and within splitseconds there was only a corpse, and so > unforeseeable. No time to prepare. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Now is the time to prepare, Nina. Be ever watchful, ever mindful. ------- N: Yes, Kh Sujin pointed to this moment after my question on what would happen in case of death. This moment there are also nama and rupa arising and falling away. -------- N: The body is something that can be blown away, it is a mere nothing. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it and every one of its constituents, each, "a bubble in a stream," and, each, "a phantom and a dream." ;-) ------ N: Like you say every day in your logo. The question is how to learn this. I think not by considering a collection, but the dhamma that appears, just one at a time. ------ H: Actually, it is even easier to observe the impermanence of our bodies than that of paramattha dhammas. Of course, the impermanence of our bodies and all the other facts about them depend entirely on the properties of, and interrelationships among, the rupas of which they are composed. ------- N: As I see it, the body is the paramattha dhammas: nothing else but hardness, heat, and all the other rupas that appear only one at a time. A rupa has arisen and appears, and falls away. This can only be realized when rupa is known as rupa, not mixed with nama. You see the body as aggregation and collection, whereas I stress the crumbling away of what we call body. Nina. #85547 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 9:09 am Subject: Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "Thanks for your kind thoughts." Scott: No problem, thanks for the reply. H: "What you say would certainly apply to reviewing the recent past, and categorising it as being of this or that kind. But what about the largest source of views, views about causation / conditionality? There is no dhamma that has the characteristic of making it true that this dhamma here was a condition for the arising of that dhamma there..." Scott: There is a moment, for example, which makes it true that there are no longer any conditions for further dhammas to arise (this moment, as all, has many constituents, but this comes close to addressing the point above). And this sequence easily demonstrates that one dhamma is condition for another - at least that one 'moment' (a number of conascent dhammas) is condition for the next. The arahatta-magga is condition for the arahatta-phala after which (following the death of the arahat) there are no longer any conditions for the arising of conditioned dhammas - cessation. From this it is simple to assert that a dhamma can be condition for another dhamma. H: "Views about conditionality are concepts, and as you say, that means they lack characteristics, and certainly a characteristic of being true or false, right or wrong. Causally linking dhammas here with other dhammas there is the "seeing" of a relationship that isn't there to be seen." Scott: SN 20(10) Conditions (Paccaya (paccayuppanna) sutta.m): "...And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? 'With birth as condition, aging-and-death [comes to be]: whether there is an arising of Tathaagatas or no arising of Tathaagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality." "...Katamo ca bhikkhave, pa.ticcasamuppaado? Jaatipaccayaa bhikkhave jaraamara.na.m uppaadaa vaa tathaagataana.m anuppaadaa vaa tathaagataana.m .thitaava saa dhaatu dhamma.t.thitataa dhammaniyaamataa idapaccayataa." Note 51 (p. 741): ".Thitaa va saa dhaatu dhamma.t.thitataa dhammaniyaamataa idapaccayataa. Spk: That element (saa dhaatu), the intrinsic nature of the conditions (paccayasabhhaava), still persists, never is it the case that birth is not a condition for ageing-and-death. By the next two terms too he indicates just the condition. For the dependently arisen phenomena stand because of the condition (paccayena hi paccayupannaa dhammaa ti.t.thanti); therefore the condition itself is called the stableness of the Dhamma (dhamma.t.thitataa). The condition fixes (or determines) the dependent phenomena (paccayo dhamme niyameti); thus it is called the fixed course of the Dhamma (dhammaniyaamataa)..." H: "You have given me no option but to disagree with you. The temporal sequence of dhammas is limited, as experience, to only that. It takes the form: this is followed by that which is followed by that. But conditionality proceeds to an explanation of that sequence. It selects from everything that happens, and says x was causally relevant to y, but z wasn't. Unless you can tell me by which other means this can become known, I have no option but to assume that it is all inference, which can be right or wrong." Scott: I question the notion that if it is not in the realm of your or my 'experience' then it is inference. If it is taught out of a Buddha's experience, then this ought to establish something. Simply because something is 'explained' doesn't nullify it as something that is actually 'in existence'. I think that conditionality (a la Pa.t.thaana) and the ti-lakhaana are of a similar nature: they are the intrinsic aspects of experience. You and I always founder on this shoal. Sincerely, Scott. #85548 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 9:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vinaya Pitaka m_nease Hi Lukas, I'll reply off-list with ordering information. If anyone can recommend other English translations than Miss Horner's I'd appreciate it. mike szmicio wrote: > I think English translation is OK. > Where can I get this translations? > bye > Lukas #85549 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . TGrand458@... Hi Nina, Alex Excuse me for butting in Nina but I think Alex meant "attachment to the idea or theory of "seeing things as" ultimate realities." In a message dated 5/11/2008 8:17:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Also, how does one make sure that when one studies AP one doesn't > replace one attachement (to conventional realities) with attachement > to "Ultimate realities" ? ------ N: We are attached to ultimate realities all the time, but we do not realize that they are ultimate realities. Thus, attachment cannot be eradicated in the beginning but we can learn what the realities are we are attached to. We are attached to colour, to sound, to all sense objects, and these are ultimate realities, appearing one at a time through one of the doorways. The purpose of the study of AP is having more understanding of what realities are. This leads to detachment. Nina. TG #85550 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... nilovg Dear Scott, good quote. I am glad you give the Pali. I save it in my files. Nina. Op 11-mei-2008, om 18:09 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > ".Thitaa va saa dhaatu dhamma.t.thitataa dhammaniyaamataa > idapaccayataa. Spk: That element (saa dhaatu), the intrinsic nature > of the conditions (paccayasabhhaava), still persists, never is it the > case that birth is not a condition for ageing-and-death. By the next > two terms too he indicates just the condition. For the dependently > arisen phenomena stand because of the condition (paccayena hi > paccayupannaa dhammaa ti.t.thanti); therefore the condition itself is > called the stableness of the Dhamma (dhamma.t.thitataa). The > condition fixes (or determines) the dependent phenomena (paccayo > dhamme niyameti); thus it is called the fixed course of the Dhamma > (dhammaniyaamataa)..." #85551 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 11:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . nilovg Hi TG, Op 11-mei-2008, om 19:23 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Excuse me for butting in Nina but I think Alex meant "attachment to > the idea > or theory of "seeing things as" ultimate realities." ------- N: Seeing things as ultimate realities is seeing the truth. I find it a complicated idea to be attached to seeing the truth. It is not some kind of view. Nina. #85552 From: "Alex" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 12:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . truth_aerator Hi Nina and TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi TG, > Op 11-mei-2008, om 19:23 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende > geschreven: > > > Excuse me for butting in Nina but I think Alex meant "attachment to the idea or theory of "seeing things as" ultimate realities." > ------- > N: Seeing things as ultimate realities is seeing the truth. I find it a complicated idea to be attached to seeing the truth. It is not some kind of view. > Nina. > But this IS an attachment which prevents attaining of Arahatship (if not even lower stages). The Raft Simile "Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. 7 Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?" "No, lord." "And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html --- Best wishes, Alex #85553 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 9:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/11/2008 10:17:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: You see the body as aggregation and collection, whereas I stress the crumbling away of what we call body. ================================== You are correct in pointing this out, Nina, and correct in your emphasis here. If I were to conceive of a collection, an aggregation in particular, to be, in any way, an entity - and there is that danger - then it would be better to never think of "collection" or "aggregation" at all. Knowing the crumbling away, the tottering, the instantaneous changing, the arising & ceasing, and the conditionality & complete lack of self-existence -- knowing *these* is what will save us, not the characterizing as individuals or aggregations or realities or in any other conceptual category we might come up with. We have to look & look & look, and see directly and with complete clarity that there is nothing at all that can be held onto and nothing at all worth grasping at. And seeing this, we need to relinquish everything. As one Zen master expressed his vision of reality: "Vast emptiness - nothing holy." With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85554 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 9:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Nina Great Stuff!!! This is a great "lions roar" Howard, even if it came from a cat. ;-) Perrrrrfect TG In a message dated 5/11/2008 2:50:13 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/11/2008 10:17:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _vangorko@..._ (mailto:vangorko@...) writes: You see the body as aggregation and collection, whereas I stress the crumbling away of what we call body. ================================== You are correct in pointing this out, Nina, and correct in your emphasis here. If I were to conceive of a collection, an aggregation in particular, to be, in any way, an entity - and there is that danger - then it would be better to never think of "collection" or "aggregation" at all. Knowing the crumbling away, the tottering, the instantaneous changing, the arising & ceasing, and the conditionality & complete lack of self-existence -- knowing *these* is what will save us, not the characterizing as individuals or aggregations or realities or in any other conceptual category we might come up with. We have to look & look & look, and see directly and with complete clarity that there is nothing at all that can be held onto and nothing at all worth grasping at. And seeing this, we need to relinquish everything. As one Zen master expressed his vision of reality: "Vast emptiness - nothing holy." With metta, Howard #85555 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2008 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Of Bats & Frogs jonoabb Hi Nina and Sarah Chipping in if I may with a comment on the passages from Vism and Atthasaalinii. Nina van Gorkom wrote: > We read in the Visuddhimagga: invented by ingenuity, or in the spheres of craft invented by > ingenuity, or in the sorts of science invented by ingenuity>. > The Dispeller of Delusion explains that a wise man invents things for > people’s confort, such as dwellings, tools for ploughing, sorts of > science, etc. This is wisdom with regard to worldly matters. Thus, > there is wisdom in behaviour beneficial to beings, and higher degrees > of understanding, namely: understanding of the Path, and the > realization of nibbana. As far as the passage from Vis. XIV, 14 is concerned (set out in full below), I think the operative part is the part that follows the reference to "spheres of work", where it says: "any view, etc ... that concerns ownership of deeds (kamma) or is in conformity with truth, etc ... that one acquires without hearing it from another--that is called understanding consisting in what is reasoned." > I am thinking of the Atthasaalinii (p. 100): knowledge mentioned in this class of consciousness may be inferred > from causes as kamma (in this existence), birth as determined by past > kamma, maturity of the controlling faculties, and distance from the > corruptions. For instance, one who preaches the Law to others, > teaches the different kinds of blameless arts, manual labour and > knowledge, respectfully asks the preacher to preach the Law, and > gives alms of divers kinds with the wish: 'in the future I shall > become wise'- to him depending on such kamma, a moral thought (may be > said to) arise in association with knowledge.> As regards the Atthasaalinii passage, the references to teaching the arts and knowledge etc seem to be part of the subject clause ("one who preaches/teaches"), while the operative words of the sentence are the words beginning "respectfully asks the preacher to preach the Law and gives alms ..." (i.e., listening to the teachings and performing other kusala). I think it is these actions of listening to the teachings and performing other kusala that are the "such kamma" dependent on which panna arises. At least that is how this translation reads; the Pali original may of course differ! Hoping this helps in your discussion. Jon Vism XIV, 14: 'Herein, what is understanding consisting in what is reasoned? 'In the spheres of work invented by ingenuity, or in the spheres of craft invented by ingenuity, or in the sorts of science invented by ingenuity, any preference, view, choice, opinion, judgement, liking for pondering over things, that concerns ownership of deeds (kamma) or is in conformity with truth or is of such kind as to conform with (the axioms) "Materiality is impermanent" or "Feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness is impermanent" that one acquires without hearing it from another--that is called understanding consisting in what is reasoned.' #85556 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 1:06 pm Subject: A Moment's Honour to the Pure is Better than a Century of Fire-Sacrifice * rwijayaratne Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammâ Sambuddhassa! Sakyamuni Sambuddha Vihara <.....> _________________________ Taken from The Dhammapada1 Translated by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Commentary. It is better to revere a saint (Arahant) for a moment, than to spend a hundred years performing useless rites and rituals (e.g. deva puja's (offerings to deities in hope of some worldly gain (wealth, beauty, promotion, happiness, etc), which is not the same as sharing with devas (deities) one's merits acquired, this is a valid practice)) This refers to revering and honouring worthy ones such as Arahants and others who have gained the higher fruits and realizations. In the absence of such being one can revere and honour those who are striving for the higher fruit and realization. ________________________________ SAHASSA VAGGA - THOUSANDS : A MOMENT'S HONOUR TO THE PURE IS BETTER THAN A CENTURY OF FIRE-SACRIFICEYo ce vassa satam jantu----- aggim paricare vane Ekan ca bhâvitattâna----- muhuttam api pujaye Sâ y'eva pujanâ seyyo----- yan ce vassa satam hutam (107) Though month after month, with a thousand sacrifices, one should make an offering for a hundred years, yet, if, only for a moment, one should honour (a Saint) who has perfected himself - that honour is, indeed, better than a century of sacrifice. (107) Dhammapada, Verse 107 The way to the Brahma world On one occasion, Venerable Sâriputta asked his uncle, a brahmin, whether he was doing any meritorious deeds. The brahmin answered that he was making offerings every month to the naked ascetics, hoping to get to the Brahma world (a very high divine abode) in his next existence. Sâriputta then explained to him that his teachers did not know the way to the Brahma world. So saying, he took his uncle to the Buddha, and requested the Buddha to expound the Dhamma, which would surely take one to the Brahma world.   The Buddha said to the brahmin, 'An offering of a spoonful of alms food to a genuinely holy man would be much better than your offerings to others who are not worthy of honour.' Notes1. Dhammapada verses and stories are especially suitable for children. See an online versions here http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/dhammapada.htm , here http://www.mettanet.org/english/Narada/index.htm and here http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/ <.....> #85557 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . TGrand458@... Hi Nina, (Alex) In a message dated 5/11/2008 12:34:20 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Excuse me for butting in Nina but I think Alex meant "attachment to > the idea > or theory of "seeing things as" ultimate realities." ------- N: Seeing things as ultimate realities is seeing the truth. I find it a complicated idea to be attached to seeing the truth. It is not some kind of view. Nina. ......................................................... Actually you are "overlaying" the idea of "ultimate Realities" on what otherwise is just mere experiences. Everyone has "mere experiences." The difference between an insightful view and an un-insightful view isn't the belief in so-called "ultimate realities." Rather, its the well cultivated vision of conditionality and conditionality factors...impermanence, affliction, and nonself throughout every possible condition...including those felt as they are occurring in the present. The idea of "ultimate realities" is just throwing another theory on top of that....needlessly, and IMO, incorrectly. TG #85558 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . lbidd2 Hi Alex, Buddha: "Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." Larry: Don't let go before you have crossed over! ;-) You are right that every theory is subject to attachment and one can certainly desire insight. But when there is insight there is no attachment. Larry #85559 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' lbidd2 Hi Howard, Nina and TG, Howard: "You are correct in pointing this out, Nina, and correct in your emphasis here. If I were to conceive of a collection, an aggregation in particular, to be, in any way, an entity - and there is that danger - then it would be better to never think of "collection" or "aggregation" at all." Larry: I take it by "entity" you mean "lasting entity". It is actually very helpful to see groups as groups. It is a very easy way to understand emptiness, in that a group is not any one dhamma but it is still a group. However, I think Nina's point is that understanding in this way doesn't go to the heart of attachment. We are actually attached to only one dhamma at a time, not to several at once. It is easy enough to say that a dhamma is ungraspable, but until you clearly experience it as it is, you can't really know that it is ungraspable. Here is something you might enjoy. It has a few problems, but basically it is very good. http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/winter/thrangu_rinpoche.html Larry #85560 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "The difference between an insightful view and an un-insightful view isn't the belief in so-called "ultimate realities." Rather, its the well cultivated vision of conditionality and conditionality factors...impermanence, affliction, and nonself throughout every possible condition...including those felt as they are occurring in the present." Larry: I think everyone agrees that insight isn't a theory or belief, but what does a "well cultivated vision" consist of? Larry #85561 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 2:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/11/2008 9:09:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, Nina and TG, Howard: "You are correct in pointing this out, Nina, and correct in your emphasis here. If I were to conceive of a collection, an aggregation in particular, to be, in any way, an entity - and there is that danger - then it would be better to never think of "collection" or "aggregation" at all." Larry: I take it by "entity" you mean "lasting entity". ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not necessarily lasting. Just as a separate, self-existent thing-in-itself, a true "being". ---------------------------------------------------- It is actually very helpful to see groups as groups. It is a very easy way to understand emptiness, in that a group is not any one dhamma but it is still a group. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I completely agree with that, so long as we don't reify the group. ---------------------------------------------------- However, I think Nina's point is that understanding in this way doesn't go to the heart of attachment. We are actually attached to only one dhamma at a time, not to several at once. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I don't think that's quite so. There is a summing up of such attachments into an attachment to the aggregate conceived of as an entity. Our attachment to a loved one is far stronger than our attachment to tastes, sights, and so on, per se. We become attached to "the sight of our loved one," and so on. --------------------------------------------------- It is easy enough to say that a dhamma is ungraspable, but until you clearly experience it as it is, you can't really know that it is ungraspable. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course! ------------------------------------------------ Here is something you might enjoy. It has a few problems, but basically it is very good. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) I'll save the link and look it over carefully. (Just don't tell anyone that I'm looking at Tibetan Buddhist stuff! LOL!) ---------------------------------------------- http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/winter/thrangu_rinpoche.html Larry ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85562 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 11, 2008 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... sukinderpal Hi TG, I’ll respond to this post and wait and see about the other one. You can respond how short you want; in fact I was happy with the two summaries you sent before. If you don’t want to do even this, that is fine too. So no need to worry about my own posts being too long, this of course is no excuse for me to not try to be more concise. The problem is that I don’t know how to. :-/ ============ TG: First a question then some comments below... Question: Do phenomena move in relation to each other? New Sukin: I think you are referring to something stated by the Buddha? But, what does it mean for phenomena to “move”? I take these things to be ‘metaphorical’, something that will really “apply” only when the time comes. In the meantime, I continue to project my ignorance into such suggestions and only rarely catch myself doing it. Before hearing about ‘movement’ being in fact a reference to vayo dhatu, I used to believe that I could *see* movement i.e. conventional objects move. Even after hearing that in fact the wind element is only ever experienced through the body sense, I continue projecting so much misinformation into any reference to this. In other words, even now, my understanding of ‘movement’ is mostly at the level of theory, namely that it is a reality experienced by body consciousness and never by any of the other sense consciousness. So my answer to your question is that I believe the words since it has been stated by the Buddha, but I don’t really understand. However I do think that I will come to understand it as I grow in understanding about the nature of all realities, perhaps after I understand nama as nama and rupa as rupa distinctly through vipassana nnana, then I will know what it means for phenomena to be “moving in relation to each other”. As of now, I can only accept that different realities ‘condition’ each other, but not much more than this. ============ Sukin: As you probably know by now, I don't encourage any such breakdown, including seeing them as "ultimate realities". ...................................................... NEW TG: Now this I just don't get. The Abhidhamma Pitaka is a "breakdown extraordinarie." I guess its OK for you guys to break things down, but not the rest of us? New Sukin: The Abhidhamma is an expression of an Enlightened man’s vision (I’ll probably get a few skeptical responses to this ;-)). It is the result of “insight” into the present moment and not an attempt at breaking down a ‘perceived object’, in other words, a ‘whole’ into constituent parts. It understands “seeing” as an element and “thinking” as another element directly, and not an inference made based on any perceived conceptual object. The student of Abhidhamma is not being asked to project any theory on to experiences. If and when he has developed enough understanding at the level of pariyatti, patipatti arises by conditions to know the characteristic of a reality, not by “looking”, let alone “analyzing”. And this is how wisdom accumulates/ develops, namely gradually by sankhara to understand better and better other aspects, including insight into conditionality. ============= Sukin: But the thought to "do" this is not what drives me. I acknowledge where the ignorance is at, namely at all levels, sense door as well as the mind door which follows. Why would I want to overreach and think about things that do nothing to reduce the kind of ignorance?! ................................................. NEW TG: It would be foolish to waste time in that way. What you should do, is spend time thinking about things that lead toward greater insight and relinquishment from conditionality. The things I'm talking about have "everything" to do with reducing ignorance. New Sukin: I would agree that knowing the characteristics of different realities is not enough and there needs to be deeper understanding about other aspects of these same dhammas, including conditionality and the Tilakkhana. But this happens only through the development of Satipatthana / Vipassana, and starts with knowing, the individual characteristics. Otherwise how does one even begin to differentiate lobha from dosa, from metta, from issa, from sukkha vedana etc. etc? And even after experiencing the vipassana nnanas and one begins to really understand conditionality, even then the characteristics must be known better and better, else how would one know say, the different and more subtle kinds of tanha? Is it not after all due to ignorance of characteristics of different realities that one is mistaken for another and they *all* are taken for self? In fact how can one even expect to eradicate sakkya ditthi if one does not know to recognize it? ============ TG: I'm just wondering, your comments don't seem to reflect the contents of the Suttas at all. The Buddha says time and again to "think about things this way, think about them that way, reflect this way...contemplate this way...etc. New Sukin: Reading the Teachings as descriptive vs. reading them as prescriptive. ;-) I know that you read the Suttas a lot and I almost never do. This is not because I don’t believe in it, I do. The difference is in the interpretation, and therefore this would not mean that were I to interpret things your way, I’ll begin to read the Suttas more, or that if you were to interpret as I do, that you will read it any less. There is no Sutta vs. Abhidhamma, but ultimately only one view vs. another. ============ TG: It seems to me your outlook is incongruous with much of the advice from the Buddha. New Sukin: I don’t know, but at this point your interpretation gives me a headache. ;-) ============ Sukin: The thinking happens, but this is the result either of ignorance or not. If it is the result of "knowing", what did that in fact know? You seem to think that detachment can happen by thinking in these terms and you believe that you do `notice' them happening in experience. I believe, that given that we are in fact ignorant of the experiences through all six doorways, the thinking remains only thinking and rooted in attachment if not also wrong view. ...................................................................... NEW TG: Here we just flat disagree. It seems you prescribe a "Path" to a "destination" that has no "Path." New Sukin: The Path exists only in the moment when and if there are conditions for it to arise. It is reference to a moment of Right Understanding of a characteristic of a reality. It does not involve a conventional person being involved in different types of practices or experiencing different mind states regardless, and then stringing these together to call a Path. ============= TG: Almost a futile outlook. Anyway, hope you answer the question on ?movement." New Sukin: I have answered, but I don’t know why you asked..? Metta, Sukin #85563 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/5/9 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > Please pass on our condolences to Vicki and family. Thank you and everyone else for their kind words. Vicki has really appreciated the show of support. > > We truly never know what will happen next or what kamma will bring its > result. Life goes on.....with wise or unwise attention. My thought is that precisely because we do know that kamma is involved, or if it was, how it was involved, that it adds nothing to our understanding to make reference to it. The doctor who reviewed uncle's scans said that the bleed on his brainstem (stroke) was one of the biggest he had seen. In his opinion, that was down to some of the blood-thinning agents uncle used as part of the treatment for a heart condition. Thanks again for your kind words Herman #85564 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 11, 2008 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/11/2008 7:22:07 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: TG: "The difference between an insightful view and an un-insightful view isn't the belief in so-called "ultimate realities." Rather, its the well cultivated vision of conditionality and conditionality factors...impermanefactors...impermanence, affliction, and nons possible condition...possible condition...including those felt as the present." Larry: I think everyone agrees that insight isn't a theory or belief, but what does a "well cultivated vision" consist of? Larry ................................... Hi Larry If you just read the sentence I wrote, it says. :-) TG #85565 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun May 11, 2008 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 4. gazita2002 Hello Nina, Hope you and Lodewijk are staying well and that you, in particular are staying out of those dangerous slippers!!!!! It was so lovely to have spent time with you and L in Thailand over those great dhamma days and your birthday. I am back home now and feel slightly lost as I was 4 months away from here. I have been back just one week. Metta does seem close to lobha. I know that one is kusala and the other akusala, however when I smile at total strangers sometimes, when the occasion arises and I'm feeling friendly, its hard to know whether its metta or just plain old lobha!!! I guess only a moment of satipattana will know if its kusala or akusala. What else but.....? Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > No matter whether we meet people in a room, or outside, on the street > or in > the bus, do we consider everybody we meet as a friend? If that is not > so we > should not recite the words about extending mettå to all beings, that > will not > be of any use. ................cut.... #85566 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 4. nilovg Dear Azita, Good to hear from you, we were so happy to be with you in Thailand. You said that you would not know ahead where your home would be. I hope you found one? Op 12-mei-2008, om 4:49 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Metta does seem close to lobha. I know that one is kusala and the > other akusala, however when I smile at total strangers sometimes, > when the occasion arises and I'm feeling friendly, its hard to know > whether its metta or just plain old lobha!!! > I guess only a moment of satipattana will know if its kusala or > akusala. ------- N: That is right. Likely akusala cittas and kusala cittas alternate and it is hard to know exactly the present reality. Nina. #85567 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 11, 2008 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' nilovg Hi Howard, Op 11-mei-2008, om 22:49 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > We have to look & look & look, and see directly and with > complete clarity that there is nothing at all that can be held onto > and nothing at > all worth grasping at. ------- N: Thanks for your good post. Only this: look and look, to look at what , and who looks, that is the question. Nina. #85568 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The problem of "Bare mindfulness" or "Just observe" . nilovg Hi Alex, TG, Op 11-mei-2008, om 21:22 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Op 11-mei-2008, om 19:23 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende > > geschreven: > > > > > Excuse me for butting in Nina but I think Alex meant "attachment > to the idea or theory of "seeing things as" ultimate realities." > > ------- > > N: Seeing things as ultimate realities is seeing the truth. I find > it a complicated idea to be attached to seeing the truth. It is not > some kind of view. > -------- > > > A:But this IS an attachment which prevents attaining of Arahatship (if > not even lower stages). -------- N: I did not explain clearly. My original answer was: we are attached to (conditioned) paramattha dhammas, but we do not know that they are paramattha dhammas. Visible object is a paramattha dhamma, or we can say a dhamma. But we do not realize that it is a dhamma. We are attached to it. Thus, when speaking about ultimate realities, I do not think of something abstract but immediately I think of this dhamma now, or that dhamma. Thus, we depart from different points of view. The raft simile : I have a different interpretation of it. No need to repeat again. Nina. #85569 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Metta, Ch 4, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, The Visuddhimagga (IX, 93) states about the characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause of mettå: Mettå has the characteristic of promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in beings. It succeeds when it makes ill- will subside, and it fails when it produces selfish affection. It is difficult to be watchful as to our cittas, because we are so used to having akusala. Attachment, aversion and ignorance arise time and again. In order to develop kusala, paññå, right understanding of realities, is necessary. There must be sati-sampajañña which knows the characteristic of the citta at a particular moment, which knows whether there is kusala citta or akusala citta. When we sincerely wish to do something for another person, not because of attachment, not because he belongs to our circle of friends or relatives, not because we expect affection in return, there is the characteristic of mettå. In order to develop mettå we should have a detailed knowledge of our cittas, we should carefully consider the different cittas which arise. It is in daily life that we can truly develop mettå, when there is sati- sampajañña which knows the characteristic of mettå which appears. We may happen to see someone who has a peculiar appearance, or someone who is a foreigner, someone who speaks a different language. How do we feel at such a moment? Do we have the same feeling as if we see a friend or do we have a feeling of antipathy? If we consider that person, who ever he may be, as a true friend, there is the manifestation of mettå. As we have seen in the definition of mettå in the Visuddhimagga, the manifestation of mettå is the removal of annoyance, of displeasure. When we see two people who are angry with each other or who quarrel and we are partial to one of them there is no mettå but lobha. As we have seen in the definition, when there is selfish affection the development of mettå fails. We can consider the two people who are angry with one another as friends, it does not matter who of the two acted in the proper way and who in the wrong way. When we see someone who treated us badly, we can still have mettå towards him, we can try to help him and we can think of his wellbeing. Then there is true mettå which arises at such a moment. There is no mettå if we are annoyed with the person who treated us badly, if we blame him and cause him to be even more upset. ******* Nina. #85570 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Nina (and Howard), 2008/5/9 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 8-mei-2008, om 13:03 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > > N: It is only thinking, this may sound harsh and I feel so much with > you. I used to feel like you, but now I see it differently. > It reall helps to understand different cittas as conditioned > elements, thinking included. What can we do about a sad experience we > had and that we keep in our thoughts? We can develop a little more > understanding of the different cittas and the conditions for whatever > we experience or think about. > There are only namas and rupas, we often hear this. We may come to > understand this more when we realize cause and effect in our life, > but I do not like preaching to you. We cannot change the cause of > something that happened, it is unavoidable. But gradually our > attitude may change. It is possible, it can be done, according to the > sutta. I think that Howard's thread about terminology was a very useful one to start. Much discussion results from unclarity in terminology only, not from real differences in meaning. Thinking has an undeserved bad reputation in some quarters. Thinking is not just thinking. As Howard made clear in his terminology thread, there is a real difference between what is imagined and what is experienced. That difference does not only apply to things (dhammas), it applies to processes as well. Imagining is the perfect example of what I mean. What is imagined isn't real, but imagining certainly is real, it happens all the time. Imagining is a reality. But not only is there a difference between experiencing and imagining, there is also a difference between imagining and thinking. Thinking can be of the type that imagines in accordance with conditionality, or not in accordance with it. As examples, it is not imagined that kicking a rock will cause pain, it is in line with experience. On the other hand, it is imagined that one can fly like a bird, and that is again borne out by experience. While I sit here typing to you, I do not imagine that Vicki's uncle is dead, I think it. But his death is a reality independent of my thinking it. To say that he is dead is a description of the real experiences, not the imagined ones, of a body ceasing to breathe, and not resuming again. Thinking is not only thinking. For when the logic of conditionality is known, one thinks what is real. Cheers Herman #85571 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/12/2008 2:58:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 11-mei-2008, om 22:49 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > We have to look & look & look, and see directly and with > complete clarity that there is nothing at all that can be held onto > and nothing at > all worth grasping at. ------- N: Thanks for your good post. Only this: look and look, to look at what , and who looks, that is the question. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My answers: 1) Question: "Look at what?" and Reply: "At whatever there is," and 2) Question: "Who looks?" and Reply: "It doesn't apply - only the looking." ------------------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85572 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/5/12 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > > Scott: There IS a moment, for example, which makes it true that there > are no longer any conditions for further dhammas to arise My capitalisation above is because I think it is an unwarranted use of the word IS. Firstly because, in principle, such a moment is unknowable as experience. Secondly, because, it is unthinkable in line with conditionality. In other words, and I'm sorry it is as blunt as it is, but you are imagining things. Which doesn't mean that I doubt that experience can cease, it just means that I doubt that any one experience can be known to be a condition for the cessation of all experience. (this > moment, as all, has many constituents, but this comes close to > addressing the point above). And this sequence easily demonstrates > that one dhamma is condition for another - at least that one 'moment' > (a number of conascent dhammas) is condition for the next. I see a parallel here with the view that because day is always followed by night, that therefore day is a condition for night. That view is, however, not in line with conditionality. The > arahatta-magga is condition for the arahatta-phala after which > (following the death of the arahat) there are no longer any conditions > for the arising of conditioned dhammas - cessation. From this it is > simple to assert that a dhamma can be condition for another dhamma. > > > Scott: I question the notion that if it is not in the realm of your or > my 'experience' then it is inference. If it is taught out of a > Buddha's experience, then this ought to establish something. Simply > because something is 'explained' doesn't nullify it as something that > is actually 'in existence'. I think that conditionality (a la > Pa.t.thaana) and the ti-lakhaana are of a similar nature: they are the > intrinsic aspects of experience. You and I always founder on this shoal. "Samyutta Nikàya Division III Khandhaka Book 31 Valàhaka Samyutta 31.1.53 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anàthapindaka in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. 2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat on a side. 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, why is it cold on a certain day? 4. Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their intention it becomes cold. 5. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold." It would not be in line with conditionality to think that because the Buddha is basically the definition of right view, that therefore all views attributed to the Buddha are right. What would be thinking in line with conditionality, however, would be that faith about conditionality precedes any understanding of conditionality, but does not necessarily lead to it. Faith is akin to imagination. And imagination certainly does not lead to reason. Scott, some of the above may seem very blunt, but I do not mean it to cause offense. I do not have any desire to change what you believe, I'm just telling you how I see things in the context of our discussion. I'm happy to leave it here if you want, but if you want to persevere you can count me in. Cheers Herman #85573 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 4:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the reply: N: "good quote. I am glad you give the Pali. I save it in my files." Scott: In SN 12 34(4), regarding the 'seventy-seven cases of knowledge', I read: "Bhikkhus, what are the seventy-seven cases of knowledge? The knowledge: 'Aging-and-death has birth as its condition.' The knowledge: 'When there is no birth there is no aging-and-death.' The knowledge: 'In the past too, had there been no birth there would have been no aging-and-death.' The knowledge: 'In the future too, aging-and-death will have birth as condition.' The knowledge: 'In the future too, should there be no birth there will be no aging-and-death.' The knowledge: 'That knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma is also subject to destruction, vanishing, and fading away, and cessation.'" "Dutiya~naa.navatthu sutta.m "Bhagavaa etadavoca: katamaani bhikkhave satta sattari ~naa.navatthuuni? "Jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.nanti ~naa.na.m, asati jaatiyaa natthi jaraamara.nanti ~naa.na.m, atiitampi addhaana.m jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.nanti ~naa.na.m, asati jaatiyaa natthi jaraamara.nanti ~naa.na.m, anaagatampi addhaana.m jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.nanti ~naa.na.m, asati jaatiyaa natthi jaraamara.nanti ~naa.na.m, yampissa ta.m dhamma.t.thiti ~naa.na.m tampi khayadhamma.m vayadhamma.m viraagadhamma.m nirodhadhammanti ~naa.na.m." Note 105: "Spk: The knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma (dhamma.t.thiti-~naa.na) is the knowledge of the principle of conditionality. For the principle of conditionality is called 'the stability of the Dhamma' because it is the cause for the conditioned occurrence of phenomena (pavatti.t.thikaara.nattaa); the knowledge of it is 'the knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma." Sincerely, Scott. #85574 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/5/11 : > Hi, Herman - > Howard: > When we say (or think) that we see red, it is, indeed, after the fact, > dualistic, and secondary. But when we DO see red [There is no other way to > express this, though this misses the mark, because the event is nameless], there > is no conceptualizing and it is immediate (unmediated, not secondary, not > derivative). > Do you not want us to be able to think or talk, however? > -------------------------------------------------------- Talking and thinking are fine. But unless one knows what the absence of talking and thinking is like, there is no idea of what the unmediated world is like. And I do find that one who knows that absence thinks and therefore talks differently to one who doesn't, don't you? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge :-)) Cheers Herman #85575 From: "connie" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 5:35 am Subject: Perfections Corner (150) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.4 on The Perfection of Wisdom, continues: We read in the Commentary to the "Mahaaniddesa" of the Khuddhaka Nikaaya, the Commentary to the "Guha.t.taka Sutta-niddesa", "the Cave": "The term 'pa~n~naa' means: it penetrates. What does it penetrate? It penetrates the noble Truths, the Truth of, 'This is dukkha...' " The noble Truth of dukkha is not merely dukkha which is suffering, oppressing us in daily life, such as loss of possessions, blame, pain etc. The noble Truth of dukkha is the truth that nothing is permanent, that whatever arises such as seeing, hearing, thinking, happiness or pain arises just for an extremely short moment and then disappears. Knowing, "this is dukkha", means, knowing that what arises and falls away immediately is dukkha. We read further on in the Commentary quoted above: "This kind of pa~n~naa is an indriya, a controlling faculty, in the sense of predominance, because it overcomes ignorance, avijjaa." Whenever pa~n~naa does not arise, we are overcome by ignorance. The characteristic of pa~n~naa is the opposite of that of ignorance. Ignorance can be overcome when pa~n~naa arises. We read further on: "This kind of pa~n~naa has the characteristic of illuminating and of penetration. As when a lamp burns at night in a four-walled house the darkness ceases, light manifests itself, so pa~n~naa has illuminating as its characteristic *1." *1 See also The Expositor, Atthasaalinii, I, Book I, Part IV, Ch I, 122. So long as the truth has not been realized we cannot speak of illumination. One merely begins to understand realities. However, when pa~n~naa has reached a higher level, it has the characteristic of illumination: it can realize the truth when the element of naama, the element which experiences, clearly appears through the mind-door. Then the characteristic of ruupa does not blend in with the characteristic of naamadhaatu, the element of naama. That is the meaning of illumination *2. *2 When insight knowledge arises the characteristic of naama appears through the mind-door and naama is clearly distinguished from ruupa. We read further on: "To the wise at a single session the ten thousand world-spheres appear as of one light." .. to be continued, connie #85576 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 5:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: H: "My capitalisation above is because I think it is an unwarranted use of the word IS. Firstly because, in principle, such a moment is unknowable as experience. Secondly, because, it is unthinkable in line with conditionality....I doubt that any one experience can be known to be a condition for the cessation of all experience." Scott: I see the fine point you are making - that the knowledge that something is a condition for something else is not to be had. In other words, I read you to be asserting that the experience of 'a condition' is impossible. In another sutta extract I posted to Nina, is the following phrase: '...dhamma.t.thiti ~naa.na.m tampi khayadhamma.m vayadhamma.m viraagadhamma.m nirodhadhammanti ~naa.na.m.' Bh. Bodhi renders it: '...The knowledge: 'That knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma is also subject to destruction, vanishing, and fading away, and cessation.' The sutta seems to be saying that there can be knowledge (~naa.na - a function of pa~n~naa) of one thing as being condition for another thing. H: "I see a parallel here with the view that because day is always followed by night, that therefore day is a condition for night. That view is, however, not in line with conditionality." Scott: Can you elaborate? I suspect, as usual, we are defining 'conditionality' in idiosyncratic ways. The Buddha notes, it seems, that when there is birth, it is a condition for aging-and-death, this being by the method of Dependent Origination. How is the analogy using night following day any different? Regarding the method of Conditional Relations, an example is given by U Naarada (Guide To Conditional Relations, part 1, p. 6): "Take the case of visible object and craving. In the Conditional Relations method when there is craving for visible object, visible object, the conditioning state of object condition, is the cause, and craving, the conditioned state is the effect." H: "It would not be in line with conditionality to think that because the Buddha is basically the definition of right view, that therefore all views attributed to the Buddha are right. What would be thinking in line with conditionality, however, would be that faith about conditionality precedes any understanding of conditionality, but does not necessarily lead to it. Faith is akin to imagination. And imagination certainly does not lead to reason..." Scott: Leaving aside the particular content of the opposing views expressed, I think it can be said that these views have their causes. In other words, it can be said that there are conditioning states which are causes for these views which are, in the end, effects or conditioned states of these causes. And, further, noting that, in theory, these are simply views and despite one's adherence to either, are devoid of self, I think it can be said that specific views regarding the teachings of a Buddha are also conditioned states. I would be interested if you could elaborate what you mean by 'conditionality' (when you assert that this or that is or is not in line with 'conditionality') so I can see the details of the view expressed. Sincerely, Scott. #85577 From: "szmicio" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 6:26 am Subject: Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 5. szmicio dear Nina your post are so useful and helpful. It's a great treasure to hear the Dhamma. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > It is in > daily life that we can truly develop mettå, when there is sati- > sampajañña > which knows the characteristic of mettå which appears. Could you say something about characteristic of sati-sampajanna. What is the difference between sati,pannja and sampajanna? Best wishes Lukas #85578 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/12/2008 8:13:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/5/11 : > Hi, Herman - > Howard: > When we say (or think) that we see red, it is, indeed, after the fact, > dualistic, and secondary. But when we DO see red [There is no other way to > express this, though this misses the mark, because the event is nameless], there > is no conceptualizing and it is immediate (unmediated, not secondary, not > derivative). > Do you not want us to be able to think or talk, however? > -------------------------------------------------------- Talking and thinking are fine. But unless one knows what the absence of talking and thinking is like, there is no idea of what the unmediated world is like. And I do find that one who knows that absence thinks and therefore talks differently to one who doesn't, don't you? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge :-)) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: That depends on whom one is talking to. If one is talking at all, s/he had better make the attempt to communicate. ---------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85579 From: "Alex" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 8:23 am Subject: was: Are the 32 body parts - Rain Gods truth_aerator Hi All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > "Samyutta Nikàya > Division III Khandhaka > Book 31 Valàhaka Samyutta > > 31.1.53 > > 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the > monastery offered by Anàthapindaka in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. > > 2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat > on a side. > > 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, why is > it cold on a certain day? > > 4. Monk, there are gods named cold clouds. On a certain day it occurs > to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their > intention it becomes cold. > > 5. Monks, as a result a certain day becomes cold." > I hope that above is a latter addition. Am I supposed to believe in Rain Gods who rain water and such? Does anyone here believe in the above? Best wishes, Alex #85580 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] was: Are the 32 body parts - Rain Gods TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/12/2008 9:24:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I hope that above is a latter addition. Am I supposed to believe in Rain Gods who rain water and such? Does anyone here believe in the above? Best wishes, Alex ............................................... Hi Alex I don't. There are a few things like this that crop up in the Suttas that are puzzling. No matter how good a text is, best not to let the text think for you. I suppose by rejecting the above, I'll be subject to being accused of arrogance in putting "my own interpretation" above what the authoritative texts say. :-) So be it. TG #85581 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon May 12, 2008 9:41 am Subject: Interview with the Dalai Lama moellerdieter To whom it may concern.. just between something interesting from the mundane side.. please see http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,552775,00.html with Metta Dieter #85582 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] was: Are the 32 body parts - Rain Gods nilovg Hi Alex, TG, Op 12-mei-2008, om 18:21 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > I hope that above is a latter addition. Am I supposed to believe in > Rain Gods who rain water and such? ------ N: We learn to be aware of paramattha dhammas, one at a time. When coldness of rain is experienced through the bodysense, it is just that rupa, that is all. It is conditioned by kamma whether the experience through the bodysense is pleasant or unpleasant. You will say: that is not the issue, but it is. We learn what is true in the ultimate sense and we do not have to worry about the source of the rain, that does not conern us. It does not help us anyway to reach the goal. Nina. #85583 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are the 32 body parts considered "ultimate realities" in your v... nilovg Dear Scott, thank you very much for this quote, I think I can add it on when that link comes along in the Vis. XVII. Nina. Op 12-mei-2008, om 13:56 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Scott: In SN 12 34(4), regarding the 'seventy-seven cases of > knowledge', I read: > > "Bhikkhus, what are the seventy-seven cases of knowledge? The > knowledge: 'Aging-and-death has birth as its condition.' The > knowledge: 'When there is no birth there is no aging-and-death.' #85584 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] was: Are the 32 body parts - Rain Gods TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/12/2008 11:55:53 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > I hope that above is a latter addition. Am I supposed to believe in > Rain Gods who rain water and such? ------ N: We learn to be aware of paramattha dhammas, one at a time. When coldness of rain is experienced through the bodysense, it is just that rupa, that is all. It is conditioned by kamma whether the experience through the bodysense is pleasant or unpleasant. You will say: that is not the issue, but it is. We learn what is true in the ultimate sense and we do not have to worry about the source of the rain, that does not conern us. It does not help us anyway to reach the goal. Nina. ............................................. Hi Nina, Alex Why do I feel like I'm strapped down in a chair with drops of water hitting my head while a pocket watch is swinging back and forth in front of my eyes. ;-) TG #85585 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Terminology of 'Ultimate Realities' nilovg Hi Larry and Howard (and TG), Op 12-mei-2008, om 3:09 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > However, I think Nina's point is that understanding in this way > doesn't > go to the heart of attachment. We are actually attached to only one > dhamma at a time, not to several at once. It is easy enough to say > that > a dhamma is ungraspable, but until you clearly experience it as it is, > you can't really know that it is ungraspable. ------ N: Yes, you understood very well what I meant, and expressed it very well. Whenever we speak about a dhamma or about attachment, or ultimate reality, I would say: let us learn more about this dhamma (or ultimate dhamma, but no need to use the term ultimate), this dhamma now. As Ken always says it is the only reality that can be known. I am thinking of Kh Sujin's warning time and again: do not cling to names, know characteristics that are appearing. As to the three general charactreistics , these cannot be known clearly in the beginning, but we should realize that these are not mere names, as you know already. Nina. #85586 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts nilovg Hi Herman and all, Op 12-mei-2008, om 4:15 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > My thought is that precisely because we do know that kamma is > involved, or if it was, how it was involved, that it adds nothing to > our understanding to make reference to it ------- N: It is due to kamma that some persons are healthy, some weak, some have a long life, some a short life. I think knowing that all these things are conditioned dhammas could be consoling. Makes it easier to accept gain and loss, praise and blame, honour and dishonour, happiness and misery. These change all the time in life, and nobody can manipulate these things. But I would like to hear other opinions. Nina. #85587 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/12/2008 2:29:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: It is due to kamma that some persons are healthy, some weak, some have a long life, some a short life. =============================== If by "kaama" you are including the actions of others, I would agree, but otherwise I think an appropriate modification to what you wrote would require adding 'in part' after the word 'kamma'. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85588 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:48 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Metta, Ch 4, no 5. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 12-mei-2008, om 15:26 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Could you say something about characteristic of sati-sampajanna. > What is the difference between sati,pannja and sampajanna? ------- N: Sati is mindful, non-forgetful of what is kusala. There are many levels of it: sati of dana, of siila, of samatha and of vipassana. With dana and sila there can be sati without pa~n~naa, but in samatha and vipassana, which are ways of mental development, there have to be sati and pa~n~naa. These arise together and are often referred to as sati sampaja~n`na, which is another word for pa~n~na. In the Commentaries a fourfold sampaja~n~na (pa~n~naa) is explained: knowing the right purpose, knowing what is suitable (such as bending and stretching at the right time), knowing the domain, which is the object of awareness, and non-delusion as to the object of awareness. Nina. #85589 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts nilovg Hi Howard, Op 12-mei-2008, om 20:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: It is due to kamma that some persons are healthy, some weak, some > have a long life, some a short life. > > =============================== > H: If by "kamma" you are including the actions of others, I would > agree, > but otherwise I think an appropriate modification to what you wrote > would > require adding 'in part' after the word 'kamma'. ------ N: No not the action of others, it is action done in the past and accumulated from moment to moment. Yes, there are also other favorable or unfavorable conditions, but what I said above is said in the suttas. Kamma is the main condition. Kamma is one's own the Buddha said. We are heirs to kamma. Nina. #85590 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 8:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/12/2008 12:52:50 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: No not the action of others, it is action done in the past and accumulated from moment to moment. Yes, there are also other favorable or unfavorable conditions, but what I said above is said in the suttas. Kamma is the main condition. Kamma is one's own the Buddha said. We are heirs to kamma. Nina. .................................................. Hi Nina, Howard The Buddha also gave 8 reasons for experiencing suffering (I believe it was suffering). And Kamma was only one of the eight!!! Kamma is far to involved to look at outward conditions and say...this was due to kamma. The Buddha could do it perhaps...we can't. I doubt all these dead Chinese in Chendu all had kamma that dictated they would all die at this same time. TG #85591 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 9:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/12/2008 2:52:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 12-mei-2008, om 20:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: It is due to kamma that some persons are healthy, some weak, some > have a long life, some a short life. > > =============================== > H: If by "kamma" you are including the actions of others, I would > agree, > but otherwise I think an appropriate modification to what you wrote > would > require adding 'in part' after the word 'kamma'. ------ N: No not the action of others, it is action done in the past and accumulated from moment to moment. Yes, there are also other favorable or unfavorable conditions, but what I said above is said in the suttas. Kamma is the main condition. Kamma is one's own the Buddha said. We are heirs to kamma. Nina. =================================== Nina, let me ask you something: When person A shoots and kills the young person, B, are not A's murderous action and the thoughts and emotions of A that led to that action among the conditions that resulted in B having a short life? I would answer that there is NO QUESTION that they are! With metta, Howard P. S. Thank you for correcting my typo misspelling 'kamma'. /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85592 From: "Alex" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 1:49 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] was: Are the 32 body parts - Rain Gods truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/12/2008 11:55:53 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > > I hope that above is a latter addition. Am I supposed to believe in > > Rain Gods who rain water and such? > ------ > N: We learn to be aware of paramattha dhammas, one at a time. When > coldness of rain is experienced through the bodysense, it is just > that rupa, that is all. It is conditioned by kamma whether the > experience through the bodysense is pleasant or unpleasant. > You will say: that is not the issue, but it is. We learn what is true > in the ultimate sense and we do not have to worry about the source of > the rain, that does not conern us. It does not help us anyway to > reach the goal. > Nina. > But do these rain gods, 2,500 km long fishes, geocentric world and so on exist in a Conventional sense? Ok, about fish and creatures that big I can understand. Some planets may be HUGE and can contain such monsters. But we KNOW that we do NOT live in geocentric world and scientists have figured out that rain ISN'T caused by Gods... It is so sad that some people believe in primitive indian beliefs. Also such as 31 body parts (brain was originally not included), also there arose anger in this nama when it read stuff about "heart base" in CMA (not to mention that not all rupa or nama are impermanent). .... Note: "Anger, anger anger". No wonder why the practice is so important. Because IT matters. One of the reasons why I came to Buddhism was for its practical and rational things (I understand now that I was so wrong about the later). Best wishes, Alex #85593 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Blessings ksheri3 Good Day Herman, WOW, that is something I've never received before: glowing reviews! As a matter of fact, last night while trying to sleep I could not get past the flood of illumination when my eyes were closed. It was perfectly clear and bright, could it have been Osel? Needless to say I finally succumbed to the futile attempt to sleep at about 1:30 a.m. where I dug into my Yogacara folder retrieving many of Ronald Epstein's works from SFSU and the DRBA.org but what caught my eye the greatest was a work by Ryusei Takeda and John B. Cobb, Jr. on Mosa- Dharma and Prehension. With that said my consciousness, at this point, has been somewhat conditioned, primed, and I come to you laughing all the way. Why I laugh is that you spoke of "...it is living stuff"! (outrageously loud laughter, a deep throaty chuckle. Those are stage directions, I don't know how they do it in the theater so I just put it in). Does this mean, when you say that it is "real" it is "living stuff" does this mean that I am allowed to use the terminology: MASTER OF REALITY? Black Sabbath would be interested knowing that I have achieved such an honor, no? Yea, it blows me away too, sometimes, when things simply fall into place. My breadth of knowledge and experience is highly limited and scewed since I cannot get a job, people refuse to offer gainful employment to me since I have not accepted THE PATH OF THE MASSES, the easiest path to money and the addiction of/to money. By simply giving it conscious recognition of the actuality of what is you offer such a lovely gift to me and something that will resonate for quite some time now that I have the approval of at least one person in our community. Yes, thank you for offering what you can to me for aid in alleviating some of the suffering and torment I experience every day. I would like to have a deeper relationship on the net than simply forums where I speak, almost as if downward toward lower people as if I were some kind of authority on any subject let alone the complexity of myself. May you have a wonderful day! toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi colette, > > 2008/5/10 colette : > > Hi Group, > > > > Today I received a card purchased from the Tibetan Aid Project by a > > friend that knows how difficult things are for me, understands, and > > still has compassion enough to stay in touch with me. > > > > I opened the envelope and immediately said "Prayer Flags". As I read > > the description on the back it is a picture of Samye valley taken from > > Hepo-ri. > > > > It is things like this that make so beautiful and exciting to live and > > experience. > > > > Love ya all. > > I am sorry that things are difficult for you. If you feel that I could > do anything to help, feel free to contact me off-line. But I would > like to publicly thank you for being a blessing to me. You blow me > away with the broadness and depth of what you know. Not only that, > what you know isn't dry, encyclopedia stuff, it IS you, it is living > stuff. > > I truly appreciate your contributions to dsg, colette > > Herman > #85594 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 12:39 pm Subject: Helping all Beings! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Golden Buddhist Life Standards are the Primary Laws! The golden Buddhist's life standards make harmony for oneself and others. This layman's code of discipline = (gihi-vinaya) organize social relationships so that they produce a society of happy being and beings: Law 4 is: Law 4: Helping all beings achieve their advantageous goals! One should help oneself, one should help others and one should help both oneself and others... Helping oneself will develop one's life towards progress, prosperity, and happiness. Helping others by inducing and encouraging them to develop their lives, gives same benefits. Helping oneself and others creates a mutual goal and advantage for both parties. This collective benefit, leads to happiness and virtue of the community & society. An example is environmental conditions, which we all should help create and conserve in order to help both ourselves and others to a happy & better future. Helping all people is joining in constructively creating a social harmony and unity... Helping all beings is expanding this gentle and subtle harmony universally! The Four Principles for Help: 1. DÄ�na: Giving and sharing (helping through money and material goods). 2. PiyavÄ�ca: Kind, friendly & polite speech (helping through words & explanation). 3. AtthacariyÄ�: Helpful bodily action (helping attaining goals through physical effort). 4. SamÄ�nattatÄ�: Participation & assistance (helping with collective construction & problem solving). The Three Levels of Goals: 1. First level: Present benefits to be seen & utilized here and now (ditthadhammikattha): a) Having good health, a strong body, freedom from disease, pleasant appearance, and long life. b) Having work and income, honest livelihood, and economic self-reliance. c) Having good status, being of good standing in the community. d) Having a happy family worthy of admiration & respect. 2. Second level: Religious goals for further advantages (samparÄ�yikattha): a) Warmth, deep appreciation and happiness through faith of having a true ideal. b) Pride in having a clean life, in having done only morally irreproachable deeds. c) Gratification in a worthwhile life, in having made sacrifices and done much good. d) Courage & confidence by having understanding to deal with problems & guide own & other's life. e) Security and freedom from worry in having done good as an investment for the future life. 3. Third level: The absolute and ultimate Goal (paramattha): a) Not wavering in face of common vicissitudes and inevitable changes. b) Not being depressed, despaired, or distressed because of clinging to attachments. c) Being assured, secure, calm, clear, cheerful, and mentally buoyant at all times. d) Living and acting with wisdom, which looks rationally at all causes and conditions. e) Approaching NibbÄ�na - the deathless element - the highest bliss - the final peace - the highest goal - One who is able to attain the second level of goals & upwards is known as a wise man (pandita). Source: A constitution for Living. Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life. Ven. P.A. Payutto. Thailand. Buddhist Publication Society 2007: BP 620S http://www.bps.lk The Golden Buddhist Life Standards are the Primary Laws! Helping all beings makes a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #85595 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 1:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts ksheri3 Hi Howard, I selected your post since I could not find the originator of the thread on DEATH and you are certainly a good sport of a romp in the hay i.e. screwin' around, so I just latched onto your post. Haven't read anything about the post but I can say that I have been considering lots and lots of aspects in this general direction. Throughout recorded history we find references to this unknown but not unknowable condition called DEATH. In Buddhism we even give it a special diety: YAMA. And Yama holds the Wheel of Life, Death, Rebirth, isn't that Karma? Isn't interesting that we give it such significance? Pitty, however, we Buddhists are given such a deplorable reputation for what we build, construe, construct, imagine, etc, since our ceremonials and practices toward the aspect of Death are sooooooo PAGAN to these haughty-taughty Westerners with their nose so high up in the air... We, in the Buddhist community, know better and are forced to shake our heads and extend some kind of pity to their views obtained by the high technological advancements obtained from the "CONTROL" blinders have on horses that follow the "Carrot N Stick Methodology of Salesmanship". What has death done to any of us? Why is death something to be feared when it has never done anything to us? In fact, death has come very close to me several times in my past and still has not found a firm grip on my person. Is it Death's fault of my fault, that Death has not consumed me as any gluttonous member of the Aristocracy consumes endless amounts of food? If Samsara = Nirvana THEN what is the rational for placing Death in such powerful positions. Pardon me but a procession is passing by me now on their way to "Venerate Grave Sites" so I'll leave it at that until I have time to read the posts. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Nina (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 5/12/2008 2:29:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > N: It is due to kamma that some persons are healthy, some weak, some > have a long life, some a short life. > > =============================== > If by "kaama" you are including the actions of others, I would agree, > but otherwise I think an appropriate modification to what you wrote would > require adding 'in part' after the word 'kamma'. > > With metta, > Howard #85596 From: "Alex" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 2:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts truth_aerator Hi All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Nina (and Herman) - > > In a message dated 5/12/2008 2:29:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > N: It is due to kamma that some persons are healthy, some weak, some > have a long life, some a short life. > > Out of 8 causes for feelings 7 are NOT DIRECTLY caused by Kamma. --- Moliyasivaka: There are some priests & contemplatives who are of this doctrine, this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before. Now what does the Ven. Gotama say to that? The Buddha: There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile [i.e., diseases and pains that come from a malfunction of the gall bladder]. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any priests & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure- nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those priests & contemplatives are wrong. There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven ('out-of-tune') care of the body... from attacks... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any priests & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those priests & contemplatives are wrong. — SN 36.21 -- Best wishes, Alex #85597 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 12, 2008 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 5/12/2008 5:13:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Howard, I selected your post since I could not find the originator of the thread on DEATH and you are certainly a good sport of a romp in the hay i.e. screwin' around, so I just latched onto your post. Haven't read anything about the post but I can say that I have been considering lots and lots of aspects in this general direction. Throughout recorded history we find references to this unknown but not unknowable condition called DEATH. In Buddhism we even give it a special diety: YAMA. And Yama holds the Wheel of Life, Death, Rebirth, isn't that Karma? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, the Tibetans depict Yama holding the wheel of samara. The conditions of birth are certainly largely a matter of kamma, yes. --------------------------------------------------- Isn't interesting that we give it such significance? Pitty, however, we Buddhists are given such a deplorable reputation for what we build, construe, construct, imagine, etc, since our ceremonials and practices toward the aspect of Death are sooooooo PAGAN to these haughty-taughty Westerners with their nose so high up in the air... We, in the Buddhist community, know better and are forced to shake our heads and extend some kind of pity to their views obtained by the high technological advancements obtained from the "CONTROL" blinders have on horses that follow the "Carrot N Stick Methodology of Salesmanship". What has death done to any of us? Why is death something to be feared when it has never done anything to us? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I suppose most people fear death because 1) Exactly what it's nature is, i.e., "What will happen," is unknown, and 2) With death, there is separation from loved ones (and loved things), and, 3) For many there is the assumption that death is annihilation, and that "smarts" if one clings to "being". ------------------------------------------------- In fact, death has come very close to me several times in my past and still has not found a firm grip on my person. Is it Death's fault of my fault, that Death has not consumed me as any gluttonous member of the Aristocracy consumes endless amounts of food? If Samsara = Nirvana THEN what is the rational for placing Death in such powerful positions. -------------------------------------------- Howard: That isn't an explicit part of the original Dhamma. It is explicit in Mahayana. In any case, IMO, until one has realized that samsara is nibbana (misperceived), the round of existence is mightily clung to. ------------------------------------------- Pardon me but a procession is passing by me now on their way to "Venerate Grave Sites" so I'll leave it at that until I have time to read the posts. toodles, colette =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #85598 From: "Alex" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 3:55 pm Subject: Abh teaches Permanent rupa phenomenon? CMA pg 262 chart truth_aerator Hello all, On page 262 of CMA there is a chart of physical phenomenon I have a question. As a sutta reader I understand that ALL phenomenon is impermanent. However according to that chart: Essential matter, internal, base, door faculty, "Gross, etc" , clung to, taking objects, inseperable, 4 causes, 21 groupings ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS IMPERMANENT thus making them permanent? Can someone explain it? I don't want to pick up belief in permanence (of even 1 phenomenon), not to mention ~32 permanent phenomenon???!!! Best wishes, Alex #85599 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 12, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Death. was:Are the 32 body parts ksheri3 Hi Howard, Thanks for the quick and humourous reply! > Howard: > Yes, the Tibetans depict Yama holding the wheel of samara. The > conditions of birth are certainly largely a matter of kamma, yes. > --------------------------------------------------- colette: thanks for clarifying the fact that Yama is a Tibetan diety but then you leave it open to interpretation as birth being a function of kamma and you don't even mention the rest of the triumphveret: birth life death rebirth. Suffering or Samsara is a fundamental buildning block of the reality expereinced in all aspects THEREFORE we should be able to find complete equalities and/or duplications of the existence, in all three, or four however you choose to view it, which makes for a replication and/or a process, no? ----------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > I suppose most people fear death because 1) Exactly what it's nature is, > i.e., "What will happen," is unknown, colette: again, a restatement of what I've been saying all along: THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND THEY ARE SIMPLY COWARDS AND HOODLUMS THAT CANNOT ACCEPT THE EVENING OF THEIR DEBT. I have, since April 10 or 11, 1978, been clearly saying that a person should live their life as much as possible; They should not sit around and allow it to be handed to them; there is simply so much out there, in the society, in other societies, in all societies, that one single person could possibly obtain access to and expereince for themselves, in a single lifetime. <.....> ----------------------------------------- and 2) With death, there is separation > from loved ones (and loved things), and, colette: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SPEAKING OF HERE? I do believe we have a practitioner of Semde and other Dzogchen aspects: are you telling me that a person that moves from the home of their parents clear across the continent is not seperated from the ones they cling to? Are you telling me that the person that moves away and begins a/their NEW nuclear family, are you telling me that that person is now not seperated from that which originally "conditioned" them and planted seeds (bija) in them which they are now carrying to their new location and depositing inseminating, planting, as any pervert would do and commonly does? ARe you implying that what the character GoGo Yobari in the movie Kill Bill vol 1, what she did when she placed fire into a drunken companion at a bar (i.e. stuck him with a dagger) is wrong simply because what the drunken companion wanted to do was stick fire in her? ------------------------------------------ 3) For many there is the assumption > that death is annihilation, and that "smarts" if one clings to "being". colette: DON'T EVEN TRY IT! <....> gotta go. Sorry for my incompleteness! It is still a wonderful response. toodles, colette <....>