#86600 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:07 am Subject: Re: Why Meditation? [dsg] sarahprocter... HI James, We're very behind with our reading, but I just read your story and enjoyed it a lot - beautifully written:-). Nina, I think Lodewijk might enjoy it and have a comment or two. As for the 'negative' comments on your other series - like Howard, I didn't see them like that. In any case, if most of us were concerned about negative comments, we'd never write:-). Hope you keep up one or both of these series. I'll look forward to anymore of your anecdotes too. (Reminds me of one to the StarKids I enjoyed about meditating and bathing....} Metta, Sarah --- On Wed, 4/6/08, buddhatrue wrote: I can relate a funny, but telling, story. #86601 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 4:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 6/4/2008 12:59:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: This is one of my periodic departures, so won't be able to see responses. ============================== In case you do see this post: Be well, and do please keep in touch! With much metta, Howard #86602 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 10:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Panna As Indriya sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Scott,Ven Samahita & all, The following comment is so very true: --- On Wed, 4/6/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > When there is metta one does not think of one's own gain, no place for lobha, wishing to reach this or that, which is a great hindrance for the attainment of the goal.< **** S: I also appreciated this quote Ven Samahita gave (#86555): >Wherever he goes, there he is unafraid.. Wherever he sleeps, there he is unalarmed. The nights and days does neither touch nor burn him. He sees nothing in this world that is to be kept or lost. Therefore his mind dwells in goodwill and gentle kindness towards all beings, until he falls asleep. SN I 110< ... S: No thought of oneself and one's own desires or gains, but kindness and consideration for others, unafraid, unalarmed, undisturbed by the worldly conditions. The following quotes he gave are along the same lines too, 'undistrubed even in a sorrowful world' and rejoicing in good deeds: >The Blessed Buddha once said: While alive, then he is untroubled, & when he dies too, then he is not worried! A recluse who has seen the goal, lives undisturbed even in a sorrowful world... Ud 46< >REJOICING Here he rejoices. So too after death he rejoices. The one having done good works rejoices both places! Remembering, looking back, seeing & thinking: "Oh I have done good works, well done" he enjoys the bliss of the happy worlds even more ... Dhammapada Illustration 18 Background Story 18< **** Scott, Ven Sammahita also quoted the following and I wonder if you could kindly give me the Pali and another translation (as I couldn't find it easily on-line): >PLEASANT Pleasant are friends when a need arises. Pleasant is all fun when shared with friends. Pleasant is the stored merit of good works at the moment of death. Pleasant is it to leave behind all Suffering. Pleasant is being a Father. Pleasant is being a Mother. Pleasant is being a Bhikkhu. Pleasant is the state of the accomplished. Pleasant is a prior righteous life when old. Pleasant is faith firmly established, unshakable by doubt. Pleasant is the arising of Insight. Pleasant is the avoidance of Evil. Yeah! Dhammapada 331-33< Metta, Sarah ========= #86603 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 10:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Herman, (& Scott) --- On Wed, 4/6/08, Herman Hofman wrote: , > H:> What is awareness of namas? Is that namas with namas as object? > ... > S: How about you tell me what you understand first, so I know where this is heading:-) Is there any reason, do you think, why namas cannot have other namas (one at a time, of course) as object? H:>What I understand is that nama is a collective term that refers to the knowing of objects or characteristics of all kinds. But knowing "itself" it not an object, it has no characteristic. .... S: No agreement so far, carry on:-) ... H:>Whats more, different kinds of knowing have nothing in common with each other. The knowing of a sight has nothing in common with the knowing of a sound, for example. The meaning of knowing does not come from the act, but from the object of the act. .... S: Thanks for the clarification. Again, no agreement. ... H:> Now to namas of namas. If I have understood correctly, and nama is the knowing of an object, ... S: Yes, but nama refers to a reality which has the characteristic of experiencing and object. So, for example, seeing consciousness is a nama. It's not a 'collective term'. In turn, seeing consciousness can be the object of other namas (cittas and cetasikas). It has a characteristic which can be known. Different namas have the 'nama-ness' in common. For example, seeing consciousness is completely different from hearing consciousness, but they have the quality of experiencing an object in common. This makes them namas, not rupas. Such experiencing (or 'knowing' in your words) is part of the characteristic of these namas. It doesn't come from the object. However, the object is a condition for such experiencing to occur. .... H: >what is the object or characteristic of a nama so that a nama may know it? ... S: a)the object of a nama may be another nama, a rupa or a concept. b) the characteristic of a nama is that experiences an object. For example if there is awareness of seeing consciousness (a nama experiencing a nama), it is aware of the characteristic of seeing, the experiencing or 'knowing' of visible object. Now back to your original question: > H:> What is awareness of namas? Is that namas with namas as object? .... S: OK, I hope I've now answered this. Thanks for your clarification, Herman. Btw, I've thorougly enjoyed your recent discussion with Scott on kamma and the Bhikkhuni Sutta etc. I thought your 'shocking' post to him was very witty and well-composed. You're a good match for each other:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #86604 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna As Indriya sarahprocter... Dear Tep, Thank you for sharing your informative message on 'discerns' and panna. You quoted good sutta passages as usual. Did Han respond? --- On Mon, 2/6/08, Tep wrote: T:>The following message which I lately posted at JourneyToNibbana might be of interest to you. <...> For those who study the English translation of the suttas by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu the term "discern" comes up very often. <....> >T: Do you see a serious problem with all these dictionaries? -- they are inconsistent among themselves and seriously contradicting with the suttas. .... S: I really didn't see much problem with the dictionary entries. Perhaps others might? Or perhaps you can spell it out further for me. To repeat them as I deleted them by mistake: >1. ATI Glossary: pañña [pa~n~naa]: Discernment; insight; wisdom; intelligence; common sense; ingenuity. One of the ten perfections. 2. Metta.net Dictionary: discern = parijaanaati (to know accurately or for certain), pari~n~naata. Discernment = abhijaanana, pari~n~naa. 3. PTS Dictionary: pajaanaati = to know, find out, come to know, understand, distinguish D i.45 (yathaabhuutam; really, truly). Abhijaana [Sk. abhij~naana] recognition, remembrance, recollection.< **** T:>According to the three sutta quotes above, pa~n~naa is the seeing of the phenomena (dhammas) the way they really are; it is a right view or "wisdom" or "understanding" that is way beyond the worldlings. One who has such a discernment about the conditioned dhammas, overcomes greed and wrong views: he is not tied to (unyoking from) becoming, wrong views, and ignorance. He is an ariyan! ... S: Yes, but such wisdom or understanding has to develop. If it doesn't develop in a worldling, it will never become ariyan wisdom. So, for example, you quoted from the Sanditthika Sutta, AN V1.47, about knowing greed when it arises etc and how this is the way that "the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless...." etc. It begins with the understanding of lobha or any other reality at this very moment when it arises. This is panna which develops, the understanding of the Dhamma in "the here-&-now". If we think this is only possible for the ariyans and too lofty, such panna will never develop. There will never be any bhavana or meditation in "the here-&-now". ..... T:>But these three dictionaries equate "discernment" mundane understanding of worldings. The terms "know", find out", "know accurately", "common sense" are inaccurate and unacceptable. Don't you think so?< ... S: I think the dictionary entries are pointing to the various kinds and degrees of panna. I wouldn't include 'common-sense'or 'Find out', but panna and pajannati (translated by TB) as 'discerns' can certainly refer to to mundane or supramundane understanding. For example, pariyati and patipatti are kinds of mundane panna or understanding. Meanwhile, I'm appreciating your continued discussion with Nina on panna as indriya. Metta, Sarah ========== #86605 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 11:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. jonoabb Hi Herman > You > are telling me there are individual streams of consciousness. That > means these streams have identity. One stream is not another stream, > and a stream can be cognisant of, wait for it...., itself. > You maintain that only the conditions that "belong to", that identify > this stream can contribute to how this stream unfolds. For all intents > and purposes, this stream is a self-organising system, and the > not-self characteristic refers only to the fact that there is no > overal executive in charge of this system, it is interdependent with > only, wait for it, ..... itself. Unless I misunderstand you, this > stream of consciousness is as close to a persisting entity as one can > get. From what you say here, I can see why you would see an inconsistency between kamma and not-self; but we're obviously working from different understandings of these terms ;-)) To my understanding, there is no entity of 'stream of consciousness'. The only 'entities' are things having a characteristic that can be directly experienced (referred to in the texts as "dhammas", "khandhas", "dhatus", etc). This means that it is citta/vinnana that is cognisant of an object, not a stream of consciousness. The 'not-self' characteristic refers, to my understanding, to the characteristic of individual dhammas, and not to the characteristic of the system called stream of consciousness. > And what's more, surely to anatta (God) you are not going to tell me > that a stream of consciousness is it's own cause, that it conditioned > it's own coming to be. There is nothing in the texts concerning the coming into being of a stream of consciousness. So I'm not telling you anything about that (praise be to anatta). > And if a stream of consciousness comes into > being through conditions external to or other to itself, why maintain > that only conditions that belong to a stream can influence it? I wasn't meaning to assert that "only conditions that belong to a stream can influence it". I think that's your extrapolation from the description I gave of my understanding of the law of kamma: that deeds bring results. > Back to you, good buddy :-) Ball's in your court! Jon #86606 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 2:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. truth_aerator Hi Jon and Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Herman > > > You > > are telling me there are individual streams of consciousness. That > > means these streams have identity. One stream is not another stream, > > and a stream can be cognisant of, wait for it...., itself. > > You maintain that only the conditions that "belong to", that identify > > this stream can contribute to how this stream unfolds. For all intents > > and purposes, this stream is a self-organising system, and the > > not-self characteristic refers only to the fact that there is no > > overal executive in charge of this system, it is interdependent with > > only, wait for it, ..... itself. Unless I misunderstand you, this > > stream of consciousness is as close to a persisting entity as one can > > get. > > From what you say here, I can see why you would see an inconsistency > between kamma and not-self; but we're obviously working from different > understandings of these terms ;-)) > > To my understanding, there is no entity of 'stream of consciousness'. > The only 'entities' are things having a characteristic that can be > directly experienced (referred to in the texts as "dhammas", > "khandhas", "dhatus", etc). > But is this stream of consciousness or "anatta" separate from other anattas? Of course. So at least in this sense it has at least one difference from other 5 khandas. In a sense this is identity. Every stream has its own Kamma. Nobody can share their kamma. Best wishes. Alex #86607 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching kenhowardau Hi all, Firstly, apologies for my prolonged silence. There have been several post I have wanted to reply to (not to mention my Visudhihagga thread) but it seems I am still stuck in that temperamental phase I mentioned earlier. There are so many unfinished posts in my drafts folder . . . . Anyway, here is another attempt at actually posting something: Phil wrote: -------- > What does the Dhamma mean for me? Does it mean an interest in penetrative insight? No. It is about the relieving of suffering for others, and myself. What does the latter mean and how does Dhamma do it in a more real way than new age stuff, that I don't know yet. But I am now understanding there will be a shift away from the wisdom wing back onto the compassion wing. --------- To be a good person is a worthy goal, but is wanting (desiring, craving) to be a good person good or bad (kusala or akusala)? It is akusala. Should we pretend it is kusala? No we should not!. It seems to me that Phil's dilemma is typical of many Buddhists who have acquired a little Abhidhamma knowledge. As he says: -------- > . . . I can remember when I was active in a very good brahma- viharas related group I started getting into DSG and Abhidhamma and posting in those terms, and someone there warned me about getting too deep into Abhidhamma, and falling from the compassion wing too deep into the wisdom wing, or something like that. -------- So we can see that some people really do feel faced with a dilemma. They think they have to choose between either (1) accepting the true Dhamma and giving up their goal of being a better person or (2) turning their backs on the true Dhamma and following their desires. There is, however, a middle way. And that is; to understand a presently arisen patamattha dhamma. So, will that middle way happen? Will panna (right understanding of a presently arisen paramattha dhamma) materialise right now as we speak? That will depend on conditions, won't it? Ken H PS: OK, it's not much of a post, but it's a step on the road to recovery. I will send it straight away before Mr Hyde sees it. :-) Or should that be "Dr Jekyll?" #86608 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 6:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sukinderpal Hi Herman, I just remembered about your post, sorry. ============ > In other words, Buddhist and non- Buddhist, everyone relatively Herman: I have only quoted one paragraph, but you said in the foregoing that there is great danger in believing in a soul / enduring self. Perhaps that is so in some ways. I would say with more certainly that there is great danger in reciting an anatta mantra to oneself, when it is not at all understood. One who believes in a soul must accept personal responsibility for their actions. Eventually, this weight of responsibility will be the cause of much suffering, as one seeks to find an ethical path through the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. On the other hand, the one who recites their anatta mantra without believing it or understanding it, is like the stupid baby boy lying on it's back, totally dependent on his environment and incapable of action. As the Buddha points out in MN78, such a being lacks any skill whatsoever. The worldlings who disavows themselves of the possibility of action in the world is not consumate in virtue, they are fools. There is a tad of difference between someone incapable of action, and the following, wouldn't you say? "Now, an individual endowed with which ten qualities is one whom I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments? One endowed with the right view of one beyond training, the right resolve of one beyond training, the right speech... the right action... the right livelihood... the right effort... the right mindfulness... the right concentration... the right knowledge... the right release of one beyond training. An individual endowed with these ten qualities is one whom I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments." Sukin: In making the comparison with and saying that, “the one who recites their anatta mantra without believing it or understanding it”, I am not sure that you want me to argue just for the sake of it or that you sincerely believe this to be my own position. If the former, I must say that I am not interested. If the latter however, then I would like to start by trying to correct you and we can see where to go from there….? Metta, Sukin #86609 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 2. egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/4 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the clarification: > > H: "...If I fit into any pigeonhole, it would probably be the > epiphenomenalist one. In simple terms, this is no more than the view > that the relationship between conditionality and experience is like > the relationship between an object and it's shadow. Experience, like a > shadow, is an effect, not a cause. Which doesn't deny the reality of > experience, or shadows, but denies that experience causes experience > to happen." > > Scott: If I'm following, this view has it that mentality cannot cause > anything, it merely arises secondarily. Is this an adequate paraphrase? It's quite a good paraphrase :-). But I'd like to avoid as much as possible the dualistic realms of physical / mental. These terms have become so laden with different meanings over the centuries that if we can manage it, I'd much prefer to discuss in terms of experience and causality/conditionality. So yes, if you were to say that according to moi experience is not a cause for anything, you'd be right. Cheers Herman #86610 From: "Tep" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:57 pm Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya dhammanusarin Dear Sarah, - >S: You quoted good sutta passages as usual. Did Han respond? T: He responded at the JTN forum. He likes the suttas as usual (thanks to the Buddha), but he does not see them the same way I do ! ............... >S: I really didn't see much problem with the dictionary entries. Perhaps others might? Or perhaps you can spell it out further for me. T: Well, do not be disappointed if no-one responds! The following messages at the Journey-To-Nibbana group should spell it out for you, but if they do not help then please forget about them! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JourneyToNibbana/message/5698 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JourneyToNibbana/message/5695 ...................... >S: So, for example, you quoted from the Sanditthika Sutta, AN V1.47, about knowing greed when it arises etc and how this is the way that "the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless...." etc. It begins with the understanding of lobha or any other reality at this very moment when it arises. This is panna which develops, the understanding of the Dhamma in "the here-&-now". If we think this is only possible for the ariyans and too lofty, such panna will never develop. There will never be any bhavana or meditation in "the here-&- now". T: Do you really have "the understanding of lobha or any other reality at this very moment when it arises"? If you do, then you are already an ariyan. I have no doubt that only the ariyans can see (with pa~n~naa) that "the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless....". This Dhamma has to be the four noble truths. My belief is based on the Buddha's words : "And what is the faculty of discernment? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with discernment of arising & passing away â€" noble, penetrating, leading to the right ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is called the faculty of discernment." Clearly to me, such "discernment" is the noble right view of the "path of practice leading to the cessation of stress" (i.e. to Arahantship). MN 117 tells us in details how to develop such "pa~n~naa" of the ariya puggalas. If you downplay the importance of the Buddha's Teachings in MN 117 and in SN 48.10 (Indriya-vibhanga Sutta) by thinking that you can do it differently, then "such panna will never develop" and "there will never be any bhavana or meditation" in "the here-&-now". ................................................ T: >But these three dictionaries equate "discernment" mundane understanding of worldings. The terms "know", find out", "know accurately", "common sense" are inaccurate and unacceptable. Don't you think so?< ... S: I think the dictionary entries are pointing to the various kinds and degrees of panna. I wouldn't include 'common-sense' or 'Find out', but panna and pajannati (translated by TB) as 'discerns' can certainly refer to to mundane or supramundane understanding. For example, pariyati and patipatti are kinds of mundane panna or understanding. T: Thank you for sharing your thought with me. That is fair enough. I do not have anything more to say. Regards, Tep === #86611 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 10:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/4 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the clarifications: > > H: "The body does not come into being all at once. From a single > fertilised cell an organism of billions and billions of cells > develops. Without the proper nutrients to provide the building blocks > of this development, it can't happen." > > Scott: Basic biology, then. I've heard of these things. ;-) You could call it biology stuff. I call it conditionality :-) > > H: "...Way before there is the psychological craving to be, there is a > somatic craving to be a certain way." > > Scott: Would you suggest that, since all mentality is secondary to the > physical, then all 'craving' is, essentially, 'somatic craving'? As I said in my previous post, I prefer to talk in terms of experience and conditionality. A paraphrase of what you say here would be that the experience of craving is secondary to the causes of craving. Experience "itself" does not crave, or cause craving. > > H: "And so too with conceit. Way before there is the psychological > distinction self / not-self, the body distinguishes between self / > not-self. It is this biological conceit (I am this, and not that) that > is the basis for the immune system, and the reason why people sneeze > and produce snot when they are infected by foreign (not-self) > organisms." > > Scott: Again, mentality being epiphenomenal, it is the physical that > is central in this view. Yes, conditionality rules. > > H: "Without sexual intercourse there is no zygote. Without food, > craving and conceit, no zygote would live long enough to become larger > than the head of a pin." > > Scott: Overall, then, the view seems to attribute mental properties to > physical or material properties and processes, but in the sense that > these mental states only arise or seem to arise secondarily. One has, > then biological craving, biological conceit - in effect biological > mentality. And this mentality is merely shadow, somehow real but > ineffective - effect but not cause. > > Does this reflect the view as stated? Not quite. The causes of experience are not identical with experience. There is no experience of causality. So I wouldn't agree with your paraphrase "in effect biological mentality". But otherwise, yes, there are the causes of craving and conceit and there is the experience of craving and conceit. The experience of craving and conceit, however, is ineffective, it does not cause anything. Cheers Herman #86612 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching nilovg Dear Ken H (and Phil), Op 5-jun-2008, om 2:36 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > So we can see that some people really do feel faced with a dilemma. > They think they have to choose between either (1) accepting the true > Dhamma and giving up their goal of being a better person or (2) > turning their backs on the true Dhamma and following their desires. > > There is, however, a middle way. And that is; to understand a > presently arisen patamattha dhamma. > > So, will that middle way happen? Will panna (right understanding of a > presently arisen paramattha dhamma) materialise right now as we > speak? ------ N: Very good you remind us that we can cling to the idea of being a good or better person. I heard a Thai tape and thought of Phil. Kh Sujin said that all suttas are good and that they are addressed to people with different accumulations. When the problem is anger, the suttas help us to not being angry so fast. Or do we want to develop the pa~n~naa that can eradicate dosa? It all depends on the inclination of the individual. Nina. #86613 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 11:31 pm Subject: Dhammapada, 331-333. nilovg Dear Sarah, I have no time to type all, but I have here the transl of a Sarnath booklet: the Pali sukhaa is translated here as: happy... Being a mother: matteyyataa: ministering to a mother. Happy the acquisition of wisdom, the Pali has; sukho pa~n~naaya pa.tilabho. Nina. #86614 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 11:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What are the causes of 4 great elements + space & consciousness 5-6th? egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/6/3 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 2-jun-2008, om 2:46 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> I have read and re-read the useful posts on space. No need to say >> anything further if it will be a repeat of what is already there. But >> it seems to me that the entire commentarial doctrine on space is made >> necessary by the need to impose a certain elemental order on things. >> Even nibbana is made an element in these scholastic schemes. Clearly, >> the formulators of these doctrines went out of their way to avoid at >> all costs the notion of nothing, or absence. Because absence cannot be >> made into an element. >> >> However, the Buddha teaches quite eloquently that the world is empty >> of what is not there. MN121. Just try explaining that in terms of >> elements. :-) > ------- > N: Here akaasa is used as a meditation subject of the first aruupa- > jhana. This is in a context different from the rupa which is space. > As meditation subject space is a concept. > In this sutta abiding in the concept of emptiness is not attending to > all the objects that are disturbing: village, human being, etc. > In other contexts emptiness, su~n~natta, is used in the sense of > empty of a self and it is synonymous with anattaa. > Why is nibbaana an element? Because it is empty of a self. Dhaatu > means devoid of self. > Nina. I'd like to write some more about emptiness later, but for now I'd like to ask you what the characteristic of nibbana is, and how it is known? Cheers Herman #86615 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 12:59 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] What are the causes of 4 great elements + space & consciousness 5-6th? nilovg Hi Herman, Op 5-jun-2008, om 8:47 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > I'd like to write some more about emptiness later, but for now I'd > like to ask you what the characteristic of nibbana is, and how it is > known? ------- N: I do not know the characteristic of nibbaana. It is known at the attainment of enlightenment. I know in theory that nibbåna is anatta. It is the uncondiitoned element, and that is all. I find it not good to speculate about nibbaana, and I would rather consider how to eventually reach it: to be aware and understand what is dhamma now. You see that I do not miss any opportunity to say this:-)) I am getting older and older, no time to lose. Therefore, I avoid debating on matters we can only speculate about, if you don't mind. Nina. #86616 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Metta, Ch 7, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 7. The blessings of metta The Buddha taught Dhamma to his followers out of compassion, he taught them Dhamma for their benefit and happiness. When they had listened to the Dhamma they could ponder over it and put it into practice. The Buddha taught about the ill effects of anger. Anger leads to different kinds of suffering for the person who is angry, but the person to whom anger is directed does not have to suffer from it if he does not have anger himself. We read in theGradual Sayings (Book of Sevens, Chapter VI, §10) about the effects of anger. The person who is angry looks ugly. Even though he bathes himself, anoints himself, trims his hair and beard and dresses himself in clean, white linen, for all that he is ugly, since he is overwhelmed by anger. When someone is angry his face is tense, and sometimes his mouth may be distorted and his speech blurred. He may lie on a couch spread with a fleecy cover, a white blanket, a woollen coverlet, flower-embroidered, with crimson cushions, but for all that, if he is overwhelmed by anger, he lies in discomfort. He may know what is good and what is evil, but when he is overwhelmed by anger he does what is harmful, not what is beneficial. When one performs unwholesome deeds through body, speech and mind, one will have as result an unhappy rebirth in lower planes, such as a hell plane or the animal world, depending on the kamma which produces rebirth. We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sevens, Chapter VI, §10. Anger), that the Buddha said: How ugly is an angry man! His sleep Is comfortless; with fortune in his hands He suffers loss; and being full of wrath He wounds by act and bitter word. Overwhelmed By rage, his wealth he wastes away. Made mad And crazy by his bile, his name’s bemired. With odium, shunned and forsaken is An angry man by friend and relative. By wrath is loss incurred; by wrath, the mind Irate, he knows not that within Fear is engendered, nor knows the goal. When anger-bound, man Dhamma cannot see; When anger conquers man, blind darkness reigns. A man in wrath finds pleasure in bad deeds, As in good deeds; yet later when his wrath Is spent, he suffers like one scorched by fire: As flame atop of smoke, he staggers on, When anger spreads, when youth becomes incensed. No shame, no fear of blame, no reverence In speech has he whose mind is anger rent; No island of support he ever finds. The deeds which bring remorse, far from right states, These I’ll proclaim. Listen how they come about. A man in anger will his father kill, In wrath his very mother will he slay, Arahats and ordinary men alike he will kill. By his mother’s care man sees the light Of day, yet common average folk, in wrath, Will still destroy that fount of life. Self-mirrored all these beings are; each one Loves self most. In wrath the ordinary men Kill self, by divers forms distraught: by sword Men kill themselves; in madness poison take; And in some hollow of a mountain glen They hide, and bind themselves with ropes and die. Thus ruin runs in wake of wrath, and they Who act in wrath, perceive not that their deeds, Destroying life, bring death for themselves. Thus lurking in the heart is Måra’s snare In anger’s loathsome form. But root it out By insight, zeal, right view, restraint; the wise Would one by one eradicate each akusala, And thus in Dhamma would he train himself: Be not our minds obscured, but anger freed And freed from trouble, greed and envy. The well trained, the canker-freed. Become, When anger is stilled, wholly, completely cool. ******** Nina. #86617 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- On Wed, 4/6/08, Phil wrote: P:>What will happen to me and my cittas as I delve deep into the musky groves of Wrong View? What kind of rosy eyed atta-bound fool will emerge!?! We shall see.... :) ***** S: I can't resist re-quoting the following from B.Bodhi's introduction to his translation of the Brahmajala Sutta and commentaries especially with your reference to "rosy eyed atta-bound", which I've given before: “The clinging to being issues in a ‘personality view’ (sakkaayadi.t.thi)affirming the presence of an abiding self in the pyschophysical organism in one of twenty ways: as identical with, possessing, contained within or containing one or another of the five aggregates that constitute the individual personality - material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Arisen already at the pre-reflective level,this view in turn becomes the basis for latter reflective interpretations of existence, crystallizing into the sixty-two views of the sutta. As it is explained: “Now, householder, as to those divers views that arise in the world, ...and as to these sixty-two views set forth in the Brahmajala, it is owing to the personality view that they arise, and if the personality view exists not, they do not existâ€? (S 1V 7.3). “Since the notion of selfhood is accepted uncritically at the level of ordinary experience, higher attainments in meditation, as the Brahmajala shows, will not suffice to eliminate the notion but will only reinforce it by providing apparent verification of the self originally presupposed at the outset of practice. It is as if one were to lead a man wearing red-tinted glasses from a small room to an open field. The change of scene will not alter the colour of his vision, for as long as he is wearing red glasses everything he sees will be coloured red.â€? ****** S: All wrong views, including the ones you referred to before, are related to ideas of self-view through views on eternalism or annihilationism. That's why, when sakkaya-ditthi is eliminated, so are they. Ven Bodhi gives a lot of detail on this in his introduction and charts. Robert's useful quotes (#86400) on clinging to sati and rites and rituals also reminded me of an old post I wrote to Victor (#27490). Perhaps I'll re-quote it as well as it may be of interest to others, even if too 'cold' and too much tehcno for you: **** Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and all, > I am not sure what the answers to those questions should be in the > context of what the Buddha taught. If possible I would like to see > if any of these examples of "clinging to wholesome states" is > addressed in the discourses. .... >S: Where did you get the idea that Dhamma-Vinaya only refers to the discourses?;-) As far as I’m concerned, the Buddha taught the TI-pitaka; You don’t accept the discourses I’ve offered, so let me introduce you to some straight Abhidhamma from the Pa.t.thaana, the book of Conditional Relations*. As you know, there are 24 conditions by which all conditioned states arise, including ‘clinging’ or attachment (lobha). The first condition is root condition. Without the root of lobha, it cannot arise. The second condition is object condition: From Analytical Exposition of the Conditions 2. Object Condition “ i) visible object-base is related to eye-consciousnes element and its associated states by object condition............etc vii) ALL states are related to mind-consciousness element and its associated states by object condition. viii) Taking ANY state as object, these states, consciousness and mental factors, arise; these (former) states are related to those (latter) states by object condition.â€? In other words, all states including wholesome states become object of any mind-consciousness and its co-factors. In case this is not explicit enough, let me give a more detailed quote from the same text: From Faultless Triplet Object 9, 405, ii “Faultless state is related to faulty state by object condition. After having offered the offering, having undertaken the precept, having fulfilled the duty of observance, (one) enjoys and delights in it. Taking it as object, arises, lust, arises wrong views, arises doubt, arises restlessness, arises grief. (One) enjoys and delights in (such acts) formerly well done. Taking it as object, arises lust, arises wrong views, arises doubt, arises restlessness, arises grief. Having emerged from jhaana, (one) enjoys and delights in the jhaana. Taking it (jhaana) as object, arises lust, arises wrong views, arises doubt, arises restlessness. When jhaana has disappeared, (one) regrets it and thereby arises grief.â€? ..... Of course, for the arahant, there are no faulty (unwholesome) states, and therefore the object cannot condition attachment. Victor, rather than ask for more references or reply and say you don’t accept the Abhidhamma, why not consider whether there is any attachment to wholesome states over the Thanksgiving weekend. Thank you again for conditioning these further reflections;-) With metta, Sarah * “But when, coming to the Great Book (the Pa.t.thaana), he began to contemplate the twenty-four universal causal relations of condition, of presentation, and so on, his [the Buddha’s] omniscience certainly found its opportunity therein. For as the great fish Rimiratipin’ngala finds room only in the great ocean eighty-four thousand yojanas in depth, so his omniscience truly finds room only in the Great Book.â€? (Introductory Discourse, Atthasaalini).< ====== ***** S: Phil, you wonder why we continue to 'bash' you and others 'over the head' with anatta and clinging to rites and rituals etc. Perhaps it's because we appreciate that you do have an interest in considering the teachings carefully. When I talk to other friends without this keen interest, I don't talk about anatta and silabbataparamasa when they refer to making the most out of life in terms of (selfish) enjoyments, because I know it wouldn't be helpful. I just try to encourage them to understand a little more about the benefit of kindness, patience, generosity etc. Step by step? B.Bodhi once explained to me that the various translators of AN give their own titles, so this is just his. Metta, Sarah p.s I don't have any files or folders. I just key in words in the DSG home-page search, such as "Sarah, Bodhi, red-tinted", or "sarah victofaulty faultless" - easy! ============= #86618 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/6/5 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, (& Scott) > > > H:>What I understand is that nama is a collective term that refers to the > knowing of objects or characteristics of all kinds. But knowing > "itself" it not an object, it has no characteristic. > .... > S: No agreement so far, carry on:-) > ... Cool :-) > H:>Whats more, different kinds of knowing have nothing in common with each other. The knowing of a sight has nothing in common with the knowing of a sound, for example. The meaning of knowing does not come from the act, but > from the object of the act. > .... > S: Thanks for the clarification. Again, no agreement. > ... Excellent! > > H:> Now to namas of namas. If I have understood correctly, and nama is the > knowing of an object, > ... > S: Yes, but nama refers to a reality which has the characteristic of experiencing and object. So far, you have succeeded in saying some words. >So, for example, seeing consciousness is a nama. It's not a 'collective term'. In turn, seeing >consciousness can be the object of other namas (cittas and cetasikas). It has a >characteristic which can be known. Different namas have the 'nama-ness' in common. More words, that just refer to other words, no realities in sight :-) > For example, seeing consciousness is completely different from hearing consciousness, >but they have the quality of experiencing an object in common. This makes them namas, not >rupas. Such experiencing (or 'knowing' in your words) is part of the characteristic of these >namas. It doesn't come from the object. However, the object is a condition for such >experiencing to occur. If you could tell me what the difference is, as experience, between the following two, we might get somewhere. 1]Sound 2]Consciousness of sound What is in the second that isn't in the first? Please don't dismiss this as debating of some kind. It is far from it. I just cannot relate anything you say re the characteristic of namas to anything I experience. I just do not experience experiencing. I assume from what you write that you do. I experience "stuff", and I experience "thinking about stuff". In experiencing "stuff" there is only "stuff", though, no experiencing. It is only in "thinking about stuff" that there is "thinking" and "stuff" and the distance between them by which it is known that one is not the other. Perhaps that is what you refer to? But then namas are just thinking. And if so, cool :-) Cheers Herman #86619 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:03 am Subject: Re: Dhammapada, 331-333 hantun1 Dear Sarah and Nina, The Story of Mara While residing in a monastery near the Himalayas. the Buddha uttered Verses (331), (332) and (333), with reference to Mara, who tried to entice him to rule as a king. Once, while the Buddha was residing near the Himalayas, he found that many people were being ill-treated by some wicked kings. It then occurred to him whether it would be possible to prevent them from ill-treating those who should not be ill-treated and make the kings rule justly and wisely. Mara knew what the Buddha was thinking and planned to entice the Buddha to rule as a king. To him the Buddha replied, "O wicked Mara! Your teaching and my teaching are quite different. You and I cannot have any discussion. This is my teaching". Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: 331. Atthamhi jaatamhi sukhaa sahaayaa tu.t.thii sukhaa yaa itariitarena pu~n~nam sukham jiivitasankhayamhi sabbassa dukkhassa sukham pahaanam. 331. It is good to have friends when the need arises; it is good to be content with anything that is available; it is good to have merit when life is about to end; it is good to be rid of all dukkha. 332. Sukhaa matteyyataa loke, atho petteyyataa sukhaa, sukha saama~n~nataa loke, atho brahma~n~nataa sukhaa. 332. In this world it is good to be dutiful to one's mother; also it is good to be dutiful to one's father. In this world it is good to minister unto samanas; also it is good to minister unto brahmanas. 333. Sukham yaava jaraa siilam, sukhaa saddhaa pati.t.thitaa, sukho pa~n~naaya pa.tilaabho, paapaanam akara.nam sukham. 333. It is good to have virtue till old age, it is good to have unshakable faith, it is good to gain wisdom, it is good to do no evil. Respectfully, Han #86620 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] What are the causes of 4 great elements + space & consciousness 5-6th? egberdina Hi Nina and KenH, 2008/6/5 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 5-jun-2008, om 8:47 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > ------- > N: I do not know the characteristic of nibbaana. It is known at the > attainment of enlightenment. I know in theory that nibbåna is anatta. > It is the uncondiitoned element, and that is all. > I find it not good to speculate about nibbaana, and I would rather > consider how to eventually reach it: to be aware and understand what > is dhamma now. > You see that I do not miss any opportunity to say this:-)) I am > getting older and older, no time to lose. Therefore, I avoid debating > on matters we can only speculate about, if you don't mind. I do not mind at all. But it seems to me that if you do not know what the goal is, then considering how to get there cannot bear fruit. KenH's joke comes to mind, about the drunk looking for what was missing, not where it was, but where it would have been nice to find it :-) Cheers Herman #86621 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Be a better person.... buddhatrue Hi Ken H. and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Ken H (and Phil), > Op 5-jun-2008, om 2:36 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > > > So we can see that some people really do feel faced with a dilemma. > > They think they have to choose between either (1) accepting the true > > Dhamma and giving up their goal of being a better person or (2) > > turning their backs on the true Dhamma and following their desires. > > > > There is, however, a middle way. And that is; to understand a > > presently arisen patamattha dhamma. > > > > So, will that middle way happen? Will panna (right understanding of a > > presently arisen paramattha dhamma) materialise right now as we > > speak? > ------ > N: Very good you remind us that we can cling to the idea of being a > good or better person. The desire to be a good or better person is also part of the Dhamma the Buddha taught. It is the first level. I think B. Bodhi describes it well: The first level of instruction in the Dhammapada is addressed to the need to establish human welfare and happiness in the immediately visible domain of personal relation. The aim at this level is to show us the way to live at peace with ourselves and our fellow human beings, to fulfill our family and social responsibilities, and to remove the conflicts which infect human relationships and bring such immense suffering to the individual, society and the world as a whole.... The most general advice the Dhammapada gives is to avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's own mind; this is said to be the counsel of all the Enlightened Ones (v. 183). More specific directives, however, are also given. To abstain from evil we are advised to avoid irritation in deed, word and thought and to exercise self-control over body, speech and mind (vv. 231-234). One should adhere scrupulously to the five moral precepts: abstinence from destroying life, from stealing, from sexual misconduct, from lying and from intoxicants (vv. 246-247). The disciple should treat all beings with kindness and compassion, live honestly, control his desires, speak the truth, and live a sober upright life. He should fulfill all his duties to parents, to immediate family, to friends, and to recluses and brahmans (vv. 331-333). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl129.html Householders should desire to be better people. Buddhism is not beyond morality. Metta, James #86622 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:27 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching jonoabb Phil Nice to see you around again. I realise the discussion has progressed a lot from this post of yours (to Sukin), but it contained a sutta passage that I thought was worth considering. > Though I don't personally feel compelled to an interest in > bhavana, because my lifestyle and gross state of defilements require > a more modest priority which I find in conventional morality and its > stories about people and situations, it is *only* within a mind > sheltered with respect to morality that bhavana will take place. > This is explicitly laid out by the Buddha in such suttas as AN VI, > 50, which B. Bodhi entitles "Step by Step" in his anthology. ... > > "If there is no sense control, O monks, then the basis for virtue > is destroyed for one who lacks sense control. If there is no virtue, > then the basis for right concentration is destroyed for one who > lacks virtue. If there is no right concentration, then the basis for > knowledge and vision of things as they really are is destoryed for > one who lacks right concentration.... > > ...this is like a tree wihtout branches and foliage: the budhs > will not mature; nor will the bark, the greenwood and the heartwood > mature. SImilarly, if sense control is absent, there will be no > basis for virtue..." I agree that this sutta can be accepted pretty much at its face value, namely, that absent sense control there is no proper basis for the development of virtue; absent virtue there is no proper basis for the development of right concentration; and so on. As we know, sense-control and virtue are kusala qualities. They are momentary in nature. They arise for everyone in daily life, to a greater or lesser degree. They are qualities to be further developed, regardless of how good or bad one's so-called general level of restraint/virtue is thought to be. But I'm wondering what you see as the difference in understanding as regards this passage. Why would anyone have needed to explain it away (as you put it)? Unless it was to counter the view that the sutta is saying that sila must be (highly) developed before awareness can be developed (as the title chosen by Bhikkhu Bodhi might suggest). But such a view would be an inference drawn from the words of the sutta, rather than something found expressly stated (and thus, not part of it's face value). As to what is meant in the sutta by 'no sense control' and 'no virtue', I doubt that that would include the person who appreciates the kusala nature of those factors but whose accumulated tendencies make observance of the precepts more difficult than for some others. > Anyways, my point is that for me, conventional Buddhist morality > is a satisfactory end in itslef, I don't think the sutta says anything like that expressly!! > but for those who have conditions > for developing deeper understanding, more libeating understanding, > this morality is a necessary shelter for developing within. Good sila/bad sila is a momentary thing. > (All the > neat anecdotes about murderers suddenly being enlightened should be > left aside, in my opinion. They can mislead people into thinking > that morality is not the first step.) There is nothing in the passage quoted to suggest that what is being described is a step-by-step approach, in the sense that one step must be successfully completed, or accomplished to a certain degree, before the next can be attempted. Hoping we can see some common ground here. Jon PS Regarding this from your post: > (I would like to know the Pali title and its meaning, if someone sees > this parethesis, could they reply...perhaps B.Bodhi has been a bit > misleading with this choice of title, or perhaps it is faithful to > the Pali) As I understand, there is no 'original' Pali title to most of the suttas (there are some exceptions). I have no idea how commonly used the 'Step-by-step' title is that appears in BB's anthology. #86623 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:30 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background jonoabb Hi Alex > And Sutta Pitaka is the earliest we have of Buddha's teaching. Unlike > many other works, suttas do say that they were spoken by Buddha or > such and such direct disciple of the Buddha. While this itself isn't > necesery a proof , it is much more belieavable than texts who do not > claim to have been said by the Buddha. I think there are many parts of the Sutta Pitaka that do not contain a statement to the effect that they were spoken by the Buddha. But in any event, that is part of the nature of the suttas: discourses delivered a to specific audiences and tailored to the dispositions and levels of development of their members. > Those other suttas are very consistent with each other. The most > drastic difference is either the languge or the organization. Some > suttas may contain more/less material but it is consistent with > overal message. There are some minor differences, but not major. Not > unlike all the various Abhidhammas. This is one of the most important > proofs about the authenticity of the Sutta. That the various early > traditions, separated by 1000s km and ages have very consistent > message. I think the kind of 'historical analysis' that you rely on here is of questionable validity. For a start, there are other explanations for the fact (if true) that there are far greater differences between the different versions of the Abhidhamma than between different versions of the suttas. The most obvious explanation would be that, because suttas are couched in conventional language, they are susceptible to different readings to suite the different schools of thought; whereas the Abhidhamma, being in more 'technical' language, would have to be amended in order to be consistent with the different views held. > It makes on think. The suttas overally are similiar in doctrine. The > further philosophical explanations are not... Yes, but the language of the latter is a lot less open to interpretation than the language of the former. > There was a school that taught "Everything exists" including > past/present/future , there was a school that said "Nothing > ultimately exists". There were realistic and Idealistic Abh schools. > There were even a school (led by Ratnakirti) that said that only your > own consciousness exists, and the world, the "present moment" and > other beings are an illusion (extreme solipsism). There was a school > that taught almost an Atman, and there are schools today that seem > awfully close. It seems that almost any (if not every) major > epistemic position known to Western world was occupied by Buddhist > thinkers. Just my point. All these views can be 'found' in passages of the Sutta Pitaka; but the Abhidhamma Pitaka would have to be adapted in order to support the view claimed to be found in the suttas. > I wonder why? A question for you, Alex. In the examples you have given, which came first: the different views held by these various schools, or the different versions of the Abhidhamma Pitaka? Jon PS Regarding: > In SN footnes notes, Bhikkhu Bodhi often says something "This is at > odds with Abhidhamma". Suttas mention many things that have to be > creatively interepreted to fit with Abh. I don't think he ever says that the Abhidhamma is at odds with the Suttas. He does many times question the commentarial interpretation of sutta passages, but that is his privilege ;-)) #86624 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna As Indriya jonoabb Hi Tep Nice to see you back again! One of the posts you wrote to Sarah caught my eye (I have skipped the parts relating to translation issues). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: ... > 'When one discerns, greed does not come into being, which is why he > remains with his mind not conquered by greed.' [AN X.24, Cunda Sutta] > > 'When he discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, the > passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, and the escape from the six > sense media, then -- with regard to ignorance concerning the six sense > media -- he is not obsessed with not-knowing. This is unyoking from > sensuality, unyoking from becoming, unyoking from views, & unyoking > from ignorance.' [AN IV.10 Yoga Sutta] > > 'The fact that when greed is present within you, you discern that > greed is present within you; and when greed is not present within > you, you discern that greed is not present within you: that is one > way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, > inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for > themselves.' [AN VI.47 Sanditthika Sutta] ... > > According to the three sutta quotes above, pa~n~naa is the seeing of > the phenomena (dhammas) the way they really are; it is a right view > or "wisdom" or "understanding" that is way beyond the worldlings. One > who has such a discernment about the conditioned dhammas, overcomes > greed and wrong views: he is not tied to (unyoking from) becoming, > wrong views, and ignorance. He is an ariyan! I am wondering if it is necessarily so that the right view (or wisdom or understanding) described in the sutta passages is that of the ariyan. I think you have agreed elsewhere that there is mundane right view, that is to say, the right view of the worldling. The worldling's right view is also the seeing of phenomena as they really are. However, unlike the case of the ariyan, the worldling's right view may be followed by moments of wrong view, since he has not yet eradicated the latter. Just a thought. Jon #86625 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 4:38 am Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "Scott, Ven Sammahita also quoted the following and I wonder if you could kindly give me the Pali and another translation (as I couldn't find it easily on-line): PLEASANT Pleasant are friends when a need arises. Pleasant is all fun when shared with friends. Pleasant is the stored merit of good works at the moment of death. Pleasant is it to leave behind all Suffering. Pleasant is being a Father. Pleasant is being a Mother. Pleasant is being a Bhikkhu. Pleasant is the state of the accomplished. Pleasant is a prior righteous life when old. Pleasant is faith firmly established, unshakable by doubt. Pleasant is the arising of Insight. Pleasant is the avoidance of Evil. Dhammapada 331-33 331. Atthamhi jaatamhi sukhaa sahaayaa Tu.t.thii sukhaa yaa itariitarena Pu~n~na.m sukha.m jiivitasa"nkhayamhi Sabbassa dukkhassa sukha.m pahaa.na.m. 332. Sukhaa matteyyataa loke, ~ atho petteyyataa sukhaa, Sukhaa saama~n~nataa loke, ~ atho brahma~n~n~nata sukhaa. 333. Sukha.m yaava jaraa siila.m, ~ sukhaa saddhaa pati.t.thitaa, Sukho pa~n~naaya pa.tilaabho, ~ paapaana.m akara.na.m sukha.m. Translated by Ven Buddharakkhita: 331. Good are friends when need arises; good is contentment with just what one has; good is merit when life is at an end, and good is the abandoning of all suffering (through Arahatship). 332. In this world, good it is to serve one's mother, good it is to serve one's father, good it is to serve the monks, and good it is to serve the holy men. 333. Good is virtue until life's end, good is faith that is steadfast, good is the acquisition of wisdom, and good is the avoidance of evil. Translated by Ven Naarada: 331. When need arises, pleasant (is it to have) friends. Pleasant is it to be content with just this and that. Pleasant is merit when life is at an end. Pleasant is the shunning of all ill. 332. Pleasant in this world is ministering to mother. Ministering to father too is pleasant in this world. Pleasant is ministering to ascetics. Pleasant too is ministering to the Noble Ones. 333. Pleasant is virtue (continued) until old age. Pleasant is steadfast confidence. Pleasant is the attainment of wisdom. Pleasant is it to do no evil. Scott: Sarah, if there is a particular English translation you wish me to search, let me know. Sincerely, Scott. #86626 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Phil) - In a message dated 6/4/2008 8:36:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi all, Firstly, apologies for my prolonged silence. There have been several post I have wanted to reply to (not to mention my Visudhihagga thread) but it seems I am still stuck in that temperamental phase I mentioned earlier. There are so many unfinished posts in my drafts folder . . . . Anyway, here is another attempt at actually posting something: Phil wrote: -------- > What does the Dhamma mean for me? Does it mean an interest in penetrative insight? No. It is about the relieving of suffering for others, and myself. What does the latter mean and how does Dhamma do it in a more real way than new age stuff, that I don't know yet. But I am now understanding there will be a shift away from the wisdom wing back onto the compassion wing. --------- To be a good person is a worthy goal, but is wanting (desiring, craving) to be a good person good or bad (kusala or akusala)? It is akusala. Should we pretend it is kusala? No we should not!. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: It depends on the reason, the motivation. And as soon as you speak of a goal, worthy or not, you are speaking of desire. Gotama desired, yes desired, to attain freedom and to escape suffering, and it spurred him on to do what needed to be done. Ken, your formal views are putting you out of you out of touch with reality. -------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that Phil's dilemma is typical of many Buddhists who have acquired a little Abhidhamma knowledge. As he says: -------- > . . . I can remember when I was active in a very good brahma- viharas related group I started getting into DSG and Abhidhamma and posting in those terms, and someone there warned me about getting too deep into Abhidhamma, and falling from the compassion wing too deep into the wisdom wing, or something like that. -------- So we can see that some people really do feel faced with a dilemma. They think they have to choose between either (1) accepting the true Dhamma and giving up their goal of being a better person or (2) turning their backs on the true Dhamma and following their desires. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What, for a worldling, do you think the "goal of being a better person" is? It is desire. And we should be darn happy about such a desire. It is the key to unlock the first of many doors leading to release. ----------------------------------------------------- There is, however, a middle way. And that is; to understand a presently arisen patamattha dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why? Why bother? For no desired goal? And what do you mean by "understand" a presently arisen paramattha dhamma? Read about it in a book and think about it? That's not the way - that's just story-telling. (Stories that point towards reality, but still only stories.) ----------------------------------------------------- So, will that middle way happen? Will panna (right understanding of a presently arisen paramattha dhamma) materialise right now as we speak? That will depend on conditions, won't it? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: What conditions? And for whom? Anyone? Those who study Abhidhamma texts and commentaries? Why, those are folks who are *wanting* something and *trying* to achieve something, and that already means they won't - isn't that so? ------------------------------------------------ Ken H PS: OK, it's not much of a post, but it's a step on the road to recovery. I will send it straight away before Mr Hyde sees it. :-) Or should that be "Dr Jekyll?" ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Phil is very much reality-oriented, and I have no worries about "recovery" for him. He's in a better place than most of us. =========================== With metta, Howard #86627 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - In a message dated 6/5/2008 6:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: If you could tell me what the difference is, as experience, between the following two, we might get somewhere. 1]Sound 2]Consciousness of sound ============================ Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? With metta, Howard #86628 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:10 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: The view, then, is as follows: H: "You could call it biology stuff. I call it conditionality...I prefer to talk in terms of experience and conditionality. A paraphrase of what you say here would be that the experience of craving is secondary to the causes of craving. Experience 'itself' does not crave, or cause craving...The causes of experience are not identical with experience. There is no experience of causality...there are the causes of craving and conceit and there is the experience of craving and conceit. The experience of craving and conceit, however, is ineffective, it does not cause anything." Scott: Might you address the following, in light of the above noted view: Dhammapada 1-2: 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. (Ven. Buddharakkhita) 1. Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of that, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox. 2. Mind is the forerunner of (all good) states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with pure mind, because of that, happiness follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves. (Ven. Naarada) 1. Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa, - manose.t.thaa manomayaa, Manasaa ce padu.t.thena - bhaasati vaa karoti vaa, Tato na.m dukkham-anveti - cakka.m va vahato pada.m. 2. Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa, - manose.t.thaa manomayaa, Manasaa ce pasannena - bhaasati vaa karoti vaa, Tato na.m sukham-anveti - chaayaa va anapaayinii. Scott: There is also AN 1 (6): "Monks, whatsoever states are unwholesome, partake of the unwholesome, pertain to the unwholesome - all these have the mind as their forerunner. Mind arises as the first of them, followed by unwholesome states. "Monks, whatsoever states are wholesome, partake of the wholesome, pertain to the wholesome - all these have the mind as their forerunner. Mind arises as the first of them, followed by wholesome states..." 1. 6. 6. Ye keci bhikkhave dhammaa akusalaa akusalabhaagiyaa akusalapakkhikaa, sabbe te manopubba"ngamaa. Mano tesa.m dhammaana.m pa.thama.m uppajjati, anvadeva akusalaa dhammaati. 1. 6. 7. Ye keci bhikkhave dhammaa kusalaa kusalabhaagiyaa kusalapakkhikaa, sabbe te manopubba"ngamaa. Mano tesa.m dhammaana.m pa.thama.m uppajjati, anvadeva kusalaa dhammaati. Scott: Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. #86629 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammapada, 331-333 nilovg Dear Han, Op 5-jun-2008, om 12:03 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > 333. Sukham yaava jaraa siilam, > sukhaa saddhaa pati.t.thitaa, > sukho pa~n~naaya pa.tilaabho, > paapaanam akara.nam sukham. > > 333. It is good to have virtue till old age, > it is good to have unshakable faith, > it is good to gain wisdom, > it is good to do no evil. ------- N: Thank you for the story, the Pali and translation. I would rather translate sukha as happy. If we say in English: it is good, this is not as strong as happiness. We give more emphasis if we say: it is happiness to... How is the Burmese? Nina. #86630 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:09 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Abh truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > I think there are many parts of the Sutta Pitaka that do not contain a statement to the effect that they were spoken by the Buddha. >>> Most of them were either spoken by the Buddha, or his close disciples (like Ven. Sariputta) and/or approved by Him. >>>>>> But in > any event, that is part of the nature of the suttas: discourses > delivered a to specific audiences and tailored to the dispositions and > levels of development of their members. >>>> Isn't that great? When you read many of them, some of them will affect you deep. Sometimes putting all eggs in one basket isn't the best, some explanation methods may not work for all. >>>>>> I think the kind of 'historical analysis' that you rely on here is of questionable validity. >>>>> Can you rebute (Linguistic, archeological, historical-critical, etc analysis ) it point by point? Deep explanations of doctrine, the scholastic treatiese that are aimed at precision and justification aren't well suited to memorization and have to be written down. In Buddha's time as far as I know there were almost NO books, and definately most people were illiterate. Do you know why the suttas repeat so much? It was done for memorization purposes. > For a start, there are other explanations for the fact (if true) that> there are far greater differences between the different versions of> the Abhidhamma than between different versions of the suttas. > While I would like to concede the fact that different AP share similiarities in a sense of anicca-dukkha-anatta. But they differ GREATLY in detail, showing us perhaps the futility of neat, static and unrefutable system. Some say there were 75 Dharmas, some 100 Dharmas, some say svabhava exist, some say that svabhava doesn't exist. Some claim tri-temporal existence, some only present. >>>> > The most obvious explanation would be that, because suttas are couched in conventional language, they are susceptible to different readings to suite the different schools of thought; whereas the Abhidhamma,being in more 'technical' language, would have to be amended in order to be consistent with the different views held. >>>>>> IMHO ALL Language is conventional. In MN#1 Buddha was also showing that ordinary people not only like to philosophise about ontological status of things, but also believe in grammatical structure of language: "He concieves Earth, he conceives in Earth, he concieves from Earth, he concieves 'Earth is mine'" As Bhikkhu Nananada has said: "Illustration of the worldling's commitment to the grammatical structure of language". The first 3 are examples of noun declension accusative, locative, ablative. > A question for you, Alex. In the examples you have given, which came > first: the different views held by these various schools, or the > different versions of the Abhidhamma Pitaka? > > Jon Sutta -> Vinaya -> parinibbana -> Councils -> Interpretation and defending Buddhist teaching against Hindu schools -> sects -> Abhidhammas being written as a sort of "declaration of our views". Ther tradition ascribes Abh to Buddha or his disciples. The last book was compiled by Ven. Moggaliputta Tissa Thera at the 3rd Council or immeadetely before that. This as far as I know postdates other rival Abh books. Not just temporaly, but literally as well. I mean he refutes (rightly or wrongly) many points of view, implying that many Abhidhammas were known, in order for him to be able to refute them in the first place. Sarv tradition ascribes some Books to disciples such as Sariputta, Maha(Kassapa or Kotthita, I don't know) and MahaMoggallana. They of course learned it from the Buddha or at least taught the official and authentic teaching. > > PS Regarding: > > In SN footnes notes, Bhikkhu Bodhi often says something "This is at > > odds with Abhidhamma". Suttas mention many things that have to be > > creatively interepreted to fit with Abh. > Best wishes to you, Alex #86631 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Be a better person.... nilovg Hi James, Op 5-jun-2008, om 9:41 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Householders should desire to be better people. Buddhism is not > beyond morality. ------ N: I agree with what you wrote. But desire here I do not see as lobha, clinging, but as kusala chanda, wholesome desire. Nina. #86632 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:21 am Subject: Re: Dhammapada, 331-333 hantun1 Dear Nina, N: Thank you for the story, the Pali and translation. I would rather translate sukha as happy. If we say in English: it is good, this is not as strong as happiness. We give more emphasis if we say: it is happiness to... How is the Burmese? Han: The Burmese translation used the word “happinessâ€? in Burmese. Respectfully, Han #86633 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:29 am Subject: Perfections Corner (174) nichiconn Dear Friends, When kusala citta arises it must be accompanied by saddhaa cetasika, confidence or faith. Kusala citta is of many degrees. The faculty of saddhaa, faith or confidence, is a leader in its own field while it performs its specific function. This will be clearer when we consider the four limbs or factors of streamwinning: unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the virtues (siila) which are agreeable to the ariyans. Someone may study the Dhamma and have confidence in listening to the Dhamma, but his confidence may not be firm, it may be unstable, uncertain. If he has no right understanding of realities and if he does not know the right practice for the realization of the four noble Truths, he may easily become confused. Confidence which is unshakable and firm, without confusion, is a condition for not deviating from the right Path; it is the confidence of the ariyan, a factor of streamwinning. It is the unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the virtues of the ariyans. We read further on in the above quoted Sutta: "And from what point of view, monks, should the controlling faculty of viriya, energy, be regarded? From that of the four supreme efforts." There are four supreme efforts (sammaa-ppadhaana): the effort to avoid the akusala dhammas which have not yet arisen the effort to overcome the akusala dhammas which have arisen the effort to develop kusala dhammas which have not yet arisen the effort to maintain kusala dhammas which have arisen, not to let them decline, to further develop them, to cause them to increase and to reach completion. Viriya which is a faculty, indriya, and has become a "leader", must have been accumulated very gradually so that it could become a faculty. The controlling faculty of viriya should be regarded from the point of view of the four supreme efforts. .. to be continued, connie #86634 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:33 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) truth_aerator Dear Scott and Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Scott: Might you address the following, in light of the above noted view: > > Dhammapada 1-2: > > 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering > follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. > It is funny, when someone says to develop good states, abandon bad - you and others jump in and say that "no one can do anything, nothing can be developed, it is all due to causes and conditions." When someone says that everything is conditioned and volition (for the most part) may be conditioned and outside of free will - you reverse your position as above. So which is it? Also how does one reconcile the Dhp verses with: "Now if internally the intellect is intact but externally ideas do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html Also the thing about volition is that it is based on contact. Contact follows the above formula. ========================== This is my opinion, a middle way between total presence/absence of will: One can't force anything to arise, but one may through wisdom affect the "engagment" part and thus indirectly allow this or that state of consciousness to arise. Best wishes, Alex #86635 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:41 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: "When someone says that everything is conditioned and volition (for the most part) may be conditioned and outside of free will - you reverse your position as above." Scott: Why do you frequently use the qualifier 'for the most part' in relation to the rest of the clause 'volition...may be conditioned'? Sincerely, Scott. #86636 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Re: Be a better person.... szmicio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Op 5-jun-2008, om 9:41 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > Householders should desire to be better people. Buddhism is not > > beyond morality. > ------ > N: I agree with what you wrote. But desire here I do not see as > lobha, clinging, but as kusala chanda, wholesome desire. > Nina. > L: But tanha(lobha) is dhamma and kusala chanda is dhamma. lobha is akusala and chanda is kusala What is a diffrence between them? What if we see lobha as kusala chanda and kusala chanda as lobha? We think so much about tanha, but when is the real moment of tanha? We think about chanda, but when is the real moment of chanda? bye Lukas #86637 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:06 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > "When someone says that everything is conditioned and volition (for > the most part) may be conditioned and outside of free will - you > reverse your position as above." > > Scott: Why do you frequently use the qualifier 'for the most part' in > relation to the rest of the clause 'volition...may be conditioned'? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Arahant don't have kammically active volition in our sense of the word. Anyhow, please answer my questions. #86638 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:35 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Be a better person.... nilovg Dear Lukas, You are considering the Dhamma very well and I like your keen remarks. Op 5-jun-2008, om 15:43 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: But tanha(lobha) is dhamma and kusala chanda is dhamma. -------- N: Yes, they are both dhamma. They are realities occurring time and again in our daily life. They have conditions for their arising. ------- > L:lobha is akusala and chanda is kusala > What is a difference between them? ------- N: Lobha can only be akusala. Chanda accompanies akusala cittas rooted in lobha and those rooted in dosa. It accompanies all sobhana (beautiful) cittas, thus, also kusala citta is accompanied by chanda. Chanda is translated by zeal or wish-to-do. When it accompanies akusala citta it is quite different from the chanda that accompanies kusala citta. ----------- > What if we see lobha as kusala chanda and kusala chanda as lobha? > We think so much about tanha, but when is the real moment of tanha? > We think about chanda, but when is the real moment of chanda? ------ N: Very well said. We can only know what all these cetasikas are at the actual moment of their appearing. We may very well mistake akusala for kusala, this happens more often than the opposite. The real moment of tanha or chanda is now. But it needs a degree of pa~n~naa, understanding, to know them. Pa~n~naa can know their different characteristics, and there is no need to use names. You may wonder how can this pa~n~naa arise? Listening, study, asking questions as you do now. Nina. #86639 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:49 am Subject: Re: Sense-pleasures: definition? sarahprocter... Hi Antony, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Antony Woods" wrote: > I am pleased to report that I'm getting better all the time. This is > the happiest time in my life so far. ... S: I'm very glad to hear this... .... > I have learned to > walk normally again but still have trouble turning around and came up > with the brilliant idea of doing a circuit of the house instead > (mostly on tiles). I live in a very peaceful neighborhood and Sydney > is having glorious weather at the moment (sense pleasure LOL) so ideal > conditions for practice. ... S: I'm also glad to hear that you're walking normally now. Perhaps when you get used to turning around on this circuit, you'll be able to go out for other walks too - even be able to meet us in the Botanic Gardens in some of that glorious weather (yes, sense pleasures, lol!). And talking of sense pleasures, even now as we see, hear, think about what's seen and heard, isn't there attachment to sense pleasures? Very ordinary indeed. The way to overcome it is not to try and avoid it, I'm sure, but to understand such attachment when it arises. In other words, no point in trying to imitate an anagami! .... > Thanks Sarah for "looking out" for me on dsg. > > I've found some great suttas lately and will post about them soon. ... S: I'll look forward to reading them. Thanks for "looking out" for us too, Antony and for sharing the extra from the B.Bohi audio. I'll be glad to discuss any more. Metta, Sarah ========== #86640 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching nilovg Hi Howard, just a few points about your post to Ken H. Op 5-jun-2008, om 14:01 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It depends on the reason, the motivation. And as soon as you speak > of a > goal, worthy or not, you are speaking of desire. Gotama desired, > yes desired, > to attain freedom and to escape suffering, and it spurred him on to > do what > needed to be done. > -------------------------------------------------- > N: Here we have the word desire creating confusion. See my post to > Lukas. It was for the Buddha kusala chanda, wish-to-do. His kusala chanda was immense, he was ready to overcome each obstacle in order to reach Buddhahood. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard (to Ken): > What, for a worldling, do you think the "goal of being a better > person" > is? It is desire. And we should be darn happy about such a desire. > It is the > key to unlock the first of many doors leading to release. > ----------------------------------------------------- > N: If the desire is clinging we only accumulate more clinging. Let > it be kusala chanda. But we have to know the citta of the present > moment: is it kusala or akusala? -------- K: > There is, however, a middle way. And that is; to understand a > presently arisen paramattha dhamma. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Why? Why bother? For no desired goal? ------- N: Please listen to Ken :-) It is so very essential. --------- > H: And what do you mean by "understand" a presently arisen paramattha > dhamma? Read about it in a book and think about it? That's not the > way - that's > just story-telling. (Stories that point towards reality, but still > only > stories.) > ----------------------------------------------------- > N: So, we always say: a presently arisen dhamma. See, that is not > in the book. --------- > Ken: So, will that middle way happen? Will panna (right > understanding of a > presently arisen paramattha dhamma) materialise right now as we > speak? > That will depend on conditions, won't it? > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What conditions? And for whom? Anyone? Those who study Abhidhamma > texts > and commentaries? Why, those are folks who are *wanting* something and > *trying* to achieve something, and that already means they won't - > isn't that so? > ------------------------------------------------ > N: Let us not speak about folks, but about Dhamma ;-)) The > conditions are what we are doing now: discussing about the PRESENT > MOMENT. Please, from now on only that. As I said to Herman, I > prefer this now, time is getting so short for me. Trying to achieve something: viriya can be akusala, with lobha, or it can be kusala. Important to get more familiar with these different kinds of viriya arising at different moments. The present moment again. Nina. #86641 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:59 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (169) sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Nina, Phil & all, The following sutta is a great one to show how one is still in 'danger', whilst still bound by sakkaya ditthi and why it is that sakkaya ditthi has to be eradicated first: >We read in the "Kaamasutta Niddesa" (Sutta explanation about Sense pleasures, Mahaaniddesa, Khuddaka Nikaaya): > > "There is a simile of two cities: the city of bandits and the city of peace. At that time the thought occurred to a general, 'So long as the city of bandits exists the city of peace is not free from danger. I shall destroy the city of bandits.' He put on his armor, took his sword and entered the city of bandits. He struck with his sword the post they had erected at the gate of the city. He destroyed the building and the widows of the gateway, removed the bolt, destroyed the wall and filled up the moat. Thereupon he took down the flag they had raised as a symbol of dignity of their city, and he set fire to the city. Then he entered the city of peace, ascended the castle, surrounded by his group of relatives, and he took delicious flavoured food. This is the simile. Personality belief, sakkaayadi.t.thi *1, can be compared to the city of bandits. Nibbaana can be compared to the city of peace. The person who applies himself to mental development can be compared to the general. He thinks, 'Personality belief is a tie and so long as I am bound by that tie I am not free from danger'. " > <....> S: Also, the comment below is helpful. It's true that the city of bandits, sakkaya-ditthi, leads to 'disturbance, confusion and restlessness' as it says: > Here we see that the akusala dhamma that should be eradicated first is personality belief which takes realities for self. It must be pa~n~naa which sees the difference between the city of bandits and the city of peace. The city of peace is calm, whereas the city of bandits means disturbance, confusion and restlessness. So long as there is wrong view which takes realities for self, being or person, one cannot be free from restlessness, disturbance and worry. Thus, one should understand that all defilements and dukkha are bound up with one's "own person", which is, in truth, naama dhammas and ruupa dhammas.< ***** S: Thanks, Connie, for continuing with the helpful series and also to Nina for the 'Metta' series. I've always appreciated that book a lot. Metta, Sarah ======= #86642 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching truth_aerator Hi, Howard and Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 6/5/2008 6:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > If you could tell me what the difference is, as experience, between > the following two, we might get somewhere. > > 1]Sound > > 2]Consciousness of sound > > > ============================ > Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there > is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? > > With metta, > Howard > > I am not Herman, but some people could answer it this way: Sound = a wave. There can be unheard sound, it is just unheard. Or more accurately a a wave is regardless of whether it is observed or not. This is called "objective reality" independent of mind. Best wishes, Alex #86643 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:06 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Overview of KS 1: Background sarahprocter... Hi Herman, - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > >S: Really, there are just moments of seeing, bodily experience and lots and lots of thinking about what's been seen or experienced through the body-sense. We always think about our 'selves' and our 'bodies' and I believe this is why there is the section on kayanupassana first in the Satipatthana sutta. We find the body, my body, so important, when really it's just an idea. Nothing is owned at all! > > > > MN78 > When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, > carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, > lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what > is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest > attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid > baby boy lying on its back....... ..... S: Good quote and happy to see you in good wit and with all the right sutta quotes at your finger tips (or rather rupas taken for 'your finger-tips':-) Of course, ignorance or avoidance of thoughts of 'body' is not the way to understand the dhammas taken for body:-) Metta, Sarah ======= #86644 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Herman) - In a message dated 6/5/2008 11:05:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: > Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there > is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? > > With metta, > Howard > > I am not Herman, but some people could answer it this way: Sound = a wave. There can be unheard sound, it is just unheard. Or more accurately a a wave is regardless of whether it is observed or not. This is called "objective reality" independent of mind. ================================== The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as opposed to the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. I was addressing the reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. The difference between unheard sound, whether in an "external world" or not, and a heard sound is the presence of hearing (i.e., auditory consciousness). So I was pointing to the activity of hearing, a type of consciousness, as not being fiction. With metta, Howard #86645 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 9:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex (and Herman) - > ================================== > The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as opposed to the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. >>> Ok, my mistake. >>> I was addressing the reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. >>>>> There IS knowing as a verb, a function an activity Vs the known as a noun, object. However we need to be careful not to reify knowing as a some "thing" even though it is based on some "thing" (4 aggregates). Knowing as a dependently and conditioned activity, sure. But not as an entity. Best wishes, Alex #86646 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/5/2008 12:07:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex (and Herman) - > ================================== > The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as opposed to the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. >>> Ok, my mistake. >>> I was addressing the reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. >>>>> There IS knowing as a verb, a function an activity Vs the known as a noun, object. However we need to be careful not to reify knowing as a some "thing" even though it is based on some "thing" (4 aggregates). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I'm not entirely sure what "thing" means in this context. In any case. as I see it, knowing is a mental activity/event that always occurs together with and in relation to an object (and other mental activities and qualities) and is dependent on a wide range of conditions. ------------------------------------------------- Knowing as a dependently and conditioned activity, sure. But not as an entity. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't believe in any entities. So, we seem to be in synch on this! :-) -------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Alex ======================= With metta, Howard #86647 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Thu, 5/6/08, Herman Hofman wrote: H:>If you could tell me what the difference is, as experience, between the following two, we might get somewhere. 1]Sound 2]Consciousness of sound .... S: I think Howard has asked you a good question in reply. I'll add a few more comments. Sound is just that which is heard. The consciousness of sound is the experiencing of it. It cannot experience visible object, taste or anything else. As I write this there are moments of experiencing sound in between the other kinds of consciousness. Without these moments of hearing of sound, there wouldn't be the ideas about a tap running, a kettle boiling, a TV program or anything else. .... H: >What is in the second that isn't in the first? Please don't dismiss this as debating of some kind. It is far from it. ... S: No I'm not dismissing it. I'm giving this thread priority because I think it's a good one. To answer the question, in the consciousness of sound, there is the experiencing of sound, the 'knowing' of sound. Sound itself doesn't experience or know anything at all. It doesn't have any 'interest' in itself. It's just the reality which arises and falls away and may or may not be experienced, as I'm glad to see Howard indicates. ..... H: >I just cannot relate anything you say re the characteristic of namas to anything I experience. I just do not experience experiencing. .... S: Maybe you think in terms of 'Herman experiencing' and wondering what 'you' experience instead of understanding different kinds of experiencing, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, none of which are Herman. So now, there really are just moments of seeing, hearing and thinking. .... H:> I assume from what you write that you do. I experience "stuff", and I experience "thinking about stuff". .... S: Let's say there is just thinking about stuff. Actually, there's thinking and thinking and thinking. This thinking is very real. It can be known. But what about the stuff? What is it? .... H: >In experiencing "stuff" there is only "stuff", though, no experiencing. ... S: Yet, whilst experiencing "stuff", there can be awareness of the experiencing. ... H:> It is only in "thinking about stuff" that there is "thinking" and "stuff" and the distance between them by which it is known that one is not the other. Perhaps that is what you refer to? >But then namas are just thinking. And if so, cool :-) .... S: If I assume that the "stuff" is daily chores, computers, posts and body-parts - in this case there can only ever be thinking about such "stuff", even when not in words. So yes, the thinking is not the "stuff" and only the thinking is real. If instead, I assume that the "stuff" is sounds, for example, then indeed there is the experiencing, the hearing of a sound, followed by thinking about it. In this case, when talking about the characteristic of hearing as opposed to sound, I'm not talking about thinking about it. Please clarify and keep probing here..... Actually, it reminds me of a discussion when we met which seemed to make sense at the time. It's actually very simple and can be understood now, but no 'Herman' or 'Sarah' involved. Please be patient as we proceed.... Metta, Sarah ======== #86648 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------- <. . .> KH: > > It is akusala. Should we pretend it is kusala? No we should not!. > > H: > It depends on the reason, the motivation. ------------------- If we are talking about lobha then it is akusala - always. -------------------------- H: > And as soon as you speak of a goal, worthy or not, you are speaking of desire. -------------------------- A goal can be kusala. If the goal is alobha or adosa or amoha (for example) then that goal is kusala, isn't it? But, wanting (desiring, craving - having lobha for) that goal is akusala. ------------------------ H" > Gotama desired, yes desired, to attain freedom and to escape suffering, and it spurred him on to do what needed to be done. ------------------------- Did he? I suppose that was possible while he was still a worldling. However, I think you will find that Gotama's main motives were wholesome ones. I know (from the Bhikhunni Sutta) that Ananda, in the early days, had lobha for the idea of becoming an arahant. That was understandable and natural for a worldling. It was an unavoidable mistake. But it was never a part of the path: it was not kusala and it did not develop into kusala. ---------------------------- H: > Ken, your formal views are putting you out of you out of touch with reality. ---------------------------- I don't think so, but thanks for the warning. :-) ------------ <. . .> H: > What, for a worldling, do you think the "goal of being a better person" is? It is desire. And we should be darn happy about such a desire. It is the key to unlock the first of many doors leading to release. ------------- We should be happy to understand that lobha is a conditioned paramattha dhamma. -------------------------- KH: > > There is, however, a middle way. And that is; to understand a presently arisen patamattha dhamma. > > H: > Why? Why bother? For no desired goal? ------------------------- I didn't say we should bother (as in worry or desire). Right understanding (panna) will arise if the conditions have been put in place. Because there is no self it really doesn't matter to anyone (to any self) whether panna will arise or not, does it? It is just a cetasika: it arises when the conditions for its arising are in place. So the middle way is not a matter of "I should bother," or "I should not bother." It is just dhammas, arising and falling away by conditions. ---------------------------------- H: > And what do you mean by "understand" a presently arisen paramattha dhamma? Read about it in a book and think about it? That's not the way - that's just story-telling. (Stories that point towards reality, but still only stories.) ----------------------------------- At the risk of repetition; understanding (panna) is a conditioned paramattha dhamma. And so, no, I do not mean reading or telling stories. Although, those are (just like now) times at which panna may arise. --------------------- KH: > > So, will that middle way happen? Will panna (right understanding of a presently arisen paramattha dhamma) materialise right now as we speak? That will depend on conditions, won't it? > > H: > What conditions? ------------------- The conditions for panna are; association with the wise, hearing the true Dhamma, wisely considering the true Dhamma and correct application of the true Dhamma. ------------------------- H: > And for whom? Anyone? Those who study Abhidhamma texts and commentaries? Why, those are folks who are *wanting* something and *trying* to achieve something, and that already means they won't - isn't that so? -------------------------- Moments of lobha, and other akusala, *will appear* in the daily life of the worldling - including the worldling Dhamma student. Such things are inevitable - conditioned. But lobha is still an akusala dhamma, and it should be known for what it is. ------------------- KH: > > PS: OK, it's not much of a post, but it's a step on the road to recovery. <. . .> H: > Phil is very much reality-oriented, and I have no worries about "recovery" for him. He's in a better place than most of us. -------------------- I am glad to hear that, and I never said he wasn't. As for me; I can feel a bit 'down in the dumps' occasionally, and that feeling can last for days. Conventionally speaking, of course! :-) Ken H #86649 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Arahant don't have kammically active volition in our sense of the word." Scott: Thanks, Alex. A: "Anyhow, please answer my questions." Scott: May I pass on the rest? Thanks. Sincerely, Scott. #86650 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/5 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the reply: > > Scott: Might you address the following, in light of the above noted view: > > Dhammapada 1-2: > > 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all > mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering > follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. > > 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all > mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness > follows him like his never-departing shadow. (Ven. Buddharakkhita) > > 1. Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; > mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of > that, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the > draught-ox. > > 2. Mind is the forerunner of (all good) states. Mind is chief; > mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with pure mind, because of > that, happiness follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves. > (Ven. Naarada) Thanks for your request. These verses from the Dhammapada are very good examples of the practice of reification. This activity turns the mind into a thing, whether that be as a container of mental events or as a producer of mental events. Essentially, the mind in this view is like an organ, that pre-exists and outlives it's products. Needless to say, this is a view totally at odds with dependent origination. I think it is important for Dhamma students to come to realise that not everything in the canon can be taken at face value. Cheers Herman #86651 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: H: "...Needless to say, this is a view totally at odds with dependent origination..." Scott: How so? Sincerely, Scott. #86652 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:19 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,268 Vism.XVII,269 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII [How Clinging is a Condition for Becoming] 268. But which is condition for which kind of becoming in what way here? Now clinging as condition for becoming, Both fine-material and immaterial, Is decisive-support; and then conascence And so on for the sense-desire kind. 269. This clinging, though fourfold, is a condition in only one way as decisive-support condition 'for becoming both fine-material and immaterial', [that is,] for the profitable kamma in the kamma-process becoming that takes place in sense-desire becoming and for the rebirth-process becoming. It is a condition, 'as conascence and so on', that is, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, presence, non-disappearance, and root-cause conditions, for the unprofitable kamma-process becoming associated with [the fourfold clinging] itself in the sense-desire becoming. But it is a condition, as decisive-support only, for that which is dissociated. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With clinging as condition, becoming'. *************************** 268. ki.m panettha kassa bhavassa katha.m paccayo hotiiti ce. ruupaaruupabhavaana.m, upanissayapaccayo upaadaana.m. sahajaataadiihipi ta.m, kaamabhavassaati vi~n~neyya.m.. 269. ruupaaruupabhavaana.m hi, kaamabhavapariyaapannassa ca kammabhave kusalakammasseva, upapattibhavassa ceta.m catubbidhampi upaadaana.m upanissayapaccayavasena ekadhaava paccayo hoti. kaamabhave attanaa sampayuttaakusalakammabhavassa sahajaataa~n~nama~n~nanissayasampayuttaatthiavigatahetupaccayappabhedehi sahajaataadiihi paccayo hoti. vippayuttassa pana upanissayapaccayenevaati. aya.m upaadaanapaccayaa bhavoti padasmi.m vitthaarakathaa. #86653 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/6 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the reply: > > H: "...Needless to say, this is a view totally at odds with dependent > origination..." > > Scott: How so? Do you agree with me that the Dhammapada verses you quoted treat mind as a thing that exists, and also pre-exists whatever it produces? Cheers Herman #86654 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 5:45 pm Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya dhammanusarin Hi Jon - You are referring to the three suttas about discerning (pajanati) and discernment(pa~n~na) in my previous post. There are several more suttas about discerning/discernment. Would you mind telling me what you have learned about discerning/discernment from the Abhidhamma Pitaka? It will certainly be most useful when we study both pitakas. >Jon: I am wondering if it is necessarily so that the right view (or wisdom or understanding) described in the sutta passages is that of the ariyan. T: Let's use the wordings of one of these three suttas as our guidance. AN IV.10 Yoga Sutta: 'When he discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, and the escape from the six sense media, then -- with regard to ignorance concerning the six sense media -- he is not obsessed with not- knowing'. T: Worldlings are usually obsessed with not-knowing. Because of avijjaanusaya a worlding cannot overcome the ignorance concerning the six sense media, and s/he is therefore unable to discern a sensed phenomenon "as it actually is present". So it follows that the right view in AN IV.10 is of the lokuttara level. ............................ >Jon: I think you have agreed elsewhere that there is mundane right view, that is to say, the right view of the worldling. The worldling's right view is also the seeing of phenomena as they really are. However, unlike the case of the ariyan, the worldling's right view may be followed by moments of wrong view, since he has not yet eradicated the latter. T: Yes, I have. But I do not understand that the "worldling's right view is also the seeing of phenomena "as they really are", since the seeing of the dhammas the way they really are is 'yathabhuta~nana- dassana' of an ariyan. It is called "correct knowledge and vision" in the Vism XIX, 25-26. Where from have you learned that "correct knowledge and vision" can be experienced by a worldling? ............. It is nice to talk to you too. Regards, Tep === #86655 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/5 : > > > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 6/5/2008 6:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > If you could tell me what the difference is, as experience, between > the following two, we might get somewhere. > > 1]Sound > > 2]Consciousness of sound > > > ============================ > Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there > is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? No, I don't believe there is unheard sound. Cheers Herman #86656 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi Sukin, 2008/6/5 Sukinder : > Hi Herman, > > I just remembered about your post, sorry. > No worries. > > > Sukin: In making the comparison with and saying that, "the one who > recites their anatta mantra without believing it or understanding it", I > am not sure that you want me to argue just for the sake of it or that > you sincerely believe this to be my own position. If the former, I must > say that I am not interested. If the latter however, then I would like > to start by trying to correct you and we can see where to go from there….? > Like you, I am not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. But I will maintain that anyone who uses the "anatta defense" to justify whatever they do or fail to do is as skilful as a stupid baby lying on it's back. And let's be clear on another thing. It's not just baby boys that are stupid :-) So what is your position, Sukin? Cheers Herman #86657 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:32 pm Subject: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Dear friends Nina, Sarah and Jon, - Thank you very much for the questions and comments you have given me in regard to the five controlling faculties (saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi, pa~n~na). I have failed to convince you that these five indriyas can be present only in the ariya puggalas. But please let me try again for the last time before I quit. :-) The following extract from the Patisambhidamagga states that all dhammas (201 things that include the 22 indriyas, khandhas, and more) have to be "directly known" (abhi~n~naata). From the Path of Discrimination: Treatise I, On Knowledge : ---------------------------------------------------------- 4. 'Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is all that is to be directly known? Eye is to be directly known, visible object are to be directly known, eye consciousness is to be directly known, eye contact is to be directly known, any feeling that arise with eye contact as its condition whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant is also to be directly known. Ear is to be directly known, sounds ... Nose is to be directly known, odors ... Tongue is is to be directly known, flavors ... Body is to be directly known, tangible objects ... Mind(mano) is to be directly known, ideas(dhammas) are to be directly known, mind consciousness is to be directly known, mind contact is to be directly known, any feeling that arise with mind contact as its condition whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant is also to be directly known.' ... ... ... ... ... 144-165. The eye faculty is to be directly known, the ear faculty ..., the nose faculty ..., the tongue faculty ..., the body faculty ...,the mind faculty ..., the life faculty ..., the femininity faculty ..., the masculinity faculty ..., the faith faculty ..., the energy faculty ..., the mindfulness faculty, ..., the concentration faculty ..., the understanding faculty ..., .... ..., the final-knowledge faculty ..., the final-knower faculty is to be directly known. [22 indriyas] ----------------------------------- Question: Do worldlings have the ability to "directly know" these dhammas? If you take 'Yes' as the answer, then I'll understand that your position and mine are 100% opposite, and the discussion is ended. Regards, Tep === #86658 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - In a message dated 6/5/2008 8:38:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Scott, 2008/6/6 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the reply: > > H: "...Needless to say, this is a view totally at odds with dependent > origination..." > > Scott: How so? Do you agree with me that the Dhammapada verses you quoted treat mind as a thing that exists, and also pre-exists whatever it produces? Cheers Herman ================================= As I see it, 'mind' in those verses refers to intention, an activity. We cannot discuss that activity without using a name for it. We need nouns to speak. I don't see those verses a suggesting own-being or self-existence. I don't see any reification in them. BTW, this is sutta material and is the word of the Buddha, to the best of my knowledge, and I sincerely doubt that he engaged in reification. His ontology was the middle-way ontology as expressed in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. With metta, Howard #86659 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Do you agree with me that the Dhammapada verses you quoted treat mind as a thing that exists, and also pre-exists whatever it produces?" Scott: Well, yes in the sense that I consider 'mind' to be a paramattha dhamma (mano, citta) and no, considering that I see 'mind' as momentary whereas the view you offer seems, on the one hand, to posit 'mind' as a persisting entity while, on the other hand, negates the first by stating that 'mind' is epiphenomenal; but what about: H: "...Needless to say, this is a view totally at odds with dependent origination..." Scott: How so? Sincerely, Scott. #86660 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/5/2008 9:28:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/6/5 : > > > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 6/5/2008 6:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > If you could tell me what the difference is, as experience, between > the following two, we might get somewhere. > > 1]Sound > > 2]Consciousness of sound > > > ============================ > Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there > is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? No, I don't believe there is unheard sound. Cheers Herman ================================= Ah, okay. I DO believe in unheard sounds, and, amazingly, that doesn't contradict my phenomenalism. Sounds, to me, are always experiential content, but they may be the content in mind streams other than mine, or, they may be subliminal phenomena in my mind stream with the sound present only subliminally while another phenomenon, a sight or odor, for example, is the conscious object. What is taken as conscious object changes from moment to moment, with attention shuttling from one sense door to another quite rapidly. With metta, Howard #86661 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/6 : > > > Hi, Herman (and Scott) - > > Do you agree with me that the Dhammapada verses you quoted treat mind > as a thing that exists, and also pre-exists whatever it produces? > > ================================= > As I see it, 'mind' in those verses refers to intention, an activity. We > cannot discuss that activity without using a name for it. We need nouns to > speak. I don't see those verses a suggesting own-being or self-existence. I > don't see any reification in them. BTW, this is sutta material and is the word > of the Buddha, to the best of my knowledge, and I sincerely doubt that he > engaged in reification. His ontology was the middle-way ontology as expressed in > the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. If the translations we are looking at had read "intention is the forerunner of many mental states (experiences)" I would have no problems with it at all. But what is before is, is before us. Do you think translators ought to translate individual texts limiting themselves to the original words in the context of the original sentences? Or do you think that texts should be translated so as to conform with what "the tradition" says they ought to mean? Cheers Herman #86662 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/6 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "Do you agree with me that the Dhammapada verses you quoted treat > mind as a thing that exists, and also pre-exists whatever it produces?" > > Scott: Well, yes in the sense that I consider 'mind' to be a > paramattha dhamma (mano, citta) and no, considering that I see 'mind' > as momentary whereas the view you offer seems, on the one hand, to > posit 'mind' as a persisting entity while, on the other hand, negates > the first by stating that 'mind' is epiphenomenal; but what about: > So, when you read our Dhammapada text, you read it with Abhidhamma-commentary-coloured glasses on. You were actually never discussing the Dhammapada text at all, were you? > H: "...Needless to say, this is a view totally at odds with dependent > origination..." > > Scott: How so? Given that the Dhammapada text now no longer says what is says, I no longer hold that it conflicts with DO. Cheers Herman #86663 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman (and Howard), Regarding: H: "If the translations we are looking at had read "intention is the forerunner of many mental states (experiences)" I would have no problems with it at all. But what is before is, is before us. Do you think translators ought to translate individual texts limiting themselves to the original words in the context of the original sentences? Or do you think that texts should be translated so as to conform with what "the tradition" says they ought to mean? Scott: The phrase in question, in the Paa.li is: Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa. In Note 15 of the AN Anthology, Bh. Bodhi writes: "This phrase also occurs at Dhp 1,2. Unwholesome states (akusalaa dhammaa) are mental states born of greed, hatred, and delusion. The wholesome states (kusalaa dhammaa) mentioned just below are mental states arisen from non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. Mind (mano) here refers to intention. While mind does not actually precede the wholesome and unwholesome states in a temporal sense, it is said to arise first because it is the volition or intention that determines the ethical quality of the deeds that issue from the mind" Scott: I'll have to read this again and try to get this straight, but here it is anyway. Sincerely, Scott. #86664 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 9:16 pm Subject: Re: Be a better person.... kenhowardau Hi James, ------- <. . .> N to KH: > > Very good you remind us that we can cling to the idea of being a good or better person. > > J: > The desire to be a good or better person is also part of the Dhamma the Buddha taught. It is the first level. I think B. Bodhi describes it well: ----------------------- I have just read another quote from B Bodhi (in a message from Sarah to you and Phil) that describes very well the dangers of atta belief. That is the same as person belief, isn't it? Unless you use the word 'person' to denote the fleeting, presently arisen five khandhas (as the Buddha did) then belief in a person is belief in atta. However, given the correct understanding of the word 'person' a reading of the quote you have given would be a marvellous, profound, thing (unheard of before the Buddha's teaching). Given the ordinary conventional meaning a reading of the same quote would be extremely dull. ------------------ BB: > "The first level of instruction in the Dhammapada is addressed to the need to establish human welfare and happiness in the immediately visible domain of personal relation. <. . .> "The most general advice the Dhammapada gives is to avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's own mind; this is said to be the counsel of all the Enlightened Ones (v. 183). More specific directives, however, are also given. To abstain from evil we are advised to avoid irritation in deed, word and thought and to <. . .>" James: > Householders should desire to be better people. Buddhism is not beyond morality. ----------------- I think you are insisting that the Buddha taught the common, conventional meaning of 'people' and 'householders.' And I think you reject the teaching of kusala and akusala dhammas. You want to see the Buddha's teaching as plain-old, homespun, commonsense. I can't help you with that. But I am always ready for a good argument. :-) Ken H #86665 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 10:46 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,268 Vism.XVII,269 nichiconn Ki.m panettha kassa bhavassa katha.m paccayo hotiiti ce? Ruupaaruupabhavaana.m upanissayapaccayo upaadaana.m; sahajaataadiihipi ta.m, kaamabhavassaati vi~n~neyya.m. [How Clinging is a Condition for Becoming] 268. But which is condition for which kind of becoming in what way here? Now clinging as condition for becoming, Both fine-material and immaterial, Is decisive-support; and then conascence And so on for the sense-desire kind. {PoP p.692} And here what is the cause of what becoming in what way? That grasping is the cause of matter-and- Non-matter-becomings through condition Sufficing and of sense-becomings through Such cause of co-existence should be known. Ruupaaruupabhavaana.m hi, kaamabhavapariyaapannassa ca kammabhave kusalakammasseva, upapattibhavassa ceta.m catubbidhampi upaadaana.m upanissayapaccayavasena ekadhaava paccayo hoti. Kaamabhave attanaa sampayuttaakusalakammabhavassa sahajaata-a~n~nama~n~nanissayasampayutta-atthi-avigatahetupaccayappabhedehi sahajaataadiihi paccayo hoti. Vippayuttassa pana upanissayapaccayenevaati. Aya.m "upaadaanapaccayaa bhavo"ti padasmi.m vitthaarakathaa. 269. This clinging, though fourfold, is a condition in only one way as decisive-support condition for becoming both fine-material and immaterial [that is,] for the profitable kamma in the kamma-process becoming that takes place in sense-desire becoming and for the rebirth-process becoming. It is a condition, as conascence and so on, that is, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, presence, non-disappearance, root-cause, conditions, for the unprofitable kamma-process becoming associated with [the fourfold clinging] itself in the sense-desire becoming. But it is a condition, as decisive-support only, for that which is dissociated. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With clinging as condition, becoming.' {PoP p.692} This fourfold grasping is a single cause, through sufficing condition, of becomings of matter-and-non-matter, of moral karma included under the becoming of sense-desires in karma-becoming, and also of rebirth-becoming. It is a cause of immoral {read sampayuttaakusalaa} karma-becoming, associated with itself in the becoming of sense-desires through the different kinds of causes, such as co-existence, reciprocity, dependence, association, presence, non-absence, root-condition. Of the dissociated it is a cause through sufficing condition. This is the detailed discourse on the clause: "Conditioned by grasping, becoming comes to pass." #86666 From: "colette" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 1:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching ksheri3 Hi Alex, Initially I was in agreement with the first part of the "status of being" which you put forth in your post up to "(4 aggregates)." Then, suddenly, I heard Nargarjuna whispering in my ear something about the goer and the act of going. My question, concerning your definition of known and knowing happens to be about "Knowledge" or could that be the known? If it is a "known" then how can it be in two distinct places at the same time: I have objectified this thing called the known (knowledge) how can I know it as the known outside of myself (exterior) yet possess the knowledge of it's being within my mind (interior). Pssst, I've seen things like this happen several times over the past 3 decades and my advice is, through the knowledge of experience teaching me a thing or two, 1) Open your eyes, 2) don't grip the wheel so tightly, 3) motion is often countered through the resistance of another object I suggest that you take the initiative and daring to find out what the "brake pedal" does for a moving vehicle. lol Or you could just let inertia do the trick by taking your foot from the gas pedal. <....> ---------------------------------- > I was addressing the reality of the operation of knowing as > distinct from the known. > >>>>> > colette: no problem, totally true, they are two seperate things, initially. You can cling to that initial cognition as a means of becoming dependent on the initial, that shallowness of a speed freak. > There IS knowing as a verb, a function an activity Vs the known as a > noun, object. However we need to be careful not to reify knowing as a > some "thing" even though it is based on some "thing" (4 aggregates). > colette: at this point Nargarjuna appears on my shoulder whispering in my ear. At least that's what the script says. -------------------------------------- > Knowing as a dependently and conditioned activity, sure. But not as an entity. > colette: that seems like a rather large and formitable brick or concrete wall that you project and manifest in the above definition. It almost appears as though the drug dealer was dictating the price of the drug to the would-be drug dependent. Have you ever tried meditating on the vastness of knowing? Then you turn around and place the action (remember Karma please) of brain or mind activity as being utterly dependent and controlled by the exterior and not the interior <....> I'd watch out by suggesting that knowledge or the known, which has been objectified to place it in the category of knowledge or known yet has not been experienced and therefore needs an act/action from a robot that is UTTERLY conditioned and dependent. <....> Wasn't it the rock group THE EAGLES that had a song about "drivin' with your eyes closed"? toodles, colette #86667 From: "colette" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 2:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching ksheri3 Hi Howard?, I don't know how to address this since somebody did say that they were not howard then signed it as howard? Is that the same as "heard" sound and "unheard" sound? Actually I wanted to reply to Howard's? reply that applied the equality of "sound = a wave". <...> It sounds to me, Howard, that people are trying to trick you into believing that they wrote the dharmas or dhammas and that is resultant from their "enlightenment" and label as buddha. You've got some good arguments concerning these silly things like Waves, who knows, some genius like Roger Waters may find an album to write called Radio Waves or even Radio Chaos, in Los Angeles, mind you. good to hear from you boys. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: <...> > I am not Herman, but some people could answer it this way: > > Sound = a wave. > > There can be unheard sound, it is just unheard. Or more accurately a > a wave is regardless of whether it is observed or not. This is > called "objective reality" independent of mind. > ================================== > The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as opposed to > the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. I was addressing the > reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. The difference > between unheard sound, whether in an "external world" or not, and a heard > sound is the presence of hearing (i.e., auditory consciousness). So I was > pointing to the activity of hearing, a type of consciousness, as not being fiction. <....> #86668 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:16 am Subject: Metta, Ch 7, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Question: I find what I heard about mettå very beneficial. However, mettå does not arise whenever I wish in the situations of daily life. What should I do in order that mettå can arise? Khun Sujin: When someone takes realities for self he is inclined to believe that there is a self who can, by following a particular method, suppress dosa and develop sati and mettå. However, in reality there isn’t anybody who can have sati and mettå if there are no conditions for their arising. Listening to the Dhamma, wisely considering what one heard, intellectual understanding of the Dhamma are different moments of kusala. They are accumulated from moment to moment, and together they make up conditions for the arising of sati later on which is mindful of one’s different cittas. In this way the disadvantage of dosa and the benefit of mettå can be seen. However, if sati does not arise and there are conditions for dosa, dosa will arise. There is nobody who can have sati and kindness at will. If sati arises and it can, time and again, be mindful of the Dhamma which the Buddha explained, there are conditions for the elimination of anger. If one does not often listen to the Dhamma there are not many conditions for wise consideration of it and then it is difficult to subdue dosa. Whereas if one listens a great deal there are conditions for remembrance and wise consideration of the Dhamma. One may for example reflect on kamma and its result. People are the owners of their deeds. There can be wise consideration of akusala kamma which is motivated by anger, it can be remembered that anger is not helpful for the attainment of enlightenment. People can reflect on the development of patience by the Buddha during his lives as a Bodhisatta, as it is described in the “Sílavanåga Jåtaka” (I, 72), the “Khantivådi Jåtaka” (III, 313), the “Culladhammapåla Jåtaka” (III, 358), or the “Chaddanta Jåtaka” (V, 514). They can apply what they read in the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha taught the Dhamma out of compassion to his followers so that they would carefully consider it and put it into practice. ******* Nina. #86669 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:43 pm Subject: The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar - IV * rwijayaratne  Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammâ Sambuddhassa!  <...> ________________________________ Taken from AccessToInsight.org1 Translated from Pali by Ñanamoli Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi THE GREAT DISCOURSE ON THE LION'S ROAR - IV Majjhima Nikâya 12 - Maha-sihanâda Sutta2 Four Kinds of Intrepidity (Fearlesness/Confidence)Continued from previous instalment 22. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the four? Explanation: The Lord Buddha explains to Ven. Sâriputta that he has these four kinds of fearlessness/confidence that allow him to claim the highest place among all beings, speak fearlessly in any assembly/gathering and allow him to set rolling the Wheel of the Dhamma (teach/expound the Dhamma teachings).   23. "Here, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahman or god or Mara or Brahma or anyone at all in the world could, in accordance with the Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enlightenment, you are not fully enlightened in regard to certain things.' [72] And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. Explanation: (1) First kind of fearlessness/confidence - The Lord Buddha says that he sees no grounds by which anyone in the world including any ascetic (Comy. religious practitioner), brahman, divine being, Mâra or Brahma (Comy. very advanced/high divine being) who in accordance with the Dhamma can accuse him of not being enlightened, while only claiming to be enlightened. Seeing no grounds whatsoever for this, the Lord Buddha abides safely and fearlessly.   24. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'While you claim to have destroyed the taints, these taints are undestroyed by you.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. Explanation: (2) Second kind of fearlnessness/confidence - The Lord Buddha says that he sees no grounds by which anyone in the world including any ascetic, brahman, divine being, Mâra or Brahma who in accordance with the Dhamma can accuse him of not having removed certain (or any) mental taints/defilements. Seeing no grounds whatsoever for this, the Lord Buddha abides safely and fearlessly.   25. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'Those things called obstructions by you are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. Explanation: (3) Third kind of fearlnessness/confidence - The Lord Buddha says that he sees no grounds by which anyone in the world including any ascetic, brahman, divine being, Mâra or Brahma who can accusing say to him that what he defines as obstructions are not actually obstructions (Comy. mainly refers to mental obstructions such as mental defilements/impurities to the attainment of Nibbâna). Seeing no grounds whatsoever for this, the Lord Buddha abides safely and fearlessly.   26. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'When you teach the Dhamma to someone, it does not lead him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. Explanation: (4) Fourth kind of fearlnessness/confidence - The Lord Buddha says that he sees no grounds by which anyone in the world including any ascetic, brahman, divine being, Mâra or Brahma who can accusingly say to him that when he teaches the Dhamma to someone that it does not lead that being to the complete and utter ending of suffering (Nibbâna). Seeing no grounds whatsoever for this, the Lord Buddha abides safely and fearlessly.   27. "A Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.3 Explanation: The Lord Buddha says that he has these four kinds of fearlnessness/confidence that allow him to claim the highest place among all beings, speak fearlessly in any assembly/gathering and allow him to set rolling the Wheel of the Dhamma (teach/expound the Dhamma teachings).   21. "Sâriputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.4 Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell. Explanation: The Lord Buddha explains to Ven. Sâriputta that if anyone were to wrongly say that the Lord Buddha did not have any superhuman powers, higher knowledge that a high/noble one can have and only teaches the Dhamma from reasoning, following a line of investigation and if that person does not abandon this opinion/view, then as if s/he were carried off and put there s/he would go to hell after death; in the same way a monk who posses virtue/morality (sîla), concentration (samâdhi) and wisdom (paññâ) would be assured of final knowledge/realization (Nibbâna) right here and now. <.....>   To be continued... Notes1. More suttas from AccessToInsight.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.012.ntbb.html and an alternate translation of this sutta can be found here http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/012-ma\ hasihanada-sutta-e1.html 3. The four kinds of intrepidity (vesarajja: also rendered "grounds of self-confidence") may be divided into two pairs. The first pair relates mainly to the internal qualities of the Buddha, his achievement of personal perfection, while the second pair has an outward orientation, being concerned primarily with his qualifications as a teacher. The first intrepidity confirms his attainment of supreme enlightenment and the removal of all obscuration regarding the range of what may be known; it points to the Buddha's acquisition of omniscience (sabbaññutañana). The second underlines his complete purity through the destruction of all defilements; it points to his achievement of the fruit of arahantship. The third means that the Buddha's understanding of obstructions to the goal is unimpeachable, while the fourth confirms the efficacy of the Dhamma in accomplishing its intended purpose, namely, leading the practitioner to complete release from suffering. 4. The idiom yathabhatam nikkhitto evam niraye is knotty; the rendering here follows the gloss of Comy.: "He will be put in hell as if carried off and put there by the wardens of hell." Although such a fate may sound excessively severe merely for verbal denigration, it should be remembered that he is maligning a Fully Enlightened Buddha with a mind of hatred, and his intention in so doing is to discourage others from entering upon the path that could lead them to complete liberation from suffering. <...> #86670 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/6/5 jonoabb : > Hi Herman > > > Ball's in your court! So if I understand you correctly kamma refers only to the fact that the conditioned arising of intention in the past may be followed by other conditioned arisings in the future? Cheers Herman #86671 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/5 Alex : > Hi Jon and Herman, > > > But is this stream of consciousness or "anatta" separate from other > anattas? > > Of course. So at least in this sense it has at least one difference > from other 5 khandas. In a sense this is identity. > > Every stream has its own Kamma. Nobody can share their kamma. Can you elaborate a bit more on your last line, above? Do you mean kamma as in action/intention or something else? Cheers Herman #86672 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? nilovg Dear Tep, you wrote to me before: However, by stating that the four foundations are "preliminary" to the penetration of the ariya sacca, you are telling me that the "satipatthana way" is mundane .------- N: Yes. And I prefer to keep the discussions on the mundane level. I like to relate the Dhamma to my daily life now. Further you addressed a post to Sarah, Jon and me: Op 6-jun-2008, om 4:32 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > 'Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is all that is to > be directly known? > Eye is to be directly known, visible object are to be directly known, > eye consciousness is to be directly known, eye contact is to be > directly known,.... > > 144-165. The eye faculty is to be directly known, > the ear faculty ..., the nose faculty ..., the tongue faculty ..., > the body faculty ...,the mind faculty ..., > the life faculty ..., the femininity faculty ..., the masculinity > faculty ..., the faith faculty ..., the energy faculty ..., the > mindfulness faculty, ..., the concentration faculty ..., the > understanding faculty ..., .... ..., the final-knowledge faculty ..., > the final-knower faculty is to be directly known. [22 indriyas] > > ----------------------------------- > > Question: Do worldlings have the ability to "directly know" these > dhammas? > > If you take 'Yes' as the answer, then I'll understand that your > position and mine are 100% opposite, and the discussion is ended. ------ N: The Buddha would not teach them, if it were not possible to know them. When visible object appears to sati it can be 'studied' with awareness. Visible object is not a person. Nama and rupa can be objects of awareness and understanding, but very gradually, in the course of the development of the stages of insight. If the worldling does not get to know them how could enlightenment be attained? -------- You said to Jon: But I do not understand that the "worldling's right view is also the seeing of phenomena "as they really are", since the seeing of the dhammas the way they really are is 'yathabhuta~nana- dassana' of an ariyan. It is called "correct knowledge and vision" in the Vism XIX, 25-26. --------- N: This is ~naata pari~n~na, understanding of the known, which is in the course of the development of the stages of insight knowledge, and the Vis. mentions that one is a lesser streamenterer, culla sotaapanna, thus not an ariyan. This pari~n~naa is followed by tira.na pari~n~na and then pahaana pari~n~na. Thus, these days we have different opinions about the knowledge of the non-ariyan and the ariyan. But still, I am interested, as I said, in satipatthana now. That is the way to eventually become an ariyan. Nina. #86673 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? egberdina Hi Tep, 2008/6/6 Tep : > > ----------------------------------- > > Question: Do worldlings have the ability to "directly know" these > dhammas? > > If you take 'Yes' as the answer, then I'll understand that your > position and mine are 100% opposite, and the discussion is ended. What is it that makes a worldling a worldling? And what makes an ariyan an ariyan? It would be a bit circular to say that anyone who "directly knows" is an ariyan, so I am sure that is not what you mean. But what criteria do you use to make this distinction worldling/ariyan? Cheers Herman #86674 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:58 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Here's more regarding: Me: The phrase in question, in the Paa.li is: Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa. In Note 15 of the AN Anthology, Bh. Bodhi writes: "This phrase also occurs at Dhp 1,2. Unwholesome states (akusalaa dhammaa) are mental states born of greed, hatred, and delusion. The wholesome states (kusalaa dhammaa) mentioned just below are mental states arisen from non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. Mind (mano) here refers to intention. While mind does not actually precede the wholesome and unwholesome states in a temporal sense, it is said to arise first because it is the volition or intention that determines the ethical quality of the deeds that issue from the mind" Scott: I'm trying to sort out how 'mind' means 'intention' in this case. Atthasaalinii (p. 162): "Mind (mano) is minding, that is, it discerns (cognizes). But the authors of the Commentary say: like measuring by the naa.li or balancing by a great weight, mind knows the object. It exercises government (over associated states) by the characteristic of measuring, hence it is a controlling faculty, giving the compound 'mind-faculty'. It is just a synonym for consciousness (citta) mentioned above." P. 84-86: "By 'consciousness' (citta) is meant that which thinks of its object, is aware variously. Or, inasmuch as this word 'consciousness' is common to all states or classes of consciousness, that which is known as worldly, moral, immoral, or the great inoperative, is termed 'consciousness,' because it arranges itself in a series (cinoti, or, its own series or continuity) by way of apperception in a process of thought. And the resultant is also termed 'consciousness' because it is accumulated (cito) by kamma and the corruptions...All the factors of this diversified sentient organism, such as kamma, feature, idea, language, etc., in the destinies of spirits, men, denizens of purgatories, lower animals, etc., are also wrought by mind. Good and bad acts in various deeds, as charity, virtue, cruelty, deceit, etc., are accomplished by the mind. Hence there is a variety of kammas; and owing to this variety of kammas, there is in the various destinies difference of features, i.e. difference in hands, feet, ears, stomachs, necks, faces, etc..." Scott: Cetanaa arises conascent with citta, hence, I think, this is how 'mind' refers to 'intention'. Cetanaa is Dhammasa"nganii pp. 7-8): "The volition, purpose, purposefulness, which is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection..." And Atthasaalinii (p. 147): "Volition is that which co-ordinates, that is, it binds closely to itself associated states as objects. This is the characteristic; its function is conation." 'Conation' refers to an impulsion to act. Therefore, as far as I can see, with each moment of consciousness, this impulsion to act is present. I can see how, in the view you present, where 'mind' is epiphenomenal, there can be no kamma, at least in the sense above, since, in this view, the impulsive aspect of cetanaa is held to be non-existent. Sincerely, Scott. #86675 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Perfections Corner (175) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch. five continues: We can notice ourselves whether we have viriya which only begins to develop and is still weak, or whether it is already right effort: the effort which avoids akusala not yet arisen, overcomes akusala already arisen, the effort to cause the arising of kusala which has not yet arisen. The kusala dhamma which has not yet arisen refers to samatha and vipassanaa and to the path, magga, the fruition, phala, the lokuttara cittas which experience nibbaana *1 . As to the words samatha and vipassanaa in this context, these refer to satipa.t.thaana. Samatha and vipassanaa are developed together and reach completion together by the four Applications of Mindfulness, they should not be separated from each other. Effort is necessary to maintain the kusala dhammas which have arisen, not to let them decline, further to develop them, to cause them to increase and reach completion. *1 See the Commentary to the "Book of Analysis", the "Dispeller of Delusion" II, Ch 8, 292. We should reflect on the different kinds of efforts. If endeavour is only of a very slight degree, the conditions for the arising of the controlling faculty of sati are not sufficient. We read in the above-quoted sutta about the controlling faculty of sati: "And from what point of view, monks, should the controlling faculty of mindfulness be regarded? From that of the four applications of mindfulness." Kusala citta cannot arise without sati cetasika, be it at the moment one performs daana, or abstains from akusala. However, the characteristic of the controlling faculty of sati, the characteristic of its leadership, can be seen in the four applications of mindfulness *2. *2 Sati of satipa.t.thaana is mindful of naama and ruupa which appear. The four Applications of Mindfulness, which are mindfulness of the Body, of Feeling, of Citta and of Dhammas, are actually all conditioned realities. They have been explained under the different aspects of the four Applications of Mindfulness. Sati of satipa.t.thaana is sati of a level which is higher than sati of daana or sati of siila, because when it is developed it leads to the eradication of defilements. We read further on about the faculties of concentration and of pa~n~naa: "And from what point of view should the controlling faculty of concentration be regarded? From that of the four stages of jhaana. And from what point of view should the controlling faculty of insight be regarded? It should be regarded from the point of view of the four noble Truths." .. to be continued, connie #86676 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/5/2008 11:21:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/6/6 : > > > Hi, Herman (and Scott) - > > Do you agree with me that the Dhammapada verses you quoted treat mind > as a thing that exists, and also pre-exists whatever it produces? > > ================================= > As I see it, 'mind' in those verses refers to intention, an activity. We > cannot discuss that activity without using a name for it. We need nouns to > speak. I don't see those verses a suggesting own-being or self-existence. I > don't see any reification in them. BTW, this is sutta material and is the word > of the Buddha, to the best of my knowledge, and I sincerely doubt that he > engaged in reification. His ontology was the middle-way ontology as expressed in > the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. If the translations we are looking at had read "intention is the forerunner of many mental states (experiences)" I would have no problems with it at all. But what is before is, is before us. Do you think translators ought to translate individual texts limiting themselves to the original words in the context of the original sentences? Or do you think that texts should be translated so as to conform with what "the tradition" says they ought to mean? Cheers Herman ================================ I've read in more than one place that 'mind' means intention in those verses. It makes good sense to me that it either means that, or more generally, "mental state," "mode of thinking," or "attitude." In Dhammapada III the meaning of 'mind' is clearly either that of the conventional "mental state" or of the entire aggregate of mental functions. (In the article at _http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html_ (http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html) , the author states that these verses are a simple statement of kamma and vipaka, writing "Verses (1) and (2) illustrate the immutable law of Kamma, under which every deed, good or bad, comes back to the doer. Here, the Buddha emphasizes the importance of mind in all our actions and speaks of the inevitable consequences of our deeds, words and thoughts." Where do you see reification in these verses? When we say "sound in mind and body" doesn't that just mean that bodily and mental functions are healthy? Why read so much into ordinary language? The Buddha used nouns of all sorts, including mass nouns, in order to communicate. Do you want to throw out the Dhamma on that basis? It seems to me that you're making much ado about nothing here. ;-) With metta, Howard #86677 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Herman) - In a message dated 6/5/2008 11:55:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Herman (and Howard), Regarding: H: "If the translations we are looking at had read "intention is the forerunner of many mental states (experiences)" I would have no problems with it at all. But what is before is, is before us. Do you think translators ought to translate individual texts limiting themselves to the original words in the context of the original sentences? Or do you think that texts should be translated so as to conform with what "the tradition" says they ought to mean? Scott: The phrase in question, in the Paa.li is: Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa. In Note 15 of the AN Anthology, Bh. Bodhi writes: "This phrase also occurs at Dhp 1,2. Unwholesome states (akusalaa dhammaa) are mental states born of greed, hatred, and delusion. The wholesome states (kusalaa dhammaa) mentioned just below are mental states arisen from non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. Mind (mano) here refers to intention. While mind does not actually precede the wholesome and unwholesome states in a temporal sense, it is said to arise first because it is the volition or intention that determines the ethical quality of the deeds that issue from the mind" ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks for this reference, Scott. --------------------------------------------------- Scott: I'll have to read this again and try to get this straight, but here it is anyway. Sincerely, Scott. ========================== With metta, Howard #86678 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 6/6/2008 4:22:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Howard?, I don't know how to address this since somebody did say that they were not howard then signed it as howard? Is that the same as "heard" sound and "unheard" sound? Actually I wanted to reply to Howard's? reply that applied the equality of "sound = a wave". <...> It sounds to me, Howard, that people are trying to trick you into believing that they wrote the dharmas or dhammas and that is resultant from their "enlightenment" and label as buddha. You've got some good arguments concerning these silly things like Waves, who knows, some genius like Roger Waters may find an album to write called Radio Waves or even Radio Chaos, in Los Angeles, mind you. good to hear from you boys. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: <...> > I am not Herman, but some people could answer it this way: > > Sound = a wave. > > There can be unheard sound, it is just unheard. Or more accurately a > a wave is regardless of whether it is observed or not. This is > called "objective reality" independent of mind. > ================================== > The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as opposed to > the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. I was addressing the > reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. The difference > between unheard sound, whether in an "external world" or not, and a heard > sound is the presence of hearing (i.e., auditory consciousness). So I was > pointing to the activity of hearing, a type of consciousness, as not being fiction. ================================ Thanks for writing. Of what you quoted, the part that I wrote is the last, namely "The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as opposed to the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. I was addressing the reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. The difference between unheard sound, whether in an "external world" or not, and a heard sound is the presence of hearing (i.e., auditory consciousness). So I was pointing to the activity of hearing, a type of consciousness, as not being fiction." With metta, Howard #86679 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 5:59 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Howard. Regarding: Howard: "Thanks for this reference, Scott." Scott: You're welcome! Sincerely, Scott. #86680 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 6:30 am Subject: Re: Be a better person.... buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi James, > > ------- > <. . .> > N to KH: > > Very good you remind us that we can cling to the idea of > being a good or better person. > > > > > J: > The desire to be a good or better person is also part of the > Dhamma the Buddha taught. It is the first level. I think B. Bodhi > describes it well: > ----------------------- > > I have just read another quote from B Bodhi (in a message from Sarah > to you and Phil) that describes very well the dangers of atta belief. > That is the same as person belief, isn't it? James: No, atta belief is atta belief. The texts don't call it "person belief" that I know of. > > Unless you use the word 'person' to denote the fleeting, presently > arisen five khandhas (as the Buddha did) then belief in a person is > belief in atta. James: Well, of course a "person" is the fleeting five khandas. What else would it be? > > However, given the correct understanding of the word 'person' a > reading of the quote you have given would be a marvellous, profound, > thing (unheard of before the Buddha's teaching). James: I have no idea what you mean. > > Given the ordinary conventional meaning a reading of the same quote > would be extremely dull. James: I again have no idea what you mean. > > ------------------ > BB: > "The first level of instruction in the Dhammapada is addressed > to the need to establish human welfare and happiness in the > immediately visible domain of personal relation. > <. . .> > "The most general advice the Dhammapada gives is to avoid all evil, > to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's own mind; this is said to be > the counsel of all the Enlightened Ones (v. 183). More specific > directives, however, are also given. To abstain from evil we are > advised to avoid irritation in deed, word and thought and to > <. . .>" > > James: > Householders should desire to be better people. Buddhism is > not beyond morality. > ----------------- > > I think you are insisting that the Buddha taught the common, > conventional meaning of 'people' and 'householders.' James: There really isn't a conventional meaning of "people" and "householders", so I am not insisting that the Buddha taught something which doesn't exist. And I think you > reject the teaching of kusala and akusala dhammas. James: Why do you think that? I don't reject kusala and akusala dhammas (phenomena, mind states, cittas, etc.) You want to see > the Buddha's teaching as plain-old, homespun, commonsense. I can't > help you with that. But I am always ready for a good argument. :-) James: As I wrote, the Buddha presented the Dhamma in levels to the appropriate levels of the listeners. Some sought a good rebirth and he taught how to achieve that. The Buddha also taught how to transcend birth and death. The Buddha taught both so both are the "Dhamma" (the Buddha's teachings). > > Ken H > Metta, James #86681 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 9:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Hi Herman,- Welcome to the discussion. > > > > Question: Do worldlings have the ability to "directly know" these > > dhammas? > > > > If you take 'Yes' as the answer, then I'll understand that your > > position and mine are 100% opposite, and the discussion is ended. > > What is it that makes a worldling a worldling? And what makes an > ariyan an ariyan? It would be a bit circular to say that anyone who > "directly knows" is an ariyan, so I am sure that is not what you mean. > But what criteria do you use to make this distinction > worldling/ariyan? > > Cheers > > > Herman > ................ T: We discussed this topic before on Apr 30, 2006. The criteria that support direct knowing are: 1) Visudhi (purity) by means of three good conducts is the purification of virtues, i.e. visuddhi siila. Without solid good conducts that are supported by the solid sensing retraint(indriya samvara), there is NO WAY satipatthana(right mindfulness) may arise (later). I think it is safe to say that "perfect sila" is defined for the highest level of stream-entry. 2) Yathabhuta~nana-dassana : the knowing of the "all" as it actually is present. This is described in MN 149 Maha-salayatanika Sutta. "However, knowing & seeing the eye as it actually is present, knowing & seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present, knowing & seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is not infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure- nor-pain. What do you think? Tep === #86682 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 9:33 am Subject: The Blind and the Cripple /Lame moellerdieter Hi friends , I am trying to trace the parable in the Canon , does anybody have an idea where? with Metta Dieter P.S: I guess the background is known to many : In Visuddhi Magga it is said ( pls see http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits029.htm ) : 29. NAME AND FORM. § 29 a.--Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xvii.). By "Name" are meant the three Groups beginning with Sensation [i.e., Sensation, Perception, and the Predispositions]; by "Form," the four elements and form derivative from the four elements. § 29 b.--Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii.). Name has no power of its own, nor can it go on of its own impulse, either to eat, or to drink, or to utter sounds, or to make a movement. Form also is without power and cannot p. 185 [Vis.xviii go on of its own impulse. It has no desire to eat, or to drink, or to utter sounds, or to make a movement. But Form goes on when supported by Name, and Name when supported by Form. When Name has a desire to eat, or to drink, or to utter sounds, or to make a movement, then Form eats, drinks, utters sounds, makes a movement. To make this matter clear they give the following illustration: It is as if two men, the one blind from birth and the other a cripple, were desirous of going traveling. And the man blind from birth were to say to the cripple as follows: "See here! I am able to use my legs, but I have no eyes with which to see the rough and the smooth places in the road." And the cripple were to say to the man blind from birth as follows: "See here! I am able to use my eyes, but I have no legs with which to go forward and back." And the man blind from birth, pleased and delighted, were to mount the cripple on his shoulders. And the cripple sitting on the shoulders of the man blind from birth were to direct him, saying, "Leave the left and go to the right; leave the right and go to the left." Here the man blind from birth is without power of his own, and weak, and cannot go of his own impulse or might. The cripple also is without power of his own, and weak, and cannot go of his own impulse or might. Yet when they mutually support one another it is not impossible for them to go. In exactly the same way Name is without power of its own, and cannot spring up of its own might, nor perform this or that action. Form also is without power of its own, and cannot spring up of its own might, nor perform this or that action. Yet when they mutually support one another it is not impossible for them to spring up and go on." unquote I find interesting to note what has been said in an abstract (of..) : 'The maxim of the Lame and the Blind figures in Indian philosophy, known to Buddhists. It appears in first-century Greek epigrams, and later Jewish texts a propos of resurrection. ' #86683 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Herman & all), --- On Fri, 6/6/08, Scott Duncan wrote: From: Scott Duncan Scott: >Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa. >In Note 15 of the AN Anthology, Bh. Bodhi writes: >"This phrase also occurs at Dhp 1,2. Unwholesome states (akusalaa dhammaa) are mental states born of greed, hatred, and delusion. The wholesome states (kusalaa dhammaa) mentioned just below are mental states arisen from non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. Mind (mano) here refers to intention. While mind does not actually precede the wholesome and unwholesome states in a temporal sense, it is said to arise first because it is the volition or intention that determines the ethical quality of the deeds that issue from the mind" >Scott: I'm trying to sort out how 'mind' means 'intention' in this case. ***** S: You may well be wondering .... The following, from an old post of mine (#52987), might help: >S: Citta (vinnana or mano here) is the chief in experiencing an object. It 'leads' the accompanying cetasikas. Transl and quotes from Daw Mya Tin's translation: "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner" Note: "Manopubba'ngamaa dhammaa: All mental phenomena have Mind as their forerunner in the sense that Mind is the most dominant, and it is the cause of the other three mental phenomena, namely, feeling (vedana), perception (sa~n~naa) and mental formations or mental concomitants (sa'nkhaara). These three have Mind or Consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) as their forerunner, because although they arise simultaneously with Mind they cannot arise if Mind does not arise (Commentary)." .... <....>.... >>L: Also what does "mind-made" (manomayaa) mean? > > manopubba'ngamaa dhammaa > manose.t.thaa manomayaa > manasaa ce padu.t.thena .... >S: "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made" Mind-made - led or determined by citta and its accompanying mental factors -- no self who determines anything! Note: "Manasaa ce padu.t.thena (verse 1) and manasaa ce pasannena (verse 2): Manasaa here means intention or volition (cetanaa); volition leads one to the performance of volitional actions, both good and evil. This volition and the resultant actions constitute kamma; and kamma always follows one to produce results. Cakkupala's blindness (verse 1) was the consequence of his having acted with an evil intention in a previous existence and Matthakundali's happy existence in Tavatimsa celestial wold (v.2) was the result of his mental devotion (manopasaada) to the Buddha." .... ***** Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you, Han & Nina with the assistance on the other Dhp thread and for providing the Pali and translations. More later... ========= #86684 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Nibbana. was: What are the causes of 4 great elements nilovg Hi Herman, Op 5-jun-2008, om 12:19 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > But it seems to me that if you do not know what the goal is, then > considering how to get there cannot bear fruit. ------- N: This is a good remark and I have been considering it these days. Once, in Thailand the four noble Truths were discussed. Kh Sujin reminded us of the three rounds of knowing these four Truths: understanding them but not yet penetrating them (sacca ~naa.na), the practice in order to begin to directly understand them (kicca ~naa.na), and the direct realisation of them (kata ~naa.na). As to the first level, this is not merely theoretical. We should not merely read about the four noble Truths and know the words. It has to be related to our daily life. We cannot know the second Truth if we do not firmly understand dukkha: the arising and falling away of visible object now is dukkha, the arising and falling away of all conditioned realities is dukkha. As to the second Truth: all day long we are searching for things or ourselves, and that is lobha. If there would not be clinging there would not be the cycle of birth and death, no arising of nama and rupa. We can learn to see nibbaana as the end of defilements. If we understand more what clinging is we can come to understand what the giving up of all clinging is. As to the Path, there must be a firm understanding of what the right Path is, so that we do not deviate from it. Nina. #86685 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 12:47 pm Subject: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. truth_aerator Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > 2008/6/5 Alex : > > Hi Jon and Herman, > > > > > > But is this stream of consciousness or "anatta" separate from other > > anattas? > > > > Of course. So at least in this sense it has at least one difference > > from other 5 khandas. In a sense this is identity. > > > > Every stream has its own Kamma. Nobody can share their kamma. > > Can you elaborate a bit more on your last line, above? Do you mean > kamma as in action/intention or something else? > > Cheers > > > Herman > Cause (volition) and Effect. I think that Kamma may be interpreted as causality (psychological only?) in Western language. Best wishes, Alex #86686 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Alex (and colette), 2008/6/7 Alex : > Hi Herman, >> > But is this stream of consciousness or "anatta" separate from > other >> > anattas? >> > >> > Of course. So at least in this sense it has at least one > difference >> > from other 5 khandas. In a sense this is identity. >> > >> > Every stream has its own Kamma. Nobody can share their kamma. >> >> Can you elaborate a bit more on your last line, above? Do you mean >> kamma as in action/intention or something else? >> > Cause (volition) and Effect. I think that Kamma may be interpreted as > causality (psychological only?) in Western language. > Thanks for clarifying, Alex. What remains a problem for me is this exclusive nature of kamma that most people here seem to agree on, kamma is exclusively one's own, and so is result. For colette's benefit I refer to that sage MC Hammer "Can't touch this" :-). Of course I agree no-one can make these cittas be this way or that way directly. Be we mess with the conditions for citta all the time, and that includes the cittas of other people. Because we have indirect access to people's brains. What I am supposed to believe, if I have understood it correctly, from what people say here is that if someone spikes someone else's drink with some intoxicant, then the results of that intoxication are the results of some act of the person who has been unwittingly intoxicated. Or if I run around the corner into someone and knock them over and unconscious, their brain injury and the ongoing effects of that on citta, are somehow the result of their own doing? Frankly, I don't get it. Do you? Cheers Herman #86687 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:38 pm Subject: [dsg] [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. truth_aerator Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Alex (and colette), > Of course I agree no-one can make these cittas be this way or that way > directly. Be we mess with the conditions for citta all the time, and > that includes the cittas of other people. Because we have indirect > access to people's brains. > > What I am supposed to believe, if I have understood it correctly, from > what people say here is that if someone spikes someone else's drink > with some intoxicant, then the results of that intoxication are the > results of some act of the person who has been unwittingly > intoxicated. Or if I run around the corner into someone and knock them > over and unconscious, their brain injury and the ongoing effects of > that on citta, are somehow the result of their own doing? > > Frankly, I don't get it. Do you? > > Cheers > > Herman > If the person had no kamma due to ripen in Kama-Loka, then the above situations wouldn't be able to happen to him/her anyways. Furthermore, some people have such a good life-supporting kamma that by sheer 'accident' they avoid being hurt (ex: leave building before it gets blown up, avoid drinking from the poisoned cup, the would-be killer's weapon jams, etc). I am not an expert at sorting out exact workings of the Kamma, so I guess I'll leave it at that. Best wishes, Alex #86688 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Herman, Sarah), - From now I will honor your request that you prefer to keep the discussion "on the mundane level". It is a viable goal to relate the Dhamma to one's daily life (although I'd prefer "apply", or "practice", to "relate"). I sincerely hope that your endeavor may eventually lead to direct knowledge of the "all". >N: You said to Jon: But I do not understand that the "worldling's right view is also the seeing of phenomena "as they really are", since the seeing of the dhammas the way they really are is 'yathabhuta~nana-dassana' of an ariyan. It is called "correct knowledge and vision" in the Vism XIX, 25-26. --------- >N: This is ~naata pari~n~na, understanding of the known, which is in the course of the development of the stages of insight knowledge, and the Vis. mentions that one is a lesser streamenterer, culla sotaapanna, thus not an ariyan. This pari~n~naa is followed by tira.na pari~n~na and then pahaana pari~n~na. T: Given that Ven. Buddhaghosa was right, still "Cula-sotapanna" is much closer to Stream-entry than a worldling. Importantly, we should prefer 'pari~n~naa' as defined by the Buddha to Ven. Buddhaghosa. According to the Blessed One, pari~n~naa means the cessation of lobha, dosa and moha. SN 22.23 pari~n~naa Sutta : Comprehension --------------------------------- At Savatthi. "Monks, I will teach you the phenomena to be comprehended, as well as comprehension. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "And which are the phenomena to be comprehended? Form is a phenomenon to be comprehended. Feeling ... Perception ... Fabrications ... Consciousness is a phenomenon to be comprehended. These are called phenomena to be comprehended. "And which is comprehension? Any ending of passion, ending of aversion, ending of delusion.[1] This is called comprehension." Translator's Note [1]: Comprehension here means the arahant's full- knowing (see MN 117). As SN 56.11 shows, the first noble truth of suffering and stress is to be comprehended. As SN 56.20 further implies, when the first noble truth has been comprehended, the tasks with regard to all the other noble truths have been completed as well. ................................. T: The translator is a very knowledgable venerable monk. What he explains is in complete agreement with the great Arahant Sariputta's words about direct knowing of the "all" (please see my previous messages in this thread for more detail). But since you only want to keep the discussion "on the mundane level", therefore I'd rather stop right now. Sincerely, Tep === #86689 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi Howard and all, 2008/6/6 : > >> ============================ >> Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there >> is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? > > No, I don't believe there is unheard sound. > > ================================= > Ah, okay. I DO believe in unheard sounds, and, amazingly, that doesn't > contradict my phenomenalism. > Sounds, to me, are always experiential content, but they may be the > content in mind streams other than mine, or, they may be subliminal phenomena in > my mind stream with the sound present only subliminally while another > phenomenon, a sight or odor, for example, is the conscious object. What is taken as > conscious object changes from moment to moment, with attention shuttling from > one sense door to another quite rapidly. > Thanks for elaborating. What you say here is very useful, because it has made it clearer that there are different conceptions of what consciousness and knowing refer to. And when all these different conceptions are used, but using only the same words two words knowing and consciousness, people could believe they are on the same page, when they are actually not. You refer to subliminal phenomena here, and I think that is central to an understanding of experience, I believe. To be technically accurate and precise, what we refer to as subliminal is actually what is indicated by an object being known, it is primary consciousness, and we share it with all sentient beings. What we do not share with all other sentient beings is higher consciousness, to be conscious of being conscious. Allow me to expand a little. I can function perfectly well in the world without being conscious of that fact. I can drive my car through traffic, stopping and starting on all the right cues, winding and weaving and plotting a course to my intended destination, without any attention to these tasks, and without any recollection of having done so. What becomes clear, on becoming conscious of being conscious, is that I must have seen, heard, felt etc everything that was necessary for me to succesfully arrive at my destination. Primary consciousness IS the present moment, it is the knowing of the world as it is now, all at once. Every animal knows the present moment. Enter higher consciousness. It is consciousness of knowing the present moment, but notall of it. It is limited to being able to attend to it only selectively, relating it to selected remembered pasts and imagined futures, and projecting this selective re-knowing as a self acting in the world. So, consciousness and knowing are not just consciousness and knowing. All sentient beings know their environment, all at once. Most just do not know that they know. Which knowing do we mean when we urge ourselves to know the present moment? Cheers Herman #86690 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? egberdina Hi Tep (and Howard), 2008/6/7 Tep : > Hi Herman,- > > > T: We discussed this topic before on Apr 30, 2006. > > The criteria that support direct knowing are: > > 1) Visudhi (purity) by means of three good conducts is the > purification of virtues, i.e. visuddhi siila. Without solid good > conducts that are supported by the solid sensing retraint(indriya > samvara), there is NO WAY satipatthana(right mindfulness) may arise > (later). I think it is safe to say that "perfect sila" is defined > for the highest level of stream-entry. > > > 2) Yathabhuta~nana-dassana : the knowing of the "all" as it actually > is present. This is described in MN 149 Maha-salayatanika Sutta. > > "However, knowing & seeing the eye as it actually is present, knowing > & seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as > they actually are present, knowing & seeing whatever arises > conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, > pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one > is not infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the > eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact > at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure- > nor-pain. > > > What do you think? As I wrote to Howard a minute ago, all sentient beings already know the all. It is therefore in the infatuation and aversion that beings differ. But I do not think that it is possible to be a sentient being without having some degree of infatuation or aversion. The conditions for sentience are life, and life is such that if it does not seek out what sustains it, or avoid what harms it, what is alive will be dead in minutes. Do you believe a being can exist without craving or aversion? Cheers Herman #86691 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/6 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > Thanks for doing all that research. It is much appreciated. > 'Conation' refers to an impulsion to act. Therefore, as far as I can > see, with each moment of consciousness, this impulsion to act is > present. I can see how, in the view you present, where 'mind' is > epiphenomenal, there can be no kamma, at least in the sense above, > since, in this view, the impulsive aspect of cetanaa is held to be > non-existent. If by this you mean that I do not believe that the experience of intention causes the action, then you are right. The impulsion to act is certainly experienced, it is a reality, but the belief that this affect causes effects in the world is like believing that it is the shadow that moves the man. If you are inclined to answer, I would be interested to read how you see intention (the mind) "interfacing" with the body to proceed from intention to action? Cheers Herman #86692 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Howard (and Scott), 2008/6/6 : > > ================================ > I've read in more than one place that 'mind' means intention in those > verses. It makes good sense to me that it either means that, or more generally, > "mental state," "mode of thinking," or "attitude." In Dhammapada III the > meaning of 'mind' is clearly either that of the conventional "mental state" or > of the entire aggregate of mental functions. (In the article at > _http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html_ > (http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html) , the author states that these verses are a simple > statement of kamma and vipaka, writing "Verses (1) and (2) illustrate the > immutable law of Kamma, under which every deed, good or bad, comes back to the > doer. Here, the Buddha emphasizes the importance of mind in all our actions > and speaks of the inevitable consequences of our deeds, words and thoughts." > Where do you see reification in these verses? When we say "sound in mind > and body" doesn't that just mean that bodily and mental functions are > healthy? Why read so much into ordinary language? The Buddha used nouns of all > sorts, including mass nouns, in order to communicate. Do you want to throw out > the Dhamma on that basis? It seems to me that you're making much ado about > nothing here. ;-) > As I said to Scott a while ago, I much prefer to avoid discussions in terms of mind/body dualism, because these words are theory laden. I am happy to accept that next time I read the word "mind" in a Theravadan context, it probably means "intention". Don't mind me :-) Cheers Herman #86693 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 6:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: H: "Thanks for doing all that research. It is much appreciated." Scott: You're welcome. H: "If by this you mean that I do not believe that the experience of intention causes the action, then you are right. The impulsion to act is certainly experienced, it is a reality, but the belief that this affect causes effects in the world is like believing that it is the shadow that moves the man." Scott: I see where you are coming from here. To return to an earlier clarification, the view would suggest that it is the biological imperatives that move the world. Would this be a correct paraphrase? H: "If you are inclined to answer, I would be interested to read how you see intention (the mind) 'interfacing' with the body to proceed from intention to action?" Scott: I don't consider 'the body' in the same way that I imagine you do, so perhaps I'll pass on the discussion, Herman. I don't put much stock at all (read no stock at all) on biophysical or neuropsychological explanations, old or new, considering them all to be extremely complex, creative, and highly changeable fantasies. They are not Dhamma. I don't consider the Buddha to have merely taught an archaic psychology which was consistent with the given level of cognitive maturity available to humans of that era but which needs to be updated to be consistent with 'modern knowledge'. I don't think that the Dhamma ought to be reformulated to fit the current fantasy about bodies and brains. I consider the Dhamma to teach a Way Things Are which cannot be explained better or in any other fashion. But then you already know this of me, I imagine... Sincerely, Scott. #86694 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 6:58 pm Subject: Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? truth_aerator A lot of heated arguments could be averted if we pay close attention to the used words and their precise meanings. When we say this or that word, do we really really know what the word truly means? When we look into a dictionary we find that any word is explained by another word. Exampe: What is the meaning of a "Circle" ? Possible dictionary entry may be: A circle is a closed two dimensional geometric shape with no angles. In this case one word, "Circle" is being described by: A, is, closed, two, dimensional,geometric, shape, with, no, angles. 10 different words. What does each of these 10 words mean? More words, and what does each of those mean? What happens is that one unknown is being described through MANY unknowns. If we could continue the analysis of a single word, we would end up with 1000s word if not the entire dictionary of language explaining the "meaning" of one word. And even then, we would ultimately end up with circular references: Word A = Word B, Word B= word A and so on and on and on. How does a child learns a language? Mother points to a thing and calls it by its name (that she had learnt herself, possibly as a child as well). Does a little child really knows and understand the object (or action) being pointed to? We may say that as an Adult a child may be able to function intelligently, learn new things and so on. But is this really a sign of understanding or just following a set of instructions (algorithm like)? A computer can be trained to be very intelligent at chess, beating 99.999% ALL human opponents. But does the computer really really understand what it is doing? No. Is it intelligent? No. Do you understand all the processess that happen in the car in order to drive it? No. Is the car driven from point A to B? Yes. Knowledge Vs Being or (appearance vs reality). Knowledge of the world and the world itself are different. If the perception of the world and the world itself were the same, then the Earth would have been flat centuries ago when everyone believed that it was stationary with sun rotating around it and the world wouldn't exist when intelligent life didn't exist (even if this lasted for a moment).' Of course since I am not omniscient I can't say that the world wasn't flat 500 years before - I believe (for no ultimate reason, without any ultimate justification) that it wasn't geocentric in itself but was wrongly percieved. An object may appear other than it is due to various factors or limitations of our sensory apparatus. Our idea of the world is often shown to be incorrect and fixed in the future. The world however physically doesn't change with the knowledge. How does this relate to the above? The concepts and objects which they POINT to, are not the same. The concepts can, and often are wrong. They are definately incomplete in a sense of that a description of a taste of some meal is nearly not qualitatively the same as actually eating the meal. None of the verbal words, which are but fingers pointing, can equal the direct experience of the reality itself. Not only are the words are incomplete and nominal, most of communication isn't verbal anyways. When a little child learns to speak, it may actually pick up more non-verbal clues than just words which are but abstract and formal rules of communication. ------- "Some researchers put the level of nonverbal communication as high as 80 percent of all communication. More reasonably it could be at around 50-65 percent. That's exactly what Mehrabian discovered in his communication study. He found that only 7 percent of communication comes from spoken words, 38 percent is from the tone of the voice, and 55 percent comes from body language. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language ------ Note that part that spoken (or written) words are so dry and simply do not carry as much information as the non-verbal + voice intonation. So much information is being stripped, and let us remember that originally people didn't have highly complex technological and philosophical jargon so voice intonation + body language were highly informative. Most of our words point to things that aren't even found in the physical word around us. You aren't going to find math, physics and other conceptual descriptions (or attempts at) all bound up in nice physical particles. While the words for most basic bodily needs, this or that club, cave, or mammoth, may represent what exists, the later philosophical & scientific jargon was not originally a part of it. Don't get me wrong. I do not deny that laws of physics, but not as some reified entity totally separate from other physical phenomena. Thus, Words run parallel to "reality" (We talk *about* things, notice the about) and they may never fully describe it, and in some cases concepts built from the same words can be misleading or meaningless (ex: son of barren mother). Another example: "There is nothing" or "nothing exists". The phrase is supposed to mean "non-existence", however it is possible to reify the "There is..." and "...exists" in such a way as to take the phrase out of context and turn its meaning 180 - not due to "proof" but due to creative reinterpretation. When someone makes a statement about the "nature of the real" it will not be convincing unless there is proof. This proof itself will not be convincing (or will have to be taken on faith) unless there is proof of this proof - ad infinitum. Also how does induction works? One finds "fact A" (which may be just a concept disassociated from reality), fact B, C, D and makes a conclussion. Now this conclusion can't be based on ALL information (that would be impossible), furthermore the partial information not only may be partial, but it may be selectively (consciously or subconsciously) chosen to prove this or that point of view. Thus, how can we rely on that sort of proof? Returning to the argument just before this one. Some may say that: "Ok, it is impossible to give all the proofs possible (all infinitude of them or so), but there is such a thing called 'Justified true belief'". To this I ask, "and what is the proof of that?" Ad infinitum. So we see that even partial, limited and dogmatic statements on "the nature of the real" are ultimately not fully provable themselves. Same refutation of any fallibist, infallibist, Reliabilism, verisimilitude claims regarding "knowledge of the real". Remember, knowledge and the real are different, unless you want to take a idealist/solipsist view in which case truths aren't invariable (objective) themselves. I am not implying or arguing for materialism or idealism in this writing as it would be subject to refutation due to the reasons provided in this text. Interesting is that the two Chief disciples of the Buddha (Ven. Sariputta & Ven. MahaMoggallana) belonged to a Sceptic school (led by Sanjaya Belaputta) before achieving Ariyahood from hearing merely one line of Buddhist teaching from Assaji. Maybe their non-Buddhist training really helped them to understand Buddha's teaching? A good explanation of Right View with effluents & right view without effluents is in MN117. It is interesting how the Right View without effluents doesn't deal with entities or dogmatic (and perhaps ontological) assertions. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html It is interesting that Right View deals more with directly visible mode of seeing rather than with dogmatic and ontological beliefs (which are not beyond questioning and are often outside of immeadeate experience and thus are subject to arguments and querrels). There was a school that taught "Everything exists" including past/present/future , there was a school that said "Nothing ultimately exists". There were realistic and Idealistic Abh schools. There were even a school (led by Ratnakirti) that said that only your own consciousness exists, and the world, the "present moment" and other beings are an illusion (extreme solipsism). There was a school that taught almost an Atman, and there are schools today that seem awfully close. It seems that almost any (if not every) major epistemic position known to Western world was occupied by Buddhist thinkers arguing with each other as to the most advanced interpretation of Buddha's pragmatic teaching. I wonder why? ------- This all should humble one. Ultimately one can't be certain of any position, as no ontological position on the "real nature of the real" is ultimately provable. We should keep out views in check. Furthermore, ultimately one has no reason to hold this or that ontological position as "The One without a second"... When one meditates, one has a direct experience. The direct experience is far more informative and closer to the truth than book knowledge. The difference is like between reading the menu and eating the food. No comparison. Those who think that just by reading one can come close to how the dish feels, forget about it! Ain't gonna happen! Book philosophy may very well be just a play with words... But direct experience is direct experience (and even though it itself isn't totally provable) it is still much better than indirect 'knowledge'. Best wishes, Alex #86695 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) m_nease Hi Scott, Scott Duncan wrote: > I don't consider the Buddha to have merely taught an archaic > psychology which was consistent with the given level of cognitive > maturity available to humans of that era but which needs to be updated > to be consistent with 'modern knowledge'. I don't think that the > Dhamma ought to be reformulated to fit the current fantasy about > bodies and brains. I consider the Dhamma to teach a Way Things Are > which cannot be explained better or in any other fashion. Well-said, very succinct and to the point in my opinion, thanks. mike #86696 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 8:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammanusarin Hi Herman,- >Herman : But I do not think that it is possible to be a sentient being without having some degree of infatuation or aversion. The conditions for sentience are life, and life is such that if it does not seek out what sustains it, or avoid what harms it, what is alive will be dead in minutes. >Do you believe a being can exist without craving or aversion? T: Living arahants are beings and they neither have craving nor aversion. Tep === #86697 From: "colette" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 7:04 pm Subject: [dsg] [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. ksheri3 Hi Herman, [clears throat] I can touch what ever I want to touch! I don't listen to MC Hammer nor to those that run about suggesting that this creator deity has a hammer, could be a thing with the Norse mythos. For colette's > benefit I refer to that sage MC Hammer "Can't touch this" :-). > feeling the benefit? Does that relate to SUPER TRAMP'S Ya Won't Feel The Benefit? You remember, ya went out without your shoes on, ype of thing. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and colette), > > 2008/6/7 Alex : > > Hi Herman, > >> > But is this stream of consciousness or "anatta" separate from > > other > >> > anattas? > >> > > >> > Of course. So at least in this sense it has at least one > > difference > >> > from other 5 khandas. In a sense this is identity. > >> > > >> > Every stream has its own Kamma. Nobody can share their kamma. > >> > >> Can you elaborate a bit more on your last line, above? Do you mean > >> kamma as in action/intention or something else? > >> > > > Cause (volition) and Effect. I think that Kamma may be interpreted as > > causality (psychological only?) in Western language. > > > > Thanks for clarifying, Alex. What remains a problem for me is this > exclusive nature of kamma that most people here seem to agree on, > kamma is exclusively one's own, and so is result. For colette's > benefit I refer to that sage MC Hammer "Can't touch this" :-). > > Of course I agree no-one can make these cittas be this way or that way > directly. Be we mess with the conditions for citta all the time, and > that includes the cittas of other people. Because we have indirect > access to people's brains. > colette: slow down sonny. I can mess with cittas or I can leave them alone, passively experience the citta. More than likely I will have categorized it and will then interact with it to expereince the citta's other qualities. When you suggest the ability to <....> with somebodies head I ponder what you mean? We have direct access to people's brains or minds, are you trying to play with the difference between the brain and the mind? This is a deep post, I don't have time to respond to it in it's entirety. I'll be back. toodles, colette > What I am supposed to believe, if I have understood it correctly, from > what people say here is that if someone spikes someone else's drink > with some intoxicant, then the results of that intoxication are the > results of some act of the person who has been unwittingly > intoxicated. Or if I run around the corner into someone and knock them > over and unconscious, their brain injury and the ongoing effects of > that on citta, are somehow the result of their own doing? > > Frankly, I don't get it. Do you? > > Cheers > > Herman > #86698 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 6, 2008 11:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] egberdina Hi Tep, 2008/6/7 Tep : > Hi Herman,- > > >>Herman : But I do not think that it is possible to be a sentient being > without having some degree of infatuation or aversion. The conditions > for sentience are life, and life is such that if it does not seek out > what sustains it, or avoid what harms it, what is alive will be dead > in minutes. > >>Do you believe a being can exist without craving or aversion? > > > T: Living arahants are beings and they neither have craving nor > aversion. > I am reminded of Bahiya, Pukkusati and a few others who were gored to death by a cow shortly after becoming Ariyan. I can understand how this happened, why would anyone bother getting out of the way of a charging cow if they were free from all attachments, cravings and wants? What I don't understand is how some arahants managed to survive for decades without the intention to survive. What I understand even less, and if you are able to help me please do so, is why an arahant does anything at all. If one is free from clinging and aversion, nothing is of any value whatsoever, and whether an act is done or not done makes no difference. To be free from suffering is to value nothing. Perhaps Angulimala is a good example of someone who values nothing? Cheers Herman #86699 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/6/6 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > Sound is just that which is heard. The consciousness of sound is the experiencing of it. It >cannot experience visible object, taste or anything else. As I write this there are moments of >experiencing sound in between the other kinds of consciousness. Without these moments of >hearing of sound, there wouldn't be the ideas about a tap running, a kettle boiling, a TV >program or anything else. Perhaps our differences are only in word, not in meaning. Let's see. To a sentient being sound happens all the time, as do sights, as do bodily feelings etc. All these things happens altogether, all at once. It is only when selective / differential attention comes into play that there are moments, moments one at a time, moments of listening (quite different to hearing, intention comes into play here), moments of looking (quite different to seeing, intention comes into play here) etc etc. > > To answer the question, in the consciousness of sound, there is the experiencing of sound, >the 'knowing' of sound. Sound itself doesn't experience or know anything at all. It doesn't >have any 'interest' in itself. It's just the reality which arises and falls away and may or may >not be experienced, as I'm glad to see Howard indicates. I believe that you are talking about listening here, not hearing. It is only in listening that there is sound as well as the consciousness of sound, and the knowledge that they are not the same. > ..... > H: >I just cannot relate > anything you say re the characteristic of namas to anything I > experience. I just do not experience experiencing. > .... > S: Maybe you think in terms of 'Herman experiencing' and wondering what 'you' experience instead of understanding different kinds of experiencing, such as seeing, hearing and thinking, none of which are Herman. > > So now, there really are just moments of seeing, hearing and thinking. > .... When I am asleep or otherwise inattentive, seeing, hearing and thinking (dreaming) all happen all at once, all the time. There is no moment in a state of inattention or unmindfulness. But when there is attention or mindfulness, there are moments of listening to sounds, and in that mode there is consciousness of hearing and consciousness of the object and consciousness of the difference between the two. The same for sight and every other sense modality. > H:> I assume from what you write that you do. I experience "stuff", and I experience "thinking about stuff". > .... > S: Let's say there is just thinking about stuff. Actually, there's thinking and thinking and thinking. This thinking is very real. It can be known. But what about the stuff? What is it? It is what is known and reacted to by sentient beings who are not in a self-conscious state. > .... > H: >In experiencing "stuff" there is only "stuff", though, no experiencing. > ... > S: Yet, whilst experiencing "stuff", there can be awareness of the experiencing. Yes, but this requires a self-conscious state. > ... > H:> It is only in "thinking about stuff" that there is "thinking" and "stuff" and the distance between them by which it is known that one is not the other. Perhaps that is what you refer to? > >>But then namas are just thinking. And if so, cool :-) > .... > S: If I assume that the "stuff" is daily chores, computers, posts and body-parts - in this case there can only ever be thinking about such "stuff", even when not in words. So yes, the thinking is not the "stuff" and only the thinking is real. > > If instead, I assume that the "stuff" is sounds, for example, then indeed there is the experiencing, the hearing of a sound, followed by thinking about it. In this case, when talking about the characteristic of hearing as opposed to sound, I'm not talking about thinking about it. > > Please clarify and keep probing here..... Actually, it reminds me of a discussion when we met which seemed to make sense at the time. It's actually very simple and can be understood now, but no 'Herman' or 'Sarah' involved. Please be patient as we proceed.... > Thanks for pursuing the matter in good faith, Sarah. And of course you realise that if you accept that listening, looking etc all rely on self-consciousness I will be asking some more questions :-) Questions like, why would the Buddha encourage us to be self-conscious (mindful) if he teaches not-self? Cheers Herman #86700 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/6/2008 8:07:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard and all, 2008/6/6 : > >> ============================ >> Herman, do you believe that there is unheard sound? If yes, and if there >> is, IYO, also heard sound, can you tell me what the difference is? > > No, I don't believe there is unheard sound. > > ================================= > Ah, okay. I DO believe in unheard sounds, and, amazingly, that doesn't > contradict my phenomenalism. > Sounds, to me, are always experiential content, but they may be the > content in mind streams other than mine, or, they may be subliminal phenomena in > my mind stream with the sound present only subliminally while another > phenomenon, a sight or odor, for example, is the conscious object. What is taken as > conscious object changes from moment to moment, with attention shuttling from > one sense door to another quite rapidly. > Thanks for elaborating. What you say here is very useful, because it has made it clearer that there are different conceptions of what consciousness and knowing refer to. And when all these different conceptions are used, but using only the same words two words knowing and consciousness, people could believe they are on the same page, when they are actually not. You refer to subliminal phenomena here, and I think that is central to an understanding of experience, I believe. To be technically accurate and precise, what we refer to as subliminal is actually what is indicated by an object being known, it is primary consciousness, and we share it with all sentient beings. What we do not share with all other sentient beings is higher consciousness, to be conscious of being conscious. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that there is being conscious of being conscious, but my view on what is subliminally present is different from yours. I believe that vi~n~nana, besides being defiled by a subject-object split (the first and most critical action of avijja), is a selective operation that, at each moment, selects from among a welter of sense-door phenomena, only one which becomes conscious object. (In fact, it occurs to me that selecting of one from many as object may well be the Abhidhammic ekagatta cetasika that accompanies vi~n~nana.) And in order for the activity of selecting out (the choosing among several) to occur, an activity conditioned largely by kamma, e.g., the sound gets chosen, but not the simultaneous sight, odor, body sensation, thinking etc, it is required that all these phenomena be detected, i.e., be experientially (but subliminally) present. But only the selected phenomenon rises to the level of conscious object. --------------------------------------------------------- Allow me to expand a little. I can function perfectly well in the world without being conscious of that fact. I can drive my car through traffic, stopping and starting on all the right cues, winding and weaving and plotting a course to my intended destination, without any attention to these tasks, and without any recollection of having done so. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, lots of experience fails to consciously register. ------------------------------------------------------------ What becomes clear, on becoming conscious of being conscious, is that I must have seen, heard, felt etc everything that was necessary for me to succesfully arrive at my destination. Primary consciousness IS the present moment, it is the knowing of the world as it is now, all at once. Every animal knows the present moment. Enter higher consciousness. It is consciousness of knowing the present moment, but notall of it. It is limited to being able to attend to it only selectively, relating it to selected remembered pasts and imagined futures, and projecting this selective re-knowing as a self acting in the world. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! We may, in fact, be pointing to the same thing in different ways.; -------------------------------------------------------- So, consciousness and knowing are not just consciousness and knowing. All sentient beings know their environment, all at once. Most just do not know that they know. Which knowing do we mean when we urge ourselves to know the present moment? Cheers Herman ============================ With metta, Howard #86701 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/6/2008 9:58:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Exampe: What is the meaning of a "Circle" ? Possible dictionary entry may be: A circle is a closed two dimensional geometric shape with no angles. ============================== An aside: A circle is the set of all points (or positions) at a fixed distance, called its "radius," from a specific point (or position), called it's "center." So, the concept of circle depends on the notions of "position" and "distance." With metta, Howard #86702 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Nibbana. was: What are the causes of 4 great elements szmicio > We cannot know the second Truth if we > do not firmly understand dukkha: the arising and falling away of > visible object now is dukkha, the arising and falling away of all > conditioned realities is dukkha. hm I know dukkha as realy painful vedanas. And I know that all things are dukkha , anicca and anatta. But I used to looking for vedanas to see dukkha? It's old habbit. What can I do with it? Is it lobha which looking for unpleasant feelings? Can lobha expirience unplesant object? I know that pannja arise naturaly ,and when it arise there is no diffrence what it expiriences. If there is ruupa it is ruupa , when there is vedana it is vedana , when sannja there is sannja. But mostly there is no panja, and I am still in this blindness. Is there vedana more important than other dhamma? It's very hard to put attention to visible object or what is heard, it is so abstract. And I used to observe only this what is painful or pleasant. But when is seeing there is no vedanas i can feel. I have so many stres becouse of vedana. Doubts bye Lukas #86703 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 5:58 am Subject: Perfections Corner (176) nichiconn Dear Friends, continuing ch5, The Perfection of Energy: Pa~n~naa which is insight knowledge and which knows the true nature of realities as it is developed stage by stage, is the indriya, faculty, of pa~n~na. However it has only reached completion when it has realized the four noble Truths. In the past, countless people listened to the Dhamma, developed pa~n~naa with right effort and realized the four noble Truths. They were wise people who knew how to remind themselves of the truth. We should consider whether we, at the present time, are like those wise people in the past. The "Anumaanasutta", "Discourse on Measuring in Accordance with", (M I, 15), deals with the admonishing of monks and with self-examination. We read at the end of the Commentary to this Sutta, the "Papa~ncasuudanii" : "The teachers of old said that the monk should scrutinize himself three times daily. Thus, in the morning he should consider to what extent he still has defilements. If he sees that he still has defilements he should strive to get rid of them. If he sees that he has no defilements he knows that he has been leading the monk's life in the right way. During the day time and also in the evening he should examine himself again. If he cannot do this three times a day, he should do it twice a day , and if he cannot do that, he should examine himself only once a day. But it is improper not to examine oneself at all." By this passage we can be reminded to examine ourselves so that we know whether our actions were proper or improper. We can understand that we need viriya, effort, so that we are able to investigate our akusala and kusala three times a day, or else twice a day, or if that is not possible, only once a day. Then we are reminded by the teachers of old to examine ourselves as to the defilements we still have and to reflect on these. We read in the "Anumaanasutta", "Discourse on Measuring in Accordance with" that Mahaa-Moggallaana taught the Dhamma and explained to the monks which person is someone who is "easy to speak to" (susceptible to instruction), and exhorted them to examine themselves as to this *1. He said: *1 A monk who is "difficult to speak to" does not listen and does not want to be corrected. The monk who is "easy to speak to" is meek, he listens and is susceptible to instruction. "Therein, your reverences, a monk should examine himself thus: 'Now, am I of evil desires, in the thrall of evil desires?' If, your reverences, while the monk is reflecting, he knows thus: 'I am of evil desires, in the thrall of evil desires,' then, your reverences, that monk should strive to get rid of those evil, unskilled states. But if, your reverences, that monk, while reflecting, knows thus: 'I am not of evil desires, not in the thrall of evil desires', then he should abide with rapture and delight, training himself diligently day and night in skilled states." The words, "a monk should examine himself", make it clear to us that someone else cannot examine in detail our akusala to the same extent as we ourselves. We can examine ourselves and know whether we have evil desires and are in the thrall of evil desires, and moreover, we should be sincere, truthful to ourselves. If we have evil desires, we should strive to abandon those evil, unskilled dhammas. Some people do not like to consider their own akusala, but if a person sees the benefit of the development of endeavour for kusala, he should also notice his own akusala. .. to be continued, connie #86704 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 6:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? nilovg Dear Tep,a Op 7-jun-2008, om 1:42 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > Given that Ven. Buddhaghosa was right, still "Cula-sotapanna" is > much closer to Stream-entry than a worldling. Importantly, we should > prefer 'pari~n~naa' as defined by the Buddha to Ven. Buddhaghosa. > According to the Blessed One, pari~n~naa means the cessation of > lobha, dosa and moha. > > SN 22.23 > pari~n~naa Sutta : Comprehension > --------------------------------- > > Translator's Note [1]: Comprehension here means the arahant's full- > knowing (see MN 117). As SN 56.11 shows, the first noble truth of > suffering and stress is to be comprehended. As SN 56.20 further > implies, when the first noble truth has been comprehended, the tasks > with regard to all the other noble truths have been completed as well. > ................................. > > T: The translator is a very knowledgable venerable monk. What he > explains is in complete agreement with the great Arahant Sariputta's > words about direct knowing of the "all" (please see my previous > messages in this thread for more detail). ------ N: Yes, I fully agree. But now see SN 26 Full Understanding, Pari~n~naa and the note by B.B.: the Co. states that here there is reference to the three pari~n~nas. However, this is not a contradiction, in one context the meaning is wider than in another context. I also looked up the Thai translation of the commentary to check. I do not prefer Buddhaghosa to the Buddha's words. But when you read more of Buddhaghosa you may have more confidence that really, there never is any contradiction with the Tipitaka. Even if it seems to some people, when we read more carefully, we can see that there is nothing to fear. As I wrote once before on the Pali list: we fare safely with Buddhaghosa. I did not get only positive reactions :-)) Eye, objects, seeing, feeling, they are all objects of awareness. They appear now. Gradually there can be more detachment from them. Detachment can grow through the development of satipatthaana. All of the teachings point to detachment. Nina. #86705 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/6/2008 9:58:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > > Exampe: What is the meaning of a "Circle" ? > > Possible dictionary entry may be: A circle is a closed two > dimensional geometric shape with no angles. > > > ============================== > An aside: A circle is the set of all points (or positions) at a fixed > distance, called its "radius," from a specific point (or position), called it's > "center." So, the concept of circle depends on the notions of "position" and > "distance." > > With metta, > Howard > You have misunderstood the aim of the "circle" example. The aim was to show that one word is being defined through many words (each of which are themselves further defined through even more words). Best wishes, Alex #86706 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 6:59 am Subject: Metta, Ch 7, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, I will quote from the “Mahå-mangala Jåtaka” (IV, 453) in order that the meaning of “mangala”, auspicious sign or blessing, will be clearer. Everybody desires blessings, things which are auspicious. Sometimes people search for it, they believe that they have a mangala if they possess a particular thing or if they recite particular texts. We should know what a real mangala is. We read in the “Mahå-mangala Jåtaka” that mettå is a mangala. When we know that, we will not search for something else. A true mangala is the citta with mettå, mettå through body, speech and mind. When the citta is kusala, the citta is beautiful, it is “auspicious”. We read in the “Mahå-mangala Jåtaka” that people asked the Bodhisatta, when he was a hermit, what a mangala is which gives blessings in this world and the next. We read that the Bodhisatta explained: Whoso the devas, and all the brahmas, And reptiles, and all beings, which we see, Honours forever with a kindly heart, The wise call this a mangala. Who is humble towards all beings To men, women and children alike, Who to reviling does not answer back, His patience the wise call a mangala. Who is of clear understanding, in crisis wise, Nor playmates nor companions does despise, Nor boasts of birth, wisdom, caste or wealth, The wise call this a mangala for his friends. Who takes good men and true his friends to be, Who trust him, for his tongue from venom free, Who never harms a friend, who shares his wealth, The wise call this a mangala for his friends. Whose wife is friendly and of equal years, Devoted, good, and many children bears, Faithful, virtuous, and of gentle birth. The wise call that a mangala in wives. Whose King the mighty Lord of beings is, Who has purity of síla, is diligent, And says, “He is my friend”, and means no guile, That the wise call a mangala in Kings. Who has confidence, gives food and drink, Flowers, garlands and perfumes, With heart at peace, and spreading joy around, This the wise call a mangala in heavenly planes. Whom by good living virtuous sages try With effort strenuous to purify, Good men and wise, by tranquil life built up, The wise call this a mangala among the company of arahats. These blessings then, that in the world befall, Esteemed by all the wise, Which man is prudent let him follow these, The omens which are seen, heard or touched are not real. ******* Nina. #86707 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/7/2008 9:52:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/6/2008 9:58:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > > Exampe: What is the meaning of a "Circle" ? > > Possible dictionary entry may be: A circle is a closed two > dimensional geometric shape with no angles. > > > ============================== > An aside: A circle is the set of all points (or positions) at a fixed > distance, called its "radius," from a specific point (or position), called it's > "center." So, the concept of circle depends on the notions of "position" and > "distance." > > With metta, > Howard > You have misunderstood the aim of the "circle" example. The aim was to show that one word is being defined through many words (each of which are themselves further defined through even more words). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, I *did* understand. :-) That's why I called what I wrote "an aside." ========================== With metta, Howard #86708 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 7:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > No, I *did* understand. :-) That's why I called what I wrote "an aside." > ========================== > With metta, > Howard > Please forgive me for misunderstanding you. ======== Do you agree that language, at best, only points to some"thing", and that words are conceptual? So when disputes happen, it is possible that it is due to misunderstanding the range, and the meaning of the words used. Many philosophical paradoxes are simply play with words & concepts. Ex: How many rocks does it take to form a pile of rocks? or Lets say a pile has 100 rocks and a person removes one rock at a time. Exactly when will the pile will not be a pile? Inserting a 3rd fuzzy variable will NOT solve the paradox (as the same question will apply). This paradox is but mental and conceptual papanca. Best wishes, Alex #86709 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/7/2008 10:16:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > No, I *did* understand. :-) That's why I called what I wrote "an aside." > ========================== > With metta, > Howard > Please forgive me for misunderstanding you. ======== Do you agree that language, at best, only points to some"thing", and that words are conceptual? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course. Language (and conceptualization in general) at best merely "points at." ------------------------------------------------ So when disputes happen, it is possible that it is due to misunderstanding the range, and the meaning of the words used. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that's so a lot of the time! ------------------------------------------------ Many philosophical paradoxes are simply play with words & concepts. Ex: How many rocks does it take to form a pile of rocks? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sure - the whole topic of "fuzzy concept." As for the rock pile, I'll bet most folks would take 3 as the minimum. ;-) --------------------------------------------- or Lets say a pile has 100 rocks and a person removes one rock at a time. Exactly when will the pile will not be a pile? Inserting a 3rd fuzzy variable will NOT solve the paradox (as the same question will apply). This paradox is but mental and conceptual papanca. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Mm, hmm. A similar example: From a wooden boat one plank each day is replaced by a new plank. When does the boat become another boat (if ever)!! LOL! These examples are, BTW, relevant to the matter of anatta, I'd say. ---------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Alex ======================== With metta, Howard #86710 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 7:36 am Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... dhammanusarin Dear Nina, - Thank you for continuing to discuss the Dhamma with me, even when the issue is not quite "on the mundane level". >N: But now see SN 26 Full Understanding, Pari~n~naa and the note by B.B.: the Co. states that here there is reference to the three pari~n~nas. T: I do not have the book; so, when you have some free time, please summarize venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi's note for me. Thanks. >N: I do not prefer Buddhaghosa to the Buddha's words. But when you read more of Buddhaghosa you may have more confidence that really, there never is any contradiction with the Tipitaka. Even if it seems to some people, when we read more carefully, we can see that there is nothing to fear. As I wrote once before on the Pali list: we fare safely with Buddhaghosa. I did not get only positive reactions :-)) T: You possibly have noticed through the years that Tep has a deep admiration for the venerable Buddhaghosa (I have a copy of the Vism and have read it twice, from the first through the last page. I have often quoted from the book.). However, being very intelligent and, I do believe that he was, an ariyan himself, the venerable seemed to take his understanding of the Dhamma for granted, i.e. in the Vism he confidently interpreted and extended the Teachings of the Master, the samma-sambuddha. That has caused quite a problem to people who have great saddha in the Buddha's Teachings and His definitions of the dhammas. I have no doubt that these people (including me) are also good Buddhists who read the Vism carefully too. So please do not interpret my and their concern on the venerable's commentaries and "extensions" as fear or negative reaction. Thank you in advance for your understanding. ;-) ......................................... >Eye, objects, seeing, feeling, they are all objects of awareness. They appear now. Gradually there can be more detachment from them. Detachment can grow through the development of satipatthaana. All of the teachings point to detachment. Nina. T: That has been my understanding too. But we differ mainly in the means to attain the same goal. How do you know by yourself that there is more detachment from the "all"? How do you know that you have rightly developed satipatthaana? In short how do you know that you are on the right road ? Tep === #86711 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 8:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Friday 23 May - Some personal relections sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Tue, 3/6/08, Alex wrote: >>> >>S:It is right understanding of namas and rupas which is to be > developed. >>> A:>With this there is major disagreement. Please give me sutta which teaches the understanding of Nama & Rupa as an intellectual exercise? .... S: Please give me a quote of mine which says "the understanding of Nama & Rupa is an intellectual exercise". .... A:> Whenever Buddha has talked about samma-ditthi it was always in reference to suffering and its cessation or we could saying in craving and its cessation or 4NT. All of these are similiar in that they point toward experience. .... S: Yes. So what is dukkha now? What hinders the path now? ... >>S: So what is nama? What is rupa? These are the questions we have to > consider carefully and really understand, not just by a book > definition. >>> A:>Until one has removed Avijja, these questions could be unanswerable. Furthermore, ultimately, WHO CARES WHAT THEY ARE? .... S: Panna cares to understand namas and rupas now, any reality now, so that gradually there's less attachment to the idea of self, of 'Who anything'. ... A:>What is more important is "What is to be done?", how to remove craving and clinging. ... S: And as panna develops, there's less and less idea of doing anything, and more and more interest in just understanding. It is the understanding, not the self 'doing' that removes the craving and clinging. ... >>S: Seeing now, at this very moment as we talk, is nama. It is the reality > which experiences visible object. There is no self, no person involved at all. It's an element. > A:>But the thing is, we don't really see it. Avijja forms and underlies any ordinary states of consciousness <...> What is the state that blinds Avijja (or Mara)? ..... S: It is avijja that blinds, the curtain of ignorance. It is panna that that illuminates. .... >>>>> >>S:Again, there is no 'thing' in it. There is no computer, no watch, no person involved. It is the element which is seen only. >>> A:>This was NEVER taught by the Buddha and this is one of dead give aways. .... S: The Buddha taught that only visible object, rupa, is seen. All the ideas and concepts are thought about through the mind door. ... A:>If Avijja = seeing concepts (such as people, trees, etc) then an Arahant would be reduced to some anoetic little child who can't reason who can't orient himself, who doesn't see "the road, the bowl, the robe, the wall, the ground, the tiger, the other monks etc" as these are 'mere' 'concepts'. ... S: There has been no suggestion by me that there can't be or shouldn't be thinking about concepts, even for the arahant. What you write is a complete misunderstanding. Metta, Sarah p.s You referred in a post to Herman to a sutta in SN where 'Buddha talks about that even trees if they can understand him can become stream-enterers'. Do you believe trees can understand anything? If so, I'd recommend some serious Abhidhamma study:-) ================= #86712 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 9:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Sukin, I hope you're over your food-poisoning - never pleasant. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your reflections (to Phil), such as: --- On Tue, 3/6/08, Sukinder wrote: > From: Sukinder Suk: >If the understanding at the pariyatti level dictates that dhammas are conditioned and anatta, the patipatti must conform to this. If one instead goes on to think in terms of ‘formal’ Vipassana meditation, this reflects in fact a conflict with the Buddha’s teaching on Anatta and conditionality and that Pariyatti understanding has perhaps yet to take root.< ..... Sarah: This is exactly what I meant when I recently referred to how the practice must be in conformity with the theory. ... Suk: > But I am interested in discussing the concept of Pariyatti > >Patipatti Pativedha with you. This to me must point back to the > basics, which I think is something you agree is worthwhile to come back to. We seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes a ‘beginner’ on the Path and I would like to go into this with you. .... Sarah: Why don't you go ahead and share your reflections with us all anyway? Phil may also read along, even if he doesn't feel like commenting:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #86713 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 9:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- On Thu, 5/6/08, kenhowardau wrote: K:>Firstly, apologies for my prolonged silence. There have been several post I have wanted to reply to (not to mention my Visudhihagga thread) but it seems I am still stuck in that temperamental phase I mentioned earlier. There are so many unfinished posts in my drafts folder . . . . .... S: I'm glad to see they are beginning to filter out. Open the flood gates, Ken H, and let us share the words of wisdom and pick over any 'unfinished' parts! Anyway, do hope the 'temperamental phase' is on the wane....at least you know they don't belong to anyone, not even.... ... K:> OK, it's not much of a post, but it's a step on the road to recovery. I will send it straight away before Mr Hyde sees it. :-) Or should that be "Dr Jekyll?" ... S: Not even, those guys:-) Looking forward to a full recovery! My mother arrives on Monday, so it will be increasingly difficult for me to post for the rest of the month, especially as we won't even have a telephone connection when we move to a small 'stockli' in a couple of weeks. I think Nina also goes away for a few days at the end of next week, so the list will need all those 'present moment' reminders, you have up your sleeve. I'm also looking forward to the Canadian series (pl) (hint, hint, Scott & Ann). Maybe Alex will also start a 'Why Abhidhamma is essential to understand the Suttas' series, lol! Ok, I'm also getting back to your other post next while I have 'a little window'.... Metta, Sarah ========== #86714 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: report on Bangkok and Kaeng Krajan sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- On Thu, 29/5/08, kenhowardau wrote: K:> Let me ask another way: Has there been a change in emphasis in K Sujin's talks lately? Or has she always made this point about some aramannas being more commonly-occurring than others? .... S: I think you are referring to say visible object vs olfactory object or odour. I don't think there's been a change in emphasis, but I think that we tend to pick up on those aspects we're ready to hear at the time. 'Nimitta' would be an example of this. We only started asking more about nimitta recently, but I hear KS referring to nimitta on old recordings too. Actually, KS has always stressed on the understanding of visible object. If visible object is not understood clearly (and seeing), it's unlikely any other dhammas are understood. Why? Because it occurs so frequently in a day and we attach such importance to what is seen, always conjuring up stories about visible objects. It's much more common than odour and this is the reason it's always given first in the texts. ... K:>Maybe I just haven't been listening properly to the recordings all these years. It was a bit of a shock, that's all. It was as if we were suddenly adopting a more "personal" (shock, horror!) approach to satipatthana with emphasis on *my* most frequent aramannas, "my* best chances of directly knowing a dhamma etc. .... S: No, I don't think it's like this at all. It's not a matter of counting or thinking in terms of 'my' anything. However, realistically, some dhammas appear more than others. For example, gross rupas are more apparent than subtle rupas. Of the gross rupas, the sense objects are more apparent than the sense-bases and so on. I used to question this kind of thing a lot, but then I read about it all in texts like the Sammohavinodani. So it all has basis and, I think, can be seen to be true. ... K:>Even as I write this I can see that it didn't have to be interpreted that way. We can learn about most-commonly- occurring aramannas without necessarily thinking "Oh good, here's my chance!" ... S: Exactly. I also think the reason that KS is reluctant to talk about the 'most-commonly-occurring arammanas' is exactly for this reason. Anything gets misinterpreted by moha. ... K: >But there was something going on, wasn't there? Other people seemed to be having difficulty too. Or did I just imagine it? .... S: I'm not sure. Sometimes if there's a response that isn't what I expect, I just like to consider it and bring it up again later from a different angle. Sometimes there's just been a misunderstanding or communication problem too. Sometimes she knows someone is just speculating or asking out of curiosity, rather than discussing what really appears now. Anyway, I'll try to pursue it for you when I next visit, i.e no odour being present as a conventional idea. Correct me if I've misunderstood you. Metta, Sarah S: > p.s How's the surf in Noosa? I still have a problematic hip, so my surfing career may be curtailed before it ever properly started;-) ------------ ----- K:>Oh, that's a shame. I still have a secret hope that you and Jon will retire one day to "sunny Queensland" and we can see-out our days together riding pipelines at Tea Tree Bay. .... S: Lovely fantasy for us too.....discussing visible objects and odours as we ride the pipeline into the sunset:-) And however despondent you get, you always have that wave of the day to remember:-) And if some become enlightened when burning the curry, no reason why others can't become enlightened when riding waves or remembering them....all so very anatta! Best of luck for getting through the rest of your Vism chapter:-) ============ #86715 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 9:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Friday 23 May - Some personal relections truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > .... > S: Please give me a quote of mine which says "the understanding of Nama & Rupa is an intellectual exercise". > .... Sometimes it seems like that with all these really scholastic treateases and discussions become a sort of intellectual gymnastics - especially when arguments are involved... > ... > S: And as panna develops, there's less and less idea of doing anything, and more and more interest in just understanding. It is the understanding, not the self 'doing' that removes the craving and clinging. > ... I'd like to add that true meditation isn't about "doing" it is about letting go. > ... > S: There has been no suggestion by me that there can't be or shouldn't be thinking about concepts, even for the arahant. What you write is a complete misunderstanding. > > Metta, > At this board, many people seem to suggest that chairs, people, etc don't exist. Well they do exist as concepts and functions rather than atta entitites - however they as concepts can be seen without clinging to them. > Sarah > p.s You referred in a post to Herman to a sutta in SN where 'Buddha talks about that even trees if they can understand him can become stream-enterers'. Do you believe trees can understand anything? If so, I'd recommend some serious Abhidhamma study:-) > ================= > That reference I guess is about the importance of understanding, and that PhD is not needed. I am not sure if Buddha literally meant that "trees can understand". Best wishes, Alex #86716 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 10:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. jonoabb Hi Alex > But is this stream of consciousness or "anatta" separate from other > anattas? When the Buddha spoke of anatta he did so in the context of dhammas, not of streams of consciousness. Anatta is a characteristic of dhammas (the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc.), not of streams of consciousness or other conventional designations. > Every stream has its own Kamma. Nobody can share their kamma. Kamma is not something that belongs to a stream (or to someone). It describes a relationship between dhammas. Thus, the idea of sharing (or not sharing) one's kamma is definitely a non-starter! Jon #86717 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 10:22 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Abh jonoabb Hi Alex > > I think there are many parts of the Sutta Pitaka that do not > contain a statement to the effect that they were spoken by the Buddha. > >>> > > Most of them were either spoken by the Buddha, or his close disciples > (like Ven. Sariputta) and/or approved by Him. We were discussing your comment that the suttas have more credibility than the Abhidhamma because each sutta claims to have been spoken by the Buddha. I think you have moved away from this topic. > Can you rebute (Linguistic, archeological, historical-critical, etc > analysis ) it point by point? Deep explanations of doctrine, the > scholastic treatiese that are aimed at precision and justification > aren't well suited to memorization and have to be written down. In > Buddha's time as far as I know there were almost NO books, and > definately most people were illiterate. Do you know why the suttas > repeat so much? It was done for memorization purposes. Well, that is the usual explanation given (i.e., for ease of memorization; and it could well be the case), but the fact is we just don't know. However, this is getting away from the question of the usefulness of textual comparison and historical analysis in coming to a better understanding of the teachings. > While I would like to concede the fact that different AP share > similiarities in a sense of anicca-dukkha-anatta. But they differ > GREATLY in detail, showing us perhaps the futility of neat, static > and unrefutable system. Some say there were 75 Dharmas, some 100 > Dharmas, some say svabhava exist, some say that svabhava doesn't > exist. Some claim tri-temporal existence, some only present. As I think I've already indicated, for the sake of this discussion I'm prepared to accept that the various versions of the Abhidhamma contain far wider differences than the various versions of the suttas. But what I'm saying, and what you haven't addressed in your comments so far, is that there are explanations for such a difference other than the claim that the Abhidhamma is not the teaching of the Buddha. > As Bhikkhu Nananada has said: "Illustration of the worldling's > commitment to the grammatical structure of language". The first 3 > are examples of noun declension accusative, locative, ablative. I don't see how this relates to my point, which was that the suttas can be 'interpreted' to suit different schools as they are, i.e., without having to change anything (or anything much), whereas the Abhidhamma cannot be so interpreted, and would need to have been changed in order to suit the different schools. > > A question for you, Alex. In the examples you have given, which came > > first: the different views held by these various schools, or the > > different versions of the Abhidhamma Pitaka? > > > Sutta -> Vinaya -> parinibbana -> Councils -> Interpretation and > defending Buddhist teaching against Hindu schools -> sects -> > Abhidhammas being written as a sort of "declaration of our views". ... Yes, this is the scenario suggested by the Abhidhamma doubters. But it is only a hypothesis. The Theravada tradition is that the Abhidhamma was existent at the time of the first of the Councils. Nobody has solid proof either way as to when the Abhidhamma was first complied/recited. Jon #86718 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 10:25 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching jonoabb Hi again Phil Just to follow up on something I said in my last post to you. > As to what is meant in the sutta by 'no sense control' and 'no > virtue', I doubt that that would include the person who appreciates > the kusala nature of those factors but whose accumulated tendencies > make observance of the precepts more difficult than for some others. In case this wasn't clear, I was trying to make the point that for all of us there are times (moments) of 'no sense control' and 'no virtue'; but nonetheless, since we appreciate the value of kusala, there are also many moments of sense control and virtue, event if those moments are far fewer than we would like them to be. So we can't claim, on the basis of this sutta, to be somehow 'unqualified' to begin the development of awareness of presently arising dhammas. Hope this is clearer. Jon #86719 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 10:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. jonoabb Hi Herman > So if I understand you correctly kamma refers only to the fact that > the conditioned arising of intention in the past may be followed by > other conditioned arisings in the future? My understanding of kamma is that it refers to the intention accompanying kusala and akusala consciousness, and that this intention conditions the later arising of certain types of consciousness such as the experiencing of objects through the sense-doors (called 'vipaka' consciousness); and furthermore that all such vipaka consciousness is conditioned by prior intention (kamma). Hope this is to the point (please let me know if not). Jon #86720 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 10:39 am Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya jonoabb Hi Tep > You are referring to the three suttas about discerning (pajanati) and > discernment(pa~n~na) in my previous post. There are several more > suttas about discerning/discernment. Would you mind telling me what > you have learned about discerning/discernment from the Abhidhamma > Pitaka? It will certainly be most useful when we study both pitakas. I don't think it's possible to distinguish what has been learnt from the Abhidhamma and what from the Suttas, since there is so much overlap between the two. I can only repeat things that have been said here many times before (but which are worth repeating anyway!): panna is a sobhana cetasika; it may be mundane or supramundane; if mundane, it may be of the level of samatha or vipassana; its function is to see clearly the object of the citta it accompanies; it's arising is by conditions; it has the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. To my understanding, 'pajanati' is simply a conventional language reference to the arising of panna. Nothing new here, Tep, but hoping it's useful to our discussion. > T: Yes, I have. But I do not understand that the "worldling's right > view is also the seeing of phenomena "as they really are", since the > seeing of the dhammas the way they really are is 'yathabhuta~nana- > dassana' of an ariyan. Interesting. I'd like to discuss further the right view of the worldling. On rereading my previous post it occurred to me that it might have been clearer if I had said that the worldling's right view is the seeing of a dhamma/phenomena as it really is (rather than "the seeing of dhammas as they really are", which might be taken to suggest that the he has reached a stage where he sees all dhammas correctly). Right view being a momentary cetasika, it is not as highly developed or firmly established in the worldling as it is in the ariyan. The frequency of its arising, and the depth of it's penetration, will depend on the stage of its development. Furthermore, the worldling still has accumulated tendencies for wrong view, which will manifest at times (other than times when right view is arising). I'm wondering if this is more in line with your understanding of the right view of the worldling? If not, perhaps you could say a little about your idea of what the right view of the worldling is. Jon #86722 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:11 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Abh truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > We were discussing your comment that the suttas have more credibility than the Abhidhamma because each sutta claims to have been spoken by the Buddha. I think you have moved away from this topic. ><>>> There are MANY reasons why suttas are generally most likely to be earlier. The language, the absence of philosophical schisms (Katthavatthu did had to be authored After many schisms have happened in order to rebute "heretical views"), the written structure, the slight change of emphasis, etc. > > Can you rebute (Linguistic, archeological, historical-critical, etc > > analysis ) it point by point? Deep explanations of doctrine, the > > scholastic treatiese that are aimed at precision and justification > > aren't well suited to memorization and have to be written down. In > > Buddha's time as far as I know there were almost NO books, and > > definately most people were illiterate. Do you know why the suttas > > repeat so much? It was done for memorization purposes. > > Well, that is the usual explanation given (i.e., for ease of > memorization; and it could well be the case), but the fact is we just don't know. > It is the most reasonable guess, the memorization one. Furthermore, the early suttas do NOT mention all the schisms and philosophical controversies between established schools where each one tried to explain Buddha's teaching better. > > As I think I've already indicated, for the sake of this discussion I'm > prepared to accept that the various versions of the Abhidhamma contain > far wider differences than the various versions of the suttas. > On Sarv Abh has 75 Dhammas, another 100, Ther has 74 (if I understand correctly). > But what I'm saying, and what you haven't addressed in your comments > so far, is that there are explanations for such a difference other > than the claim that the Abhidhamma is not the teaching of the Buddha. > Can you explain the cause of the difference? The point with the differences is that IF the Buddha would have clearly and often said certain things, then these differences would not arise. >>>>> > Abhidhamma cannot be so interpreted, and would need to have been > changed in order to suit the different schools. > What? In CMA I encounter time from time "Ledi Saydaw says this, another expert says that" etc. > > Yes, this is the scenario suggested by the Abhidhamma doubters. But > it is only a hypothesis. The Theravada tradition is that the > Abhidhamma was existent at the time of the first of the Councils. > Nobody has solid proof either way as to when the Abhidhamma was first > complied/recited. > > Jon > The thing is that you are "appealing to tradition" a logical fallacy. Sarvastivadans too attributed a part of their Abh books to direct disciples of the Buddha (Ven. Sariputta, MahaMoggalana, Mahakotthita, Mahakacana) and one Sarv Abh book (Jnanaprasthana) to Buddha himself. So which tradition, if any, to believe? Best wishes, Alex #86723 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammapada, 331-333 sarahprocter... Dear Han, Scott & Nina, Thank you all for your assistance and for the alternative translations and Pali (Scott & Han), --- On Thu, 5/6/08, han tun wrote: N: Thank you for the story, the Pali and translation. I would rather translate sukha as happy. If we say in English: it is good, this is not as strong as happiness. We give more emphasis if we say: it is happiness to... How is the Burmese? Han: The Burmese translation used the word “happinessâ€? in Burmese. ... S: Yes, my thought was the same. Better to translate sukkha as happy or happiness as in 'happy feeling'. Pleasant is also OK, I think, but 'good' rather changes the meaning. "sukho pa~n~naaya pa.tilaabho", the gaining of wisdom is happy....or "pleasant is the attainment of wisdom" Metta, Sarah ========= #86724 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:26 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Scott, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" > wrote: > > > > Dear Alex, > > > > Regarding: > > > > "When someone says that everything is conditioned and volition (for > > the most part) may be conditioned and outside of free will - you > > reverse your position as above." > > > > Scott: Why do you frequently use the qualifier 'for the most part' > in > > relation to the rest of the clause 'volition...may be conditioned'? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Scott. > > > > Arahant don't have kammically active volition in our sense of the > word. That's true. But in terms of its conditioned nature, the arahant's volition is no different from the non-arahant's volition, as far as I understand. Jon #86725 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching nilovg Dear Sarah and friends, Op 7-jun-2008, om 18:16 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I think Nina also goes away for a few days at the end of next week, > so the list will need all those 'present moment' reminders, you > have up your sleeve. > > I'm also looking forward to the Canadian series (pl) (hint, hint, > Scott & Ann). Maybe Alex will also start a 'Why Abhidhamma is > essential to understand the Suttas' series, lol! ------ N:we have another hiking (slow!) trip from Thursday next week-Monday and I cannot answer posts. Canadian series will be good. Present moment reminders: people will say: rehashing, but no. If it is not the present moment than it is all book knowledge, and we get stuck with that forever. It would only be speculating, and then the question is: who is speculating? Ken's reminders are always fresh to me, and while he writes this it helps himself, he is on the way to recovery. Nina. #86726 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa. was:Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... nilovg Dear Tep, I will not answer your post yet, but can you give an example please, that Buddhaghosa extended the teachings of the Buddha? Nina. Op 7-jun-2008, om 16:36 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > You possibly have noticed through the years that Tep has a deep > admiration for the venerable Buddhaghosa (I have a copy of the Vism > and have read it twice, from the first through the last page. I have > often quoted from the book.). However, being very intelligent and, I > do believe that he was, an ariyan himself, the venerable seemed to > take his understanding of the Dhamma for granted, i.e. in the Vism he > confidently interpreted and extended the Teachings of the Master, the > samma-sambuddha. #86727 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:50 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > That's true. But in terms of its conditioned nature, the arahant's > volition is no different from the non-arahant's volition, as far as I > understand. > > Jon > There is a big difference between conditioned and contingent condition. Just because Volition A requires XYZ, doesn't mean that A always and invariably follows X Y Z . Don't follow into "nothing can be done" ala Ajivika fatalism. The future starts right NOW! It is time Jon! :) Best Wishes, Alex #86728 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 12:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Regarding: M: "Well-said, very succinct and to the point in my opinion, thanks." Scott: Thanks, Mike. Sincerely, Scott. #86729 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/6/6 kenhowardau : > Hi Howard, > > > A goal can be kusala. If the goal is alobha or adosa or amoha (for > example) then that goal is kusala, isn't it? > But, wanting (desiring, craving - having lobha for) that goal is > akusala. I wonder why you would call something a goal if it made no difference to you whether you achieved it or not? > > We should be happy to understand that lobha is a conditioned > paramattha dhamma. > I would sincerely like to read your understanding of how "shoulding" can be free of wanting. ------------------------- H: > And for whom? Anyone? Those who study Abhidhamma texts and commentaries? Why, those are folks who are *wanting* something and *trying* to achieve something, and that already means they won't - isn't that so? -------------------------- > > Moments of lobha, and other akusala, *will appear* in the daily life > of the worldling - including the worldling Dhamma student. Such > things are inevitable - conditioned. "The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging."MN24 What motivates a person to get on a bus that is clearly marked "Last Stop: cessation", but all they want is to be? > > I am glad to hear that, and I never said he wasn't. As for me; I can > feel a bit 'down in the dumps' occasionally, and that feeling can > last for days. > > Conventionally speaking, of course! :-) In times when I was affected by the black dog, I knew in my heart base (which is actually in my head :-)) that it was because life wasn't how I wanted it to be. Be very clear about this KenH, the Buddhist goal is cessation. If this is not what you want, you are asking for serious trouble in toying with it, seriously!! I hope earnestly for you that "things" resolve themselves, sooner rather than later. Cheers Herman #86730 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 7:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/7 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the reply: > > Scott: I see where you are coming from here. To return to an earlier > clarification, the view would suggest that it is the biological > imperatives that move the world. Would this be a correct paraphrase? Yes. That would also be a good paraphrase of what the Buddha says in MN121. "And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition." > H: "If you are inclined to answer, I would be interested to read how > you see intention (the mind) 'interfacing' with the body to proceed > from intention to action?" > > Scott: I don't consider 'the body' in the same way that I imagine you > do, so perhaps I'll pass on the discussion, Herman. That's fine. > > I don't put much stock at all (read no stock at all) on biophysical or > neuropsychological explanations, old or new, considering them all to > be extremely complex, creative, and highly changeable fantasies. They > are not Dhamma. > > I don't consider the Buddha to have merely taught an archaic > psychology which was consistent with the given level of cognitive > maturity available to humans of that era but which needs to be updated > to be consistent with 'modern knowledge'. The Buddha taught the practice that leads to cessation That others have turned that into a theoretical model is their problem, and a problem for those who believe that "theory makes perfect". I don't think that the > Dhamma ought to be reformulated to fit the current fantasy about > bodies and brains. I consider the Dhamma to teach a Way Things Are > which cannot be explained better or in any other fashion. But then > you already know this of me, I imagine... What you refer to as Dhamma is, IMO, full to the brim with schmience science, fanciful and archaic notions of how the world works. Seeing as these notions have no role to play in the practice that leads to cessation, they are irrelevant, do not need to be updated, and certainly are not Dhamma. And forever it will be the case that no account of a Way Things Are IS the Way Things Are. What I know about you is that you are in league with them Oilers. You know what they say, a person is known by the friends he keeps :-) Thanks for the discussion Cheers Herman #86731 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi All, Just a very short extract this time to continue "Comprehension of the Material" up until to the classifications into kamma-born, consciousness-born, nutriment-born and temperature-born materiality. Remember 'comprehension of the material' is one of nine ways of sharpening the faculties. "25. The second life-continuum arises with the prenascent physical [heart] basis as its support, which has already reached presence and arose at the rebirth-linking consciousness's instant of arising. The third life-continuum arises with the prenascent physical basis as its support, which has already reached presence and arose together with that [second life-continuum consciousness]. The occurrence of consciousness can be understood to happen in this way throughout life. But in one who is facing death sixteen consciousnesses arise with a single prenascent physical [heart] basis as their support, which has already reached presence. 26. The materiality that arose at the instant of the arising of the rebirth linking consciousness ceases along with the sixteenth consciousness after the rebirth-linking consciousness. That arisen at the instant of presence of the rebirth-linking consciousness ceases together with the instant of arising of the seventeenth. That arisen at the instant of its dissolution ceases on arriving at the instant of presence of the seventeenth. It goes on occurring thus for as long as the recurrence [of births] continues. Also seventy instances of materiality occur in the same way with the sevenfold continuity [beginning with the eye decad] of those apparitionally born." #86732 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jun 7, 2008 11:21 pm Subject: Daily Words of the Buddha: Genuine Happiness! bhikkhu0 Daily Words of the Buddha for 8 June 2008 The Blessed Buddha once said: Sukham yava jara silam, sukha saddha patitthita, sukho paññaya patilabho, papanam akaranam sukham. Happiness is a prior righteous life when old. Happiness is firmly established faith, unshakable by doubt. Happiness is the arising of Insight & Understanding. Happiness is the avoidance of all Evil Behaviour. Yeah! Dhammapada 333 Holy Happiness! The Daily Words of the Buddha is a service of Pariyatti. http://www.pariyatti.org Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #86733 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 12:43 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching kenhowardau Hi Herman, -------------- < . . .> H: > I wonder why you would call something a goal if it made no difference to you whether you achieved it or not? --------------- You will remember that the goals I mentioned were paramattha dhammas. When talking about a paramattha dhamma it makes no sense to talk about *my* goal or *my* paramattha dhamma. If that kind of goal belonged to anyone - or to any thing - it would have to be to another paramattha dhamma, wouldn't it? I think it might be fair to say that nibbana, for example, was the goal of panna. I suppose it is a personal choice, but I would never say I had nibbana, or parinibbana (etc) as my goal. I also prefer not to call myself a Buddhist. The idea of a conventionally real entity pursuing an ultimately real goal is nonsensical (IMHO). --------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > We should be happy to understand that lobha is a conditioned paramattha dhamma. > > H: > I would sincerely like to read your understanding of how "shoulding" can be free of wanting. --------------------------- You will remember that Howard had written: "What, for a worldling, do you think the "goal of being a better person" is? It is desire. And we should be darn happy about such a desire. It is the key to unlock the first of many doors leading to release." And I replied "We should be happy to understand that lobha is a conditioned paramattha dhamma" So, which way do you see it Herman? Will desire and the idea of 'doing something' (in order to obtain release) lead to release? Or should we be happy to understand that there are - right now - really only paramattha dhammas (and there is no 'being' that can be released or not released)? -------------- <. . .> H: > In times when I was affected by the black dog, I knew in my heart base (which is actually in my head :-)) that it was because life wasn't how I wanted it to be. Be very clear about this KenH, the Buddhist goal is cessation. If this is not what you want, you are asking for serious trouble in toying with it, seriously!! --------------- Thanks all the same, but, as I see it, the danger lies in wrong practice. There is absolutely no danger at all in simply listening to, considering, and discussing the Dhamma in a sane, sensible manner. ----------- H: > I hope earnestly for you that "things" resolve themselves, sooner rather than later. ----------- Thanks, Herman. In my case it is nothing serious. It is certainly not worthy of being called 'the black dog.' It's more a matter of self indulgence in someone who has too much spare time. 'The fat cat?' :-) Ken H #86734 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Abh jonoabb Hi Alex > There are MANY reasons why suttas are generally most likely to be > earlier. The language, the absence of philosophical schisms > (Katthavatthu did had to be authored After many schisms have happened > in order to rebute "heretical views"), the written structure, the > slight change of emphasis, etc. Yes, but these are still just arguments in favour of an opinion. Apart from the Katthavatthu, which is a special case (as has been explained here many times before), there are other reasons to explain each of the points raised: differences in language, perceived change in emphasis, etc. The best test of the authenticity of the Abhidhamma is its internal consistency and its consistency (or otherwise) with the Suttas and the Vinaya. If one adopts this approach, there is no need to take a position on question of authorship. > > But what I'm saying, and what you haven't addressed in your comments > > so far, is that there are explanations for such a difference other > > than the claim that the Abhidhamma is not the teaching of the > Buddha. > > > > Can you explain the cause of the difference? The point with the > differences is that IF the Buddha would have clearly and often said > certain things, then these differences would not arise. One explanation would be that the original Abhidhamma as given by the Buddha was changed by the various different schools to suit their particular views. > > Abhidhamma cannot be so interpreted, and would need to have been > > changed in order to suit the different schools. > > > > What? In CMA I encounter time from time "Ledi Saydaw says this, > another expert says that" etc. Yes, but it seems to me there is far less scope for different interpretations of the Abhidhamma than of the suttas. Just my opinion, of course. > The thing is that you are "appealing to tradition" a logical fallacy. > Sarvastivadans too attributed a part of their Abh books to direct > disciples of the Buddha (Ven. Sariputta, MahaMoggalana, Mahakotthita, > Mahakacana) and one Sarv Abh book (Jnanaprasthana) to Buddha himself. > > So which tradition, if any, to believe? It's not a matter of believing a tradition, nor of accepting the teachings without question, but of carefully checking each part of the texts against the rest of the texts for consistency. Jon #86735 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 1:06 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) jonoabb Hi Alex > > That's true. But in terms of its conditioned nature, the arahant's > > volition is no different from the non-arahant's volition, as far as I > > understand. > > > > Jon > > > > There is a big difference between conditioned and contingent condition. > > Just because Volition A requires XYZ, doesn't mean that A always and > invariably follows X Y Z . > > > Don't follow into "nothing can be done" ala Ajivika fatalism. The > future starts right NOW! It is time Jon! :) Thanks for the warning/encouragement, Alex! However, I'm not aware I've ever said (or suggested) "nothing can be done", and I don't see quite haw that arises from my post, which was just questioning whether there is any difference in the conditioned nature of the intention of the worldling and the arahant ;-)). To my understanding, the various conditions that apply to life in samsara apply equally to the worlding and the ariyan. Jon #86736 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 1:19 am Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? jonoabb Hi Tep Thanks for this. Could I suggest a slight change in the question to be discussed? I propose: What can be directly known by worldings? I'd be interested to hear your views on this question. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > > Dear friends Nina, Sarah and Jon, - > > Thank you very much for the questions and comments you have given me > in regard to the five controlling faculties (saddha, viriya, sati, > samadhi, pa~n~na). I have failed to convince you that these five > indriyas can be present only in the ariya puggalas. But please let me > try again for the last time before I quit. :-) ... #86737 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Metta, Ch 7, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Some people believe that when they see something special such as a red cow there is a mangala, that it brings them luck. Others believe that when they hear a special sound or words by which good wishes are conveyed to them, there is a mangala which is heard. Others again believe that when they touch particular things, such as a white dress or a white headgear, or when they apply white powder, there is a mangala by touch. Or when they smell a particular flower, or taste a special flavour they believe that there is a mangala through the senses of smell or taste. As we have read in the J?taka, there is no truth in such omens experienced through the senses, they are based on superstition. Mett? is a real mangala. Question: Can one extend mett? to devas (heavenly beings)? Khun Sujin: In respect to this, people should carefully consider which cause brings which effect. In which way do we extend mett? to devas? In the human plane mett? can be developed by d?na, by giving other people useful things, or by s?la, by abstaining from harming others, by abstaining from anger and malevolence. As regards developing mett? towards devas, the situation is different. Birth as a deva is produced by kusala kamma and the lifespan of devas is extremely long. Its length depends on the degree of kusala kamma which produced birth in that plane. Therefore we cannot extend mett? to devas by abstaining from killing them or by abstaining from other kinds of akusala kamma which could harm them. We can think with appreciation of their good deeds which conditioned birth as a deva, thus, there can be ?anumodana d?na?. Or when we do good deeds we can extend merit to the devas so that they can have anumodana d?na, kusala cittas with appreciation. These are ways of extending mett? to devas. ******* Nina. #86738 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 5:34 am Subject: Perfections Corner (177) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch.5 continues: If someone has viriya and makes an effort to examine himself he should be sincere and he should not spare himself. If he examines himself in this way and strives to give up akusala, he is a person who is "easy to speak to", susceptible to instruction. A person who is difficult to speak to is the opposite, he does not strive to give up akusala. All this pertains to viriya cetasika. We read in the "Saddhammapajjotikaa", the Commentary to the "Tuva.taka Sutta" (Speedy), in the Mahaa-Niddesa, Khuddaka Nikaaya, an explanation of the faculty, indriya, of viriya *2: "As to the word 'cetasiko', this is used in order to show that energy is always mental and that it is not bodily. There is only mental energy...." *2 See also the "Expositor" I, Part IV, Ch 2, 145. Viriya is naama dhamma (cetasika) which conditions the arising of effort through the body or through citta. Even when we make an effort with the body to do something, we should know that we can make such an effort because of viriya cetasika. The Commentary refers to the Sutta which deals with someone who makes an alley walk, who is walking up and down, so that he is not indolent or sleepy. From the outward appearance this seems to be bodily energy, but in reality it is because of mental energy, viriya cetasika, that effort through the body can arise. Expositor, Part IV, Ch 2, 145: In the exposition of the 'faculty of energy the word 'mental' is said to show that energy is always mental. 'Bhikkhus, that which is bodily energy is always energy as a factor of wisdom; that which is mental energy is is always energy as a factor of wisdom. Thus energy is outlined.' (Samyutta v.111) Thus, in such Suttas, even though this energy may be said to be bodily from its arising in one walking to and fro, etc., yet it is not so called as in the term 'body-consciousness'. Verily there is only mental energy. It is to show this that 'mental' has been said. By the term 'initial putting forth of energy' (viriyaarambho) the Blessed One rejects putting forth of other than energy. For the word aarambha (putting forth) comes with the different meanings of kamma, offence, work, energy, cruelty, destruction, etc. For instance:- < Whatever suffering comes to pass, aarambha is the cause thereof. And if aarambha takes an end, there is no happening of ill (Sutta-Nipaata, ver. 744): - here aarambha means [our] kamma. === to be continued, connie #86739 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for the reply: Me: "...the view would suggest that it is the biological imperatives that move the world. Would this be a correct paraphrase?" H: "Yes. That would also be a good paraphrase of what the Buddha says in MN121. 'And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.'" Scott: The view you present denies the efficacy of consciousness, if I'm reading it properly (please correct me if I'm being inaccurate about it). This whole sutta, however, refers to the fruition attainment of voidness (su~n~nataphala-samaapatti)and this is one of the four fruition attainments of arahantship. In note 458 of the Majjhiima Nikaya it states, citing the Commentaries: "MA also points out that the four deliverances are one in meaning because the terms - the immeasurable, nothingness, voidness, and signless, - are all names for Nibbaana, which is the object of the fruition attainment of arahatship." The su~n~nataphala-sammaapatti, as far as I understand, is one of the absorptions in which the ariya puggala reviews the attainment. As for the attainment itself, as far as I understand, the arahatta phala is a supramundane moment of consciousness with Nibbaana as object. It follows immediately upon the realising of the magga, also a moment of consciousness and one which is said to be deeply transformative. It is inconsistent, I believe, to want to make use of a sutta which discusses an absorptive review of a powerfully altering series of arising moments of consciousness, when the stated view explicitly suggests that 'mind' is a shadow, is epiphenomenal, and is ineffective. One can't eat one's cake and have it too. I'm rather curious, not that you need to indulge my curiosity with an explanation, as to how the epiphenomenalist view understands the whole process of attaining the Path. This is clearly shown to be a mental process. Sincerely, Scott. #86740 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya dhammanusarin Hi Jon, - >Jon: Right view being a momentary cetasika, it is not as highly developed or firmly established in the worldling as it is in the ariyan. The frequency of its arising, and the depth of it's penetration, will depend on the stage of its development. Furthermore, the worldling still has accumulated tendencies for wrong view, which will manifest at times (other than times when right view is arising). > I'm wondering if this is more in line with your understanding of the right view of the worldling? If not, perhaps you could say a little about your idea of what the right view of the worldling is. T: I am a plain-and-simple Buddhist, Jon. I do not have any sophisticated (and intellectual) thought about a "right view of the worldling" beyond the definition given by the Buddha in the suttas (such as MN 117) and about right and wrong views as explained by Arahant Sariputta in the Path of Discrimination, Treatise II. Tep === #86741 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:33 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] dukkha. was: What are the causes of 4 great elements nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 7-jun-2008, om 14:29 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Quote Nina: > We cannot know the second Truth if we > > do not firmly understand dukkha: the arising and falling away of > > visible object now is dukkha, the arising and falling away of all > > conditioned realities is dukkha. > > Lukas: hm I know dukkha as realy painful vedanas. > And I know that all things are dukkha , anicca and anatta. ------- N: The noble Truth of dukkha is not only painful feeling, it is the Truth that whatever arises has to fall away. Therefore, it is unsatisfactory. It cannot be any refuge. Dukkha is closely connected with impermanence. -------- > > L: But I used to looking for vedanas to see dukkha? > It's old habbit. What can I do with it? > Is it lobha which looking for unpleasant feelings? > Can lobha expirience unplesant object? ------- N: It does not help to look for vedana, to look for anything. Understanding is what matters. Understanding does not select any reality, does not prefer one reality to another one. --------- > L: I know that pannja arise naturaly ,and when it arise there is no > diffrence what it expiriences. If there is ruupa it is ruupa , when > there is vedana it is vedana , when sannja there is sannja. ------- N: Yes, you have understood this very well. Pa~n~naa can understand whatever reality arises. It can understand it as just dhamma, a conditioned dhamma that is not self. --------- > > L: But mostly there is no panja, and I am still in this blindness. > Is there vedana more important than other dhamma? ------- N: We have been ignorant already for ages, and thus ignorance cannot be eradicated soon. Ignorance is blindness, as you say. It conceals the truth. Because of ignorance we do not understand the Truth of dukkha. Vedana is not more important, it is just as insignificant as all condiitoned dhammas that arise and fall away. ------- > > L: It's very hard to put attention to visible object or what is > heard, it > is so abstract. ------- N: It is not abstract, there is visible object now, since there is seeing that sees it. There is sound now, and it appears because there is hearing. If there were no citta nothing could be experienced. But you can notice that there is experience of objects, and you can learn that it is not Lukas who experiences, but citta. Citta that is dukkha, since it arises and falls away. ------- > L: And I used to observe only this what is painful or > pleasant. But when is seeing there is no vedanas i can feel. ------- N: It seems that you observe only what is painful or pleasant, but when seeing arises seeing sees what is visible and at the same time no observing of anything else. And also: no you who observes. It is citta that thinks. But there is not thinking all the time, not at the moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, experiencing tangible object. Many different cittas, arising one at a time. When seeing there is still feeling, but it is indifferent feeling. This is not so obvious as pleasant or unpleasant feeling. -------- > > L: I have so many stres becouse of vedana. Doubts ------ N: Vedana is only a kind of nama, and it does not stay. No need for stress. We can learn to see it as not so important: a conditioned dhamma. Doubts we all have until one has become a sotaapanna, at enlightenment. Nina. #86742 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa. was:Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... dhammanusarin Dear Nina, - >N: I will not answer your post yet, but can you give an example please, that Buddhaghosa extended the teachings of the Buddha? T: An example was already given. In the message #86704 I wrote: > >Tep: Importantly, we should prefer 'pari~n~naa' as defined by the > > Buddha to Ven. Buddhaghosa's. > >According to the Blessed One, pari~n~naa means the cessation of > >lobha, dosa and moha. Tep === #86743 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 7:46 am Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Hi Jon (also Nina and other interested readers), - It is interesting to me the way you skilfully redirect/refocus/modify an on-going discussion to shed a different ray of light on a debatable/ambiguous/nebulous topic. >Jon: Could I suggest a slight change in the question to be discussed? I propose: What can be directly known by worldings? >I'd be interested to hear your views on this question. T: It is very easy to answer, Jon. :-) The worldlings do not directly know the "all". Direct knowledge is a special dhamma of an ariyan. Direct knowledge, however, can be developed by worldlings who are "consummate in virtue", those 'disciples of the noble ones". See, for example, Sekha Patipada Sutta (The Practice for One in Training) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html Also see the post in which I quoted the 'Path of Discrimination' about the 'all' (the 201 dhammas) that must be directly known by a virtuous monk prior to higher ~nana towards knowledge of exhaustion of cankers (asavakkhaya~nana). Directly knowing the all, 'suta-maya- nana', is the first ~nana of the 73 knowledges of the ariyans. The following knowledges(~nana) are suta-maya-nana: i. These ideas are to be directly known(abhi~n~neyyaa). ii. These ideas are to be fully understood(pari~n~neyyaa). iii. These ideas are to be abandoned (pahaa-tabbaa). iv. These ideas are to be developed (bhaave-tabbaa). v. These ideas are to be realized (sicchikaa-tabbaa). vi. These ideas have the character of diminution(haana-bhaagiyaa). vii. These ideas have the character of stagnation(thiti-bhaagiyaa). viii. These ideas have the character of distinction(visesa-bhaagiyaa). ix. These ideas have the character of penetration(cutting through defilements) (nibbeda-bhaagiyaa). x. All formations are impermanent (sabbe sankhaaraaaniccaa). xi. All formations are painful (sabbe sankhaaraadukkhaa). xii. All ideas are not self (sabbe dhammaa anattaa). xiii. This is the noble truth of suffering (dukkhaariya sacca). xiv. This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering (dukkha samudaya ariya sacca). xv. This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering (dukkha nirodha ariya sacca). xvi. This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha nirodha gaaminii patipadaa ariya sacca). The great Arahant Sariputta said that knowledge of the things (dhammas) that one had heard were 'suta-maya-nana' in the sense that some of them must be directly known, some must be fully understood, some must be abandoned, some must be developed, and some must be realized. The questions are: Which dhammas are to be directly known? Which ones are to be fully understood? Which ones are to be abandoned? And which ones are to be developed? The answers can be found in MN 149 Maha-salayatanika Sutta : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn149.html "He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, develops through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' should be the reply. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These are the qualities that are to be comprehended through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge? Ignorance & craving for becoming: these are the qualities that are to be abandoned through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge? Tranquillity & insight: these are the qualities that are to be developed through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge? Clear knowing & release: these are the qualities that are to be realized through direct knowledge. ............................................................... T: Notice that all of the ~nana are attained through direct knowledge! My questions to you are : Why are 'the five clinging-aggregates' to be directly known? Why are 'ignorance & craving for becoming' to be abandoned through direct knowledge? Why are 'tranquillity & insight' to be developed through direct knowledge? Why are 'clear knowing & release' to be realized through direct knowledge? ............................. T: After you have pondered over the above notes and questions, I have no doubt that you will agree that direct knowledge (that arises after sutamaya~nana) is way beyond a worldling. Sincerely yours, Tep === #86744 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > > That's true. But in terms of its conditioned nature, the arahant's > > > volition is no different from the non-arahant's volition, as far as I > > > understand. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > There is a big difference between conditioned and contingent condition. > > > > Just because Volition A requires XYZ, doesn't mean that A always and > > invariably follows X Y Z . > > > > > > Don't follow into "nothing can be done" ala Ajivika fatalism. The > > future starts right NOW! It is time Jon! :) > > Thanks for the warning/encouragement, Alex! However, I'm not aware > I've ever said (or suggested) "nothing can be done", and I don't see > quite haw that arises from my post, >>> Not from this particular post, but in general from various people here. >>>>>>>>> To my understanding, the various conditions that apply to life in samsara apply equally to the worlding and the ariyan. > > Jon > IMHO, things motivated by Avijja do not happen to an Ariyan (especially an Arahant). An ariyan is 'motivated' in a cardinally different way than an pujjhana. IMHO,. Best wishes, Alex #86745 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 8:41 am Subject: Can Worldlings Directly Know "X" ? - Alex: NO WAY truth_aerator Hi Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > Hi Jon (also Nina and other interested readers), - > T: After you have pondered over the above notes and questions, I have > no doubt that you will agree that direct knowledge (that arises after > sutamaya~nana) is way beyond a worldling. > > Sincerely yours, > Tep > === After Sutamaya or Cittamaya panna? You are right, someone who directly knows the All is sotapanna at least, at least! Check out MN#1. In fact a trainee (ariaya below Arahat) can temporary fall out of direct knowledge - so this isn't an unattainable goal beyond mere mortals. --------- The Trainee "A monk who is a trainee... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither- perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception- nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html ====================== The Arahant does NOT concieve but the worldling does as a default behaviour. A question: Does thinking about 89 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas, 24 conditional relations, Sabhava, and their interrelation is considered concieving (mannana?) If not, why not? Best wishes, Alex #86746 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 8:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Hi Herman, - You wrote: "As I wrote to Howard a minute ago, all sentient beings already know the all. It is therefore in the infatuation and aversion that beings differ. But I do not think that it is possible to be a sentient being without having some degree of infatuation or aversion. The conditions for sentience are life, and life is such that if it does not seek out what sustains it, or avoid what harms it, what is alive will be dead in minutes. Do you believe a being can exist without craving or aversion? Cheers" ......... Yes, I do. Anyone who believes in the Buddha's teachings (with Nibbana as the goal of the holy life) believes that "a being can exist without craving or aversion". Absence of craving, aversion and delusion is a state of mind. Tep === #86747 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Jon and Nina) - In a message dated 6/8/2008 10:46:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Jon (also Nina and other interested readers), - It is interesting to me the way you skilfully redirect/refocus/modify an on-going discussion to shed a different ray of light on a debatable/ambiguous/nebulous topic. >Jon: Could I suggest a slight change in the question to be discussed? I propose: What can be directly known by worldings? >I'd be interested to hear your views on this question. T: It is very easy to answer, Jon. :-) The worldlings do not directly know the "all". Direct knowledge is a special dhamma of an ariyan. ============================= I would say this very much depends on what is meant by 'knowing'. When sights are seen, sounds heard, odors smelled etc, that is direct knowing of them. It is not, however, understanding of them. They are typically misperceived and misunderstood in manifold ways. With metta, Howard #86748 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 9:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] nidive Hi Herman, > I am reminded of Bahiya, Pukkusati and a few others who were gored > to death by a cow shortly after becoming Ariyan. I can understand > how this happened, why would anyone bother getting out of the way > of a charging cow if they were free from all attachments, cravings > and wants? I think the arahants would try all possible means to get out of the way of a charging cow since they understand that the cow incurs a very huge negative kamma if it killed an arahant. > What I don't understand is how some arahants managed to survive > for decades without the intention to survive. Arahants don't have the "intention" to survive. Neither do they have the "intention" to die. Since they are already alive in the first place, why not let the natural course of dependent origination roll along? Do you expect them to starve themselves to death? What would outsiders think of the ariyan doctrine if every arahant starved themselves to death? Does it promote the cause of the Dhamma? > What I understand even less, and if you are able to help me please > do so, is why an arahant does anything at all. If one is free from > clinging and aversion, nothing is of any value whatsoever, and > whether an act is done or not done makes no difference. To be free > from suffering is to value nothing. To be free from suffering is to value the freedom from attachment, aversion and delusion. One who is free from attachment, aversion and delusion is an incomparable field of merit for the world. He does not kill living beings. He does not frighten or instil fear in anyone. He does not take what is not given. He does not deprive anything what others had earned through their hard work and sweat. He does not tell lies. He tells the truth and does not cause anguish to innocent people by telling an untruth. He does not engage in sexual abuse. He is compassionate and sympathetic to all beings. He is knowledgeable about the Way to the Deathless and teaches to others the Way to the Deathless in seasonal times. If to be free from suffering is to value nothing, then all those who committed suicide must be free from suffering, since by taking their own life, they obviously value nothing. But are all those who committed suicide free from attachment, aversion and delusion? > Perhaps Angulimala is a good example of someone who values nothing? I think not. Swee Boon #86749 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daily Words of the Buddha: Genuine Happiness! sarahprocter... Dear Ven Samahita, (James, Ven Pannabahulo, Han, Scott, Nina & all), --- On Sun, 8/6/08, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: >Happiness is a prior righteous life when old. Happiness is firmly established faith, unshakable by doubt. Happiness is the arising of Insight & Understanding. Happiness is the avoidance of all Evil Behaviour. Yeah! Dhammapada 333 ***** Sarah: Yes, I think this translation of 'happiness' for sukho in "sukho pa~n~naaya pa.tilaabho" is correct. Thank you for your recent quotes on the theme of happiness and understanding. It reminds me of the recent discussion I was having with James, which Ven Pannabahulo joined in, agreeing with James: ...... Ven P:> I would like to take up a point made by James in one of his recent > postings. This issue serves to illustrate, for me, the big divide that > exists between a theoretical understanding of the Lord Buddha's Dhamma > and the actual experience of an insight meditator.In response to a > claim made in a posting James states: > J:>> "....... No one is happy to hear that there is no self. People are >upset to hear that there is no self. The Buddha's followers and non- > followers were both upset and bothered to be told that there is no > self- so the Buddha had to wait at just the right time to present > that teaching. It is ridiculous to say that you felt happy upon > hearing that there is no self". > VenP:> James is absolutely correct here. ***** S: Ven Samahita, do you have any comments on this? To me these comments seem to have no basis at all in the Tipitaka. At the end of most the suttas, we read (either in the sutta or the commentary to it) how those who listened and understood the teachings, including multitudes of devas, rejoiced and were happy. I can think of few exceptions of listeners who received some benefit but who did not feel happy. For example, we read that those who listened to the Mulapariyaya Sutta didn't rejoice because of their great mana (conceit), but the Buddha knew it was still for their benefit as an essential condition for future understanding. Where else, I wonder were people upset? Usually, the ending is along the lines of the bhikkhus who listened to the Anattalakkhana Sutta, i.e. delighted and liberated, surely? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html >And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever... "Any perception whatsoever... "Any fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks ****delighted**** at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.< **** S: Also Ven Pannabahulo wrote (& quoted) the following (after my sign off). As far as I know, there is no textual support or accuracy for any of it. I think it merely points to the danger of taking negative meditation experiences and aversion for vipassana (insight) when there is not a correct and firm theoretical understanding in the first place. Panna (right understanding or insight), of any kind or level, however 'basic', can only ever be accompanied by pleasant or neutral feeling. Usually it would be with sukha vedana(happy feeling) and piti(joy). I wonder if you have any further reflections or quotes you'd like to share that may be helpful. Metta, Sarah Ven P:> Using the Wat Mahathat guide "The Pat to Nibbana" – because I have it > handy and practiced tis way for very many years – the guide lists the > specific conditions a meditator will experience. > Whilst abiding in Bhaya Nana (Knowledge of terror)among the list of > conditions are the following: > > "At first the meditator acknowledges objects but the acknowledgements > vanish together with the consciousness. > The disappearance of Nama and Rupa and the consequent becoming nothing > induces fear. > The meditator now realises that Nama and Rupa which were previously > considered good, are completely insubstantial. > There is no feeling of happiness, pleasure or enjoyment". > > The next stage of insight is Adinava Nana; this is the knowledge of > the disadvantages, or dangers,of Nama and Rupa. The main > characteristics being: > > "The meditator experiences negative, irritable feelings. > The meditator is aware of nothing but negativity caused by the > arising, continuing and passing away of Nama and Rupa.The meditator > becomes aware of Anicca,Dukkha ana Anatta". > > This is followed by Nibbida Nana (knowledge of contemplation on > dispassion). Again: > > "The meditator views all objects as tiresome and ugly. > The feeling of joy is absent and the meditator feels bored and sad as > though he has been separated from what he loves. > The practitioner may not have experienced boredom before but now he > really knows what boredom is. > The meditator may feel that everything is bad in every way and there > is nothing that can be enjoyed. > The meditator may not wish to speak to or meet anybody.He may prefer > to stay in his room. > The meditator may feel lonely, sad and apathetic." > > The realisation that there is, in essence, no self is so traumatic > that the reaction is bound to be one of great terror, loss and anger. > All that we know is suddenly ripped away and nothing is left to fall > back on. At no time whatsoever can this possibly be a "Happy" experience. ========= #86750 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:15 am Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know "X" ? - Alex: NO WAY dhammanusarin Dear Alex (Jon, Nina and others), - You asked two questions about ~nana(knowledge) and pa~n~na (understanding): > >T: After you have pondered over the above notes and questions, > > I have no doubt that you will agree that direct knowledge > >(that arises after sutamaya~nana) is way beyond a worldling. >Alex: After Sutamaya or Cittamaya panna? T: I think ~nana is not pa~n~na, as knowledge is not understanding. 'Knowledge' is a down-graded translation of ~nana that confuses some to think that ~nana is in the domain of worldings. >Alex: Does thinking about 89 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas, 24 conditional relations, Sabhava, and their interrelation is considered concieving (mannana?) If not, why not? T: Yes, conceiving that is, without a question, not direct knowing of these dhammas, is the 'root sequence' of all phenomena that tie beings to becoming. The following passages in MN 1 tell us why. "A monk who is a trainee â€" yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled â€" directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you. ... ... ... ... "He directly knows the All as the All. Directly knowing the All as the All , let him not conceive things about the All , let him not conceive things in the All , let him not conceive things coming out of the All , let him not conceive the All as 'mine,' let him not delight in the All . Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you." [MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta. The Root Sequence] .............................. So that he may comprehend it as explained in Pari~n~na Sutta [SN 22.23] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.023.than.html Tep === #86751 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:27 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Abh sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Thu, 5/6/08, Alex wrote: From: Alex >>J: I think there are many parts of the Sutta Pitaka that do not contain a statement to the effect that they were spoken by the Buddha. >>> A:>Most of them were either spoken by the Buddha, or his close disciples (like Ven. Sariputta) and/or approved by Him. ***** S: Alex, you also said in an earlier message that "suttas do say that they were spoken by Buddha or such and such direct disciple of the Buddha" and "these other suttas are very consistent with each other..." I personally find no more consistency between say, the Dhammapada and some suttas in the Digha Nikaya than between the Dhammasangani and the Katthavatthu. However, in all cases these are stylistic differences. The Tipitaka as a whole, as preserved by the Mahavihara Theras, all point to the same teachings of the Buddha. It is all Buddha vacana. From the Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammsangani), introductory discourse (as I've quoted before): >"But if the heretic should say, had Abhidhamma been taught by the Buddha, there would have been an introduction prefatory to it, just as in many thousands of the Suttas the preface generally runs as, 'One day the Blessed One was staying in Raajagaha,' etc., he should be contradicted thus: 'The Jaataka, Suttanipaata, Dhammapada, and so on, have no such introductions, and yet they were spoken by the Buddha.' Furthermore he should be told, 'O wise one, this Abhidhamma is the province of the Buddhas, not of others; the descent of the Buddhas, their birth, their attainment of perfect wisdom, their turning of the Wheel of the Law, their performance of the Twin Miracle, their visit to the devas, their teaching in the deva world...........Even so Abhidhamma is not the province of others; it is the province of the Buddhas only. Such a discourse as the Abhidhamma can be taught by them only;.....There is, O wise one, no need for an introduction to Abhidhamma.' When this is so stated, the heterodox opponent would be unable to adduce an illustration in support of his cause."< >>>>>> A:>Can you rebute (Linguistic, archeological, historical-critical , etc analysis ) it point by point? Deep explanations of doctrine, the scholastic treatiese that are aimed at precision and justification aren't well suited to memorization and have to be written down. In Buddha's time as far as I know there were almost NO books, and definately most people were illiterate. Do you know why the suttas repeat so much? It was done for memorization purposes.< **** S: Are you suggesting here that the Abhidhamma *doesn't* repeat a lot and wasn't memorized? If so, I think you'd better start studying the Abhidhamma texts themselves and checking your "linguistic, arechaeological, historical-critical, etc analysi". Ask Han what the bhikkhus in Burma memorize and recite even today! Just a few comments for you to consider. I'm intending to leave this thread now to you and Jon again:-) Metta, Sarah ======== #86752 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What are the causes of 4 great elements + space & consciousness 5-6th? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, I'd like to discuss this complicated topic of space with you in detail, but it'll have to be after I return to Hong Kong at the end of this month. Maybe a series? --- On Sun, 1/6/08, Alex wrote: But the Buddha has stated this "conventional" view -> ============ what is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.140. than.html .... S: Actually, there are two kinds of space: the pariccheda space element which separates all kalapas and the space you refer to above, as in the sky or a cave or a vacuum etc. I was going to write something once before and have it half written on my computer at home, so please remind me when I return and we can have fun with the thread then. I enjoy all your probing questions on realities and concepts. Forget the historical analysis issues, all the other strange things you read and stick to the nitty-gritty Dhamma - realities NOW! Metta, Sarah ===== #86753 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Ken H & Larry, Appreciating your valiant efforts with Vism XX, Just one point, I'm not sure if I'm just being dense, but I can't follow this: --- On Mon, 2/6/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Text: He should avoid the seven unsuitable things in the > way stated in the description of the Earth Kasina (Ch.IV.para55) and > cultivate the seven suitable things, ------- N: Here is a reference to eleven things leading to the energy enlightenment factor. I quote from the 'Way of Mindfulness" to avoid typing: **** S: I've read it a few times, but I can't see what the relevance of the ELEVEN things leading to the energy enlightenment factor are to the cultivation of the SEVEN suitable things referred to in the text. I don't have my copy of the Vism to check further. Presumably the seven suitable things refer to the opposite of the seven unsuitable things mentioned in regard to the development of samatha??? [Ken H, remember the nature of viriya is to be valiant and courageous with regard to kusala as you pursue the rest of the chapter:-) Then you'll be able to join me on the bench and let another of Larry's victims, I mean another happy volunteer, continue with ch XX1. Come to think of it, he'll probably have decided it's simpler to do the job himself:-)] Metta, Sarah ======== #86754 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:53 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the reply: S: "Transl and quotes from Daw Mya Tin's translation: "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner" Note: "Manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa: All mental phenomena have Mind as their forerunner in the sense that Mind is the most dominant, and it is the cause of the other three mental phenomena, namely, feeling (vedana), perception (sa~n~naa) and mental formations or mental concomitants (sa"nkhaara). These three have Mind or Consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) as their forerunner, because although they arise simultaneously with Mind they cannot arise if Mind does not arise (Commentary)." manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa manose.t.thaa manomayaa manasaa ce padu.t.thena S: "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made" Note: "Manasaa ce padu.t.thena (verse 1) and manasaa ce pasannena (verse 2): Manasaa here means intention or volition (cetanaa); volition leads one to the performance of volitional actions, both good and evil. This volition and the resultant actions constitute kamma; and kamma always follows one to produce results. Cakkupala's blindness (verse 1) was the consequence of his having acted with an evil intention in a previous existence and Matthakundali's happy existence in Tavatimsa celestial world (v.2) was the result of his mental devotion (manopasaada) to the Buddha." Scott: This clarifies what I had been moving towards in recent discussions. Citta is the chief and the mental factors arise conascently and cannot arise separately. I'd be interested to consider the two ruupas: kaaya-vi~n~natti and vaci-vi~n~natti in this context. These are produced by the conascent cetanaa, are they not? These are ruupa and not naama therefore, acts of the body or speech cannot be confused with kamma. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. #86755 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammanusarin Hi Herman (and Swee), - Thanks to Swee for his excellent reply to your questions. > Herman: > I am reminded of Bahiya, Pukkusati and a few others who were gored to death by a cow shortly after becoming Ariyan. I can understand how this happened, why would anyone bother getting out of the way of a charging cow if they were free from all attachments, cravings and wants? What I don't understand is how some arahants managed to survive for decades without the intention to survive. What I understand even less, and if you are able to help me please do so, is why an arahant does anything at all. If one is free from clinging and aversion, nothing is of any value whatsoever, and whether an act is done or not done makes no difference. To be free from suffering is to value nothing. Perhaps Angulimala is a good example of someone who values nothing? > .............. T: Possibly, it was an accident in each case. There must be many mad cows roaming around those days. Since no indian ate beef and when their cows had the "mad cow disease", there was no animal doctor to cure them either. Since a living arahant still has the five aggregates as we do, s/he also has volitional formations to do things. The difference is that an arahant's cetana and kamma are free from akusala because there are no lobha, dosa and moha remaining. The Buddha taught and helped numerous humans and devas to attain Nibbana. The great arahant Moggala and Sariputta helped monks to succeed in living the Holy life under Buddha's Dhamma. Their metta & karuna acts were done to make a big difference in other beings. That shows me that they did not value nothing. Tep === #86756 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Herman, (Scott & all), --- On Sat, 7/6/08, Herman Hofman wrote: H:>To a sentient being sound happens all the time, as do sights, as do bodily feelings etc. All these things happens altogether, all at once. .... S: To avijja (ignorance). ... H:>It is only when selective / differential attention comes into play that there are moments, moments one at a time, moments of listening (quite different to hearing, intention comes into play here), moments of looking (quite different to seeing, intention comes into play here) etc etc. ... S: If it's not seeing, hearing or sense-experiencing, then it's thinking. There is attention (manasikara) and intention (cetana) arising with every citta. ... >>S: To answer the question, in the consciousness of sound, there is the experiencing of sound, >the 'knowing' of sound. Sound itself doesn't experience or know anything at all. It doesn't >have any 'interest' in itself. It's just the reality which arises and falls away and may or may >not be experienced, as I'm glad to see Howard indicates. ... H:>I believe that you are talking about listening here, not hearing. It is only in listening that there is sound as well as the consciousness of sound, and the knowledge that they are not the same. ... S: Citta clearly knows or experiences its object. This is true of seeing, hearing or any other citta. Vinnana means 'clear knowing'. If it didn't clearly know its object, sanna wouldn't be able to mark the object and there couldn't be thinking about it afterwards. However, citta doesn't understand anything. It is panna that understands rupas and namas (one at a time) and understands the distinction. ... >>S: So now, there really are just moments of seeing, hearing and thinking. > .... H:>When I am asleep or otherwise inattentive, seeing, hearing and thinking (dreaming) all happen all at once, all the time. ... S: This is not true. It is because of ignorance and wrong view that this seems to be the case. ... H:> There is no moment in a state of inattention or unmindfulness. ... S: Really? .... H:>But when there is attention or mindfulness, there are moments of listening to sounds, and in that mode there is consciousness of hearing and consciousness of the object and consciousness of the difference between the two. The same for sight and every other sense modality. ... S: This is conventional attention and thinking. It's not sati (awareness) of just the reality which is appearing. As soon as there is attending or listening to the sound, it is not awareness of just the audible object which is heard and then gone. Trying to attend or be aware will never lead to the development of awareness or understanding. .... H:>Thanks for pursuing the matter in good faith, Sarah. And of course you realise that if you accept that listening, looking etc all rely on self-consciousness I will be asking some more questions :-) ... S: Self-consciousness makes no sense to me, sounds too atta-ish for a start. Perhaps Scott can help sort it out with you as I'm close to signing off for a while and I see you too are sorting out all sorts of other skeletons:-) ... H:>Questions like, why would the Buddha encourage us to be self-conscious (mindful) if he teaches not-self? ... S: Phew! I didn't accept the above, so I'm out of this one:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #86757 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:16 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Abh & Sabhava truth_aerator Hi Sarah and Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, I personally find no more consistency between say, the Dhammapada and some suttas in the Digha Nikaya than between the Dhammasangani and the Katthavatthu. S: Are you suggesting here that the Abhidhamma *doesn't* repeat a lot and wasn't memorized? If so, >>>> Good point. The only thing is that inconsistencies found in the suttas can be explained in that their outer form was geared toward different people. The doctrinal inconsistencies on the other hand not. ------ Interesting thing: In a pali program I was checking the usage of "sabhava" and its declensions. It was mentioned VERY few times in KN (16?!). None in canonical Abh ?! In Patis case it is sabhava sunna - (empty of own nature) references. So the good news is that in this regard canonical Abh doesn't contradict the suttas - but post canonical literature does and does it badly. >>>>> From the Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammsangani), introductory discourse (as I've quoted before): "But if the heretic should say, had Abhidhamma been taught by the Buddha, there would have been an introduction prefatory to it, just as in many thousands of the Suttas the preface generally runs as, 'One day the Blessed One was staying in Raajagaha,' etc., he should be contradicted thus: 'The Jaataka, Suttanipaata, Dhammapada, and so on, have no such introductions, and yet they were spoken by the Buddha.' >>> Answer: The Buddha is mentioned as saying such and such in those books. As I understand it, Dhp and Sn are found in suttas of other schools (Agamas). >>>> Furthermore he should be told, 'O wise one, this Abhidhamma is the province of the Buddhas, not of others; the descent of the Buddhas, their birth, their attainment of perfect wisdom, their turning of the Wheel of the Law, their performance of the Twin Miracle, their visit to the devas, their teaching in the deva world...........Even so Abhidhamma is not the province of others; it is the province of the Buddhas only.> Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > A) Which Abhidhamma? B) I am kinda sceptical of what is found in AA since in no way can it or Milindahpanha book be claimed to be literally the word of the Buddha. Best wishes, Alex #86758 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Dear Sarah, I know the confusion. The text had a reference to Vis. IV, 55, and this was to the eleven things relating to the energy enlightenment. But, in para 54 there are seven things relating to the enlightenment factor of investigation of dhamma, dhamma vicaya. It begins with asking questions. Nina. Op 8-jun-2008, om 19:51 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > On Mon, 2/6/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Text: He should avoid the seven unsuitable things in the > > way stated in the description of the Earth Kasina (Ch.IV.para55) and > > cultivate the seven suitable things, > ------- > N: Here is a reference to eleven things leading to the energy > enlightenment factor. I quote from the 'Way of Mindfulness" to avoid > typing: factor of energy: <....> > **** > S: I've read it a few times, but I can't see what the relevance of > the ELEVEN things leading to the energy enlightenment factor are to > the cultivation of the SEVEN suitable things referred to in the text. #86759 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daily Words of the Buddha: Genuine Happiness! m_nease Bhante, > Ven P:> I would like to take up a point made by James in one of his recent >> postings. This issue serves to illustrate, for me, the big divide that >> exists between a theoretical understanding of the Lord Buddha's Dhamma >> and the actual experience of an insight meditator.In response to a >> claim made in a posting James states: >> > J:>> "....... No one is happy to hear that there is no self. People are > >upset to hear that there is no self. The Buddha's followers and non- >> followers were both upset and bothered to be told that there is no >> self- so the Buddha had to wait at just the right time to present >> that teaching. It is ridiculous to say that you felt happy upon >> hearing that there is no self". >> > VenP:> James is absolutely correct here. No moment of understanding can be accompanied by 'bother' or 'upset' in any form, as I understand it. If this is true then if follows, I think, that any occurrence of bother or upset with regard to anatta--either the reality or the concept--is is clearly a moment of delusion, not insight. Personally I've always found the idea of anatta very attractive and pleasant. This is very likely to be another kind of delusion, since attachment with pleasant feeling can be so easily mistaken for understanding, detachment etc. But when any kind of aversion is present there is no understanding or insight at that moment (though of course understanding can penetrate any moment of aversion retrospectively). Respectfully, mike #86760 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sarahprocter... Hi Phil, This is my last post before I sign off for a while (but who knows, like you, I may pop back in tomorrow, by conditions??). Before I forget, on the recordings we're editing at the moment and which will be available on-line next, there's a part when I pursue your dissatisfaction with KS's answer which you heard before with regard to past transgressions and the famous quote 'it's gone!'. When I question the point further (on your behalf), a couple of interesting comments are made. (You'll be able to listen yourself to it in full soon, as I said). These are just my abbreviated notes: 1) What about the slight akusala (unwholesomeness) now? Didn't the Buddha teach us to understand even the most subtle kilesa (defilements)? Isn't it this slight akusala which grows and becomes the gross akusala? Hence the urgency of being aware of kilesa even now. 2) With regard to Rahula and the reflecting before, during and after, it refers of course to reflecting with understanding. Not just thinking about what happened with sorrow and tears, but reflecting wisely so that such transgressions don't occur again. *** Now, a few last comments on these comments of yours: --- On Tue, 3/6/08, Phil wrote: From: Phil Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Hi Howard (Jon, Swee, Han), - Thank you for joining Jon and me. > >Jon: Could I suggest a slight change in the question to > be discussed? I propose: What can be directly known by worldings? > >I'd be interested to hear your views on this question. > > T: It is very easy to answer, Jon. :-) > > The worldlings do not directly know the "all". Direct knowledge is a special dhamma of an ariyan. > ============================= Howard: > I would say this very much depends on what is meant by 'knowing'. When sights are seen, sounds heard, odors smelled etc, that is direct knowing of them. It is not, however, understanding of them. They are typically misperceived and misunderstood in manifold ways. > > .............. T: When sights are seen, sounds heard, odors smelled etc, that is just sensing them, not direct knowing of them. Directly knowing is from the Pali 'abhijaanana' which means knowing the truths about them with the dhamma eye. There are no lobha, dosa, moha at that moment. Directly knowing is one aspect of penetration of the four acutalities (truths, sacca) as stated in the Patism, XII, 17. "In how many aspects is there single penetration of the four actualities? There is single penetration of the four actualities in twelve aspects: in the sense of suchness, in the sense of not self, in the sense of actuality, in the sense of penetration, in the sense of direct knowing, in the sense of fully understanding(pari~n~na), in the sense of idea(dhamma), in the sense of principle(dhaatu); in the sense of what-is-known, in the sense of realization, in the sense of sounding(phassana), in the sense of convergence. The four actualities in these twelve aspects are included as one. What is included as one is unity. Unity is penetrated by a single knowledge. Thus the four actualities have a single penetration." All these 12 aspects are only found in the ariya savakka's domain of Path knowledge. Tep === #86762 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:54 am Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya jonoabb Hi Tep > T: I am a plain-and-simple Buddhist, Jon. I do not have any > sophisticated (and intellectual) thought about a "right view of the > worldling" beyond the definition given by the Buddha in the suttas > (such as MN 117) and about right and wrong views as explained by > Arahant Sariputta in the Path of Discrimination, Treatise II. I agree it's better to keep things simple and to not be too intellectual (although it is of course necessary to consider and analyse the texts, as you do). I agree that the right view of the worldling is as described by the Buddha in MN 117, so perhaps our differences here are largely ones of terminology, especially as regards the terms "direct knowledge" and "knowledge of things as they really are". What do you think? Jon #86763 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 12:00 pm Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? jonoabb Hi Tep > The worldlings do not directly know the "all". Direct knowledge is a > special dhamma of an ariyan. > > Direct knowledge, however, can be developed by worldlings who > are "consummate in virtue", those 'disciples of the noble ones". See, > for example, Sekha Patipada Sutta (The Practice for One in Training) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html Thanks for setting this out. Could I persuade you to elaborate a little further? Insofar as direct knowledge can be developed by worldings who are "consummate in virtue", would it be correct to say that that direct knowledge is direct knowledge of some part of "the all"? > My questions to you are : Thanks for the passages from Path of Discrimination and MN 149 (snipped). I'll try answering your questions (keeping it simple and not too intellectual, I hope ;-)) > Why are 'the five clinging-aggregates' to be directly known? The five clinging aggregates encompass all dhammas that can be the object of awareness and insight of the non-ariyan. > Why are 'ignorance & craving for becoming' to be abandoned > through direct knowledge? Ignorance and craving for becoming are to be abandoned because they are akusala tendencies that condition rebirth > Why are 'tranquillity & insight' to be developed through direct > knowledge? Tranquillity and insight are to be developed because they are kusala qualities and, in the case of insight, its development leads to the breaking of the chain of re-becoming. > Why are 'clear knowing & release' to be realized through direct > knowledge? The realization of clear knowing and release is a reference to the attaining of enlightenment. How did I go ? (please don't be too tough in grading my replies ;-)) Jon #86764 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 12:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) jonoabb Hi Alex > IMHO, things motivated by Avijja do not happen to an Ariyan > (especially an Arahant). An ariyan is 'motivated' in a cardinally > different way than an pujjhana. Well, only the arahant has fully eradicated avijja, so lesser ariyans can still have moha-rooted consciousness. Indeed, for the sotapanna, consciousness rooted in lobha, dosa or moha may still arise. But even in the case of the arahant, for whom none of the 3 akusala roots will arise, the conditioned nature of the citta and cetasikas remains as before. I think I've said all I want to on this, so last say to you (unless you'd like to continue the discussion further). Nice talking to you, Alex. Jon #86765 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: Panna As Indriya dhammanusarin Dear Jon, - I appreciate the timely reply during a weekend like this! > > > T: I am a plain-and-simple Buddhist, Jon. I do not have any > > sophisticated (and intellectual) thought about a "right view of > >the worldling" beyond the definition given by the Buddha in the > >suttas (such as MN 117) and about right and wrong views as > >explained by Arahant Sariputta in the Path of Discrimination, > > Treatise II. > > I agree it's better to keep things simple and to not be too > intellectual (although it is of course necessary to consider and > analyse the texts, as you do). > > I agree that the right view of the worldling is as described by the > Buddha in MN 117, so perhaps our differences here are largely ones of > terminology, especially as regards the terms "direct knowledge" and > "knowledge of things as they really are". What do you think? > > Jon > T: I have also observed that one large factor which contributes to misunderstanding of the Teachings has been caused by terminology. And I know that you too know that I have been most careful to avoid the tempation to use only English words to interpret and measure the depth of the Buddha's Teachings. But some others seem to be less concerned. Another huge factor that contributes to differences and, at times, arguments among the members (here and elsewhere) is the individuals' tendency to disbelieve each other (due to suspicious mind? Conceit?), unless they are in the same "camp" or same "gang". ;-)) These two "problems" are difficult to solve and will remain so as long as there are preferences and doubts. Tep === #86766 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? dhammanusarin Hi Jon (and all), - It is fun discussing the Dhamma with you today. >Jon: Could I persuade you to elaborate a little further? Insofar as direct knowledge can be developed by worldings who are "consummate in virtue", would it be correct to say that that direct knowledge is direct knowledge of some part of "the all"? T: The moment direct knowledge that penetrates the four noble truths (and cuts off the three lower fetters) arises there is no longer a worldling. Direct knowledge of the all (in full) is in the arahant. That is my 2-cent understanding of direct knowledge, Jon. Th Nagara Sutta (SN 12.65) makes it extremely clear to me that direct knowledge arises after vision, clear knowing, discernment, knowledge (~nana) and illumination that are supported by contemplation of the Dependent Origination. This direct knowledge is on the lokuttara Path. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html Direct knowledge of mental release(vimutti) in an arahant is mentioned in AN 10.1 (translated by our good Bh. Samihita): "Ananda once asked the Buddha: What, Venerable Sir, is the rewarding advantage of morality? Freedom from regret, Ananda. And what is the advantage of freedom from regret? Joy that produces bliss, Ananda. Bliss then generates happiness. Happiness enables concentration. Concentration facilitates vision and knowledge. Vision and knowledge brings disillusion & detachment Disillusion & detachment induces direct knowledge of Certain & Complete Mental Release, Ananda." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/index.html [ AN 10.1] T: Thank you very much for answering the four questions. Now let me give my answers too. > Why are 'the five clinging-aggregates' to be directly known? Jon: The five clinging aggregates encompass all dhammas that can be the object of awareness and insight of the non-ariyan. T: Because the five clinging aggregates are dukkha sacca, the 1st noble truth. > Why are 'ignorance & craving for becoming' to be abandoned > through direct knowledge? Jon: Ignorance and craving for becoming are to be abandoned because they are akusala tendencies that condition rebirth. T: Because avijja and tanha are the dukha samuddaya, the 2nd noble truth. > Why are 'tranquillity & insight' to be developed through direct knowledge? Jon: Tranquillity and insight are to be developed because they are kusala qualities and, in the case of insight, its development leads to the breaking of the chain of re-becoming. T: Because tranquillity & insight are the path leading to extinction of dukkha, the 4th noble truth. > Why are 'clear knowing & release' to be realized through direct knowledge? Jon: The realization of clear knowing and release is a reference to the attaining of enlightenment. T: Because vijja & vimutti are for the realization of Nibbana (cessation of dukkha), the 3rd noble truth. ..................... >Jon: How did I go ? (please don't be too tough in grading my replies ;-)) T: You did very well with respect to the 3rd and 4th questions. Our answers to the 1st and 2nd questions differ because you are taught by Khun Sujin and I am taught by the Suttas. Tep === #86767 From: "colette" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 7:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching ksheri3 Good Morning Howard, I couldn't help but HEAR the music by Pink Floyd from the "Animals" CD as I pondered your reply: "Meek and obedient you follow your leaders down well troden corridors in-to the valley of steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel" Naturally I laughed when I saw a few friend that teach the black belt services of Gung Fu from their Michigan abode or is that adobe? toodles, colette > not being fiction. > > > ================================ > Thanks for writing. Of what you quoted, the part that I wrote is the > last, namely "The matter of whether there is sound in an external world as > opposed to the stage of mind wasn't the matter I was addressing. I was > addressing the reality of the operation of knowing as distinct from the known. The > difference between unheard sound, whether in an "external world" or not, and a > heard sound is the presence of hearing (i.e., auditory consciousness). So I > was pointing to the activity of hearing, a type of consciousness, as not > being fiction." .... #86768 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/7 Alex : > > This all should humble one. Ultimately one can't be certain of any > position, as no ontological position on the "real nature of the real" > is ultimately provable. We should keep out views in check. > Furthermore, ultimately one has no reason to hold this or that > ontological position as "The One without a second"... > > When one meditates, one has a direct experience. The direct > experience is far more informative and closer to the truth than book > knowledge. The difference is like between reading the menu and eating > the food. No comparison. Those who think that just by reading one can > come close to how the dish feels, forget about it! Ain't gonna happen! > > Book philosophy may very well be just a play with words... > > But direct experience is direct experience (and even though it itself > isn't totally provable) it is still much better than > indirect 'knowledge'. > An oft repeated favourite of mine: Sn4:5 When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative. Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. One who isn't inclined toward either side — becoming or not-, here or beyond — who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? — this brahman who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines. A brahman not led by precepts or practices, gone to the beyond — Such — doesn't fall back. Cheers Herman #86769 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Language, philosophy, arguments, DO WE REALLY KNOW ANYTHING? egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/8 Alex : > Hi Howard, > > > Do you agree that language, at best, only points to some"thing", and > that words are conceptual? > > So when disputes happen, it is possible that it is due to > misunderstanding the range, and the meaning of the words used. > > Many philosophical paradoxes are simply play with words & concepts. > > Ex: How many rocks does it take to form a pile of rocks? > > or > > Lets say a pile has 100 rocks and a person removes one rock at a > time. Exactly when will the pile will not be a pile? Inserting a 3rd > fuzzy variable will NOT solve the paradox (as the same question will > apply). This paradox is but mental and conceptual papanca. > The same applies in the reverse direction "When is a dhamma a paramattha dhamma?" LOLOL Cheers Herman #86770 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 6:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/6/8 jonoabb : > Hi Herman > >> So if I understand you correctly kamma refers only to the fact that >> the conditioned arising of intention in the past may be followed by >> other conditioned arisings in the future? > > My understanding of kamma is that it refers to the intention > accompanying kusala and akusala consciousness, and that this intention > conditions the later arising of certain types of consciousness such as > the experiencing of objects through the sense-doors (called 'vipaka' > consciousness); and furthermore that all such vipaka consciousness is > conditioned by prior intention (kamma). > > Hope this is to the point (please let me know if not). > Yes this was very clear and precise and to the point. Thanks. Cheers Herman #86771 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 7:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/6 : > > > > ================================ > I've read in more than one place that 'mind' means intention in those > verses. It makes good sense to me that it either means that, or more generally, > "mental state," "mode of thinking," or "attitude." In Dhammapada III the > meaning of 'mind' is clearly either that of the conventional "mental state" or > of the entire aggregate of mental functions. (In the article at > _http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html_ > (http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html) , the author states that these verses are a simple > statement of kamma and vipaka, writing "Verses (1) and (2) illustrate the > immutable law of Kamma, under which every deed, good or bad, comes back to the > doer. Here, the Buddha emphasizes the importance of mind in all our actions > and speaks of the inevitable consequences of our deeds, words and thoughts." I realise that you were quoting someone else here, but presumably you did so because you agreed with what was said. If the law of Kamma is as immutable and inevitable as in the above, that every action and intention must have a result, what possibility is there for cessation? Cheers Herman #86772 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Sarah and Nina, Nina: "The text had a reference to Vis. IV, 55," Larry: Actually the text has the 7 suitable and unsuitable things at Vis, IV, _34_. They are: abode, resort, speech, person, food, climate, and posture. "55" is a typo or misreading. Larry #86773 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/8 Scott Duncan : > Dear Herman, > > Thanks for the reply: > > Me: "...the view would suggest that it is the biological imperatives > that move the world. Would this be a correct paraphrase?" > > H: "Yes. That would also be a good paraphrase of what the Buddha says > in MN121. 'And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with > the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its > condition.'" > > Scott: The view you present denies the efficacy of consciousness, if > I'm reading it properly (please correct me if I'm being inaccurate > about it). Yes, consciousness is an effect, not a cause. By the by, would I be correct if I credit you with the complete opposite view, that only consciousness is effective? This whole sutta, however, refers to the fruition > attainment of voidness (su~n~nataphala-samaapatti)and this is one of > the four fruition attainments of arahantship. In note 458 of the > Majjhiima Nikaya it states, citing the Commentaries: We didn't get very far in our discussion on two little Dhammapada verses, and as I noted there, the same is happening here. You tend to overlay what is there with what is not there. It just so happens that is precisely the theme of this very sutta, which is: what is there is empty of what is not there. I would very much like to discuss this sutta with you, and I am quite happy for you to overlay this sutta with every imaginable view you care to import, as long as you are happy for me to point that out whenever you do it. > > It is inconsistent, I believe, to want to make use of a sutta which > discusses an absorptive review of a powerfully altering series of > arising moments of consciousness, when the stated view explicitly > suggests that 'mind' is a shadow, is epiphenomenal, and is > ineffective. One can't eat one's cake and have it too. > I agree one can't eat one's cake and have it too. That's why I asked you to confirm or deny whether your view is that only consciousness is effective. Because the conclusion seems clear cut that consciousness is a fabrication that arises in dependence on living bodies in the context of society. > I'm rather curious, not that you need to indulge my curiosity with an > explanation, as to how the epiphenomenalist view understands the whole > process of attaining the Path. This is clearly shown to be a mental > process. Well, how about we start with the conditions for the Path experience to take place, as described in this sutta? Is the setting of this sutta relevant, do you think? Do you agree that the setting for the experience is a complete absence of people and their society? And is that absence mental in nature? Cheers Herman #86774 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:20 pm Subject: Views re self & the world DN29 antony272b2 Sarah, Howard and Group, I opened my Digha Nikaya on a random page and found the following: "There are ascetics and Brahmins who say and believe: "The self and the world are eternal. This is true and any other view is erroneous." "The self and the world are not eternal..." "The self and the world are both eternal and not eternal..." "The self and the world are neither eternal nor not eternal..." "The self and the world are self-created..." "They are created by another..." "They are both self-created and created by another..." "The are neither self-created nor created by another, but have arisen by chance." And similarly with regard to pleasure and pain." ~ Digha Nikaya 29.34 Pasadika Sutta: The Delightful Discourse Translated from the Pali by Maurice Walshe Antony: This will help with grandiose and persecutory delusions after watching the TV news. With metta / Antony. #86775 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 12:05 am Subject: Let it go... bhikkhu0 Friends: Contemplating the inevitable Transience penetrates false perception of permanence: Buddha once said: AniccÄ?nupassanam bhÄ?vento niccasaññam pajahati... When developing the contemplation of Impermanence ( Anicca ), one gradually overcomes the false perception of permanence... The anytime, everywhere, & for everybody directly observable facts are: All states will pass... All things will vanish... All formations are unstable... All mountains crumble into nothing... All memories are lost like tears in rain... Nothing remains static without change... All buildings & homes collapse into dust... All phenomena are of a nature to breakup... All moments momentarily cease never to return... All Universes implodes into pointless singularity... All phenomena are momentary & thus temporary... All bodies grow old, decrepit, fall & finally rotten... All worldly happiness & pleasure changes & are lost... All beings grow old, sick, ugly, dement, smelling & die... All forms of form will decay, deteriorate & fall apart... All constructions - physical as mental - arises & ceases... There is no lasting permanence anywhere except NibbÄ?na... More on this universal impermanence, inconstancy, and inevitable Transience (Anicca): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Impermanence_Anicca.htm Anicca (Impermanence) According to Theravada Buddhism (Bhikkhu Ñanamoli) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/anicca.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Transient_formations.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Internal_Transience.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_External_Transience.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Perceiving_Transience.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Impermanence.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Universal_Transience.htm All things break apart! Nothing is thus worth clinging to... Let it go! It was never really yours anyway... Have a nice relinguishing day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) http://What-Buddha-Said.net #86776 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 12:25 am Subject: Re: Views re self & the world DN29 antony272b2 Sarah, Howard and Group, Sorry, the context was this thread after the Pakistan Earthquake: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/51579 with metta / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Antony Woods" wrote: > > Sarah, Howard and Group, > > I opened my Digha Nikaya on a random page and found the following: > > "There are ascetics and Brahmins > who say and believe: > "The self and the world are eternal. > This is true and any other view is erroneous." > "The self and the world are not eternal..." > "The self and the world are both eternal and not eternal..." > "The self and the world are neither eternal nor not eternal..." > "The self and the world are self-created..." > "They are created by another..." > "They are both self-created and created by another..." > "The are neither self-created nor created by another, > but have arisen by chance." > And similarly with regard to pleasure and pain." > ~ Digha Nikaya 29.34 Pasadika Sutta: The Delightful Discourse > Translated from the Pali by Maurice Walshe > > Antony: This will help with grandiose and persecutory delusions after > watching the TV news. > > With metta / Antony. > #86777 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 12:55 am Subject: Re: Views re self & the world DN29 antony272b2 Sarah, Howard and Group, Just another quick post to say that I take full responsibility for my wrong views after the Pakistan Earthquake. I posted the DN29 quote because it helped me and I wanted to share. Thanks for listening / Antony. #86778 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 1:05 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry, Op 9-jun-2008, om 5:10 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina: "The text had a reference to Vis. IV, 55," > > Larry: Actually the text has the 7 suitable and unsuitable things at > Vis, IV, _34_. They are: abode, resort, speech, person, food, climate, > and posture. > > "55" is a typo or misreading. --------- N: Vis. IV, 34 does not make much sense as to sharping the faculties, it is about guarding the sign of the meditation subject of Samatha. What makes sense to me is IV, 54: I.asking questions, II making the basis clean, III balancing the faculties, IV, avoidance of persons without understanding, V cultivation of persons with understanding, VI reviewing the field for the exercise of profound knowledge, VII, resoluteness upon that [investigation of states]. No I is very important: listening, asking questions, discussing. The faculties are balanced through pa~n~naa, there is no person who has to think of balancing. Resoluteness: being firmly determined to develop understanding of all dhammas that appear, be they nama or rupa. No selection. Nina. #86779 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 1:23 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 268, 269, and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 268, 269. [How Clinging is a Condition for Becoming] Intro: in the following sections it is explained by way of which kinds of conditions clinging conditions becoming, and here again becoming refers to kamma process becoming, and rebirth process becoming. It is explained that clinging conditions becoming by way of decisive support-condition, and in that case clinging is not conascent with the kamma that is performed, or by way of conascent- condition and in that case clinging accompanies akusala kamma. In the context of conascent-condition, the other types of conditions which are conascent are mentioned, such as mutuality, association, etc. . -------------- Text Vis. 268: But which is condition for which kind of becoming in what way here? Now clinging as condition for becoming, Both fine-material and immaterial, Is decisive-support; and then conascence And so on for the sense-desire kind. ------------- Text Vis. 269: This clinging, though fourfold, is a condition in only one way as decisive-support condition 'for becoming both fine- material and immaterial', [that is,] for the profitable kamma in the kamma-process becoming that takes place in sense-desire becoming and for the rebirth-process becoming. -------- N: Kusala kamma, including ruupajhaana kusala citta and aruupajhaana kusala citta is not accompanied by clinging, but clinging can be a natural decisive support-condition for these kinds of kusala kamma and for the rebirth-process becoming which are the results of these kammas. ---------- Text Vis.: It is a condition, 'as conascence and so on', that is, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, presence, non- disappearance, and root-cause conditions, for the unprofitable kamma- process becoming associated with [the fourfold clinging] itself in the sense-desire becoming. ------- N: The conditions mentioned above concern conditioning dhammas that arise together with the conditioned dhammas. Thus, these refer to clinging that accompanies akusala kamma. Root-cause, hetu-paccaya is mentioned, because lobha and moha are their roots. All four kinds of clinging, upaadana, have lobha and moha as root. The Tiika mentions that di.t.thupaadaana and so on are magga-paccaya, path-condition, for the akusala kamma it accompanies. Path-condition, magga-paccaya, includes as conditioning factors, the factors of the right path as well as the factors of the wrong path. Micchaadi.t.thi, wrong view, is a factor of the wrong path, and as such it is in this case path-condition. As we have seen, of the four kinds of clinging, one is sense-desire clinging and the other three are clinging to forms of wrong view: to wrong view, to wrong practice and to self doctrine. Clinging to wrong view includes eternalism, annihilation view, denial of kamma and vipaaka. Clinging to wrong practice is clinging to ‘rites and rutuals’. Clinging to self doctrine is sakkaaya di.t.thi, personality belief. The Tiika states that magga-paccaya can substitute hetu-paccaya in the case of wrong view which is conascent with akusala kamma, and thus, the conascent conditions are sevenfold. The Tiika states that all of these kinds of clinging as condition can be included in the conditions of proximity, contiguity, of decisive support of proximity, of absence, disappearance and repetition. Absence-condition and disappearance-condition are similar to proximity-condition, referring to the citta which has fallen away and conditions the arising of the following citta. As to repetition- condition, the akusala citta accompanied by clinging that has just fallen away is a condition for the arising of the next one. In a series of javanacittas, each preceding citta conditions the arising of the following one which is the same type of citta; in the case of non-arahats kusala citta or akusala citta. The Tiika explains that when clinging is a decisive support-condition it is not a condition for the dhamma that arises in proximity. There are three kinds of decisive support-condition: decisive support- condition of object, of proximity and natural decisive support- condition. When clinging is a natural decisive support-condition for kusala kamma, including ruupaavacara kusala citta and aruupaavacaara kusala citta, and for the rebirth-process becoming which are the results of these kammas, it is not decisive support-condition of proximity. --------- Text Vis.: But it is a condition, as decisive-support only, for that which is dissociated. ------------ N: Clinging conditions becoming by way of natural decisive-support in the cases that it does not arise together with kamma that produces rebirth. ---------- Text Vis.:This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With clinging as condition, becoming'. --------- Conclusion: We are reminded that clinging to wrong view can be path- condition for akusala kamma leading to an unhappy rebirth. The wrong path is leading to rebirth in unhappy planes. But clinging to wrong view can be a natural decisive support-condition for kusala kamma leading to rebirth in the happy sensuous planes, the ruupa-brahma planes and the aruupa-brahma planes. Conditioned by clinging one may develop jhaana in the right way so that it leads to rebirth that is the result of that jhaana. However, all kinds of kamma that do not lead to the end of the cycle are of the wrong path. ********* Nina. #86780 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... nilovg Dear Tep, Op 7-jun-2008, om 16:36 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > >N: But now see SN 26 Full Understanding, Pari~n~naa and the note by > B.B.: the Co. states that here there is reference to the three > pari~n~nas. > > T: I do not have the book; so, when you have some free time, please > summarize venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi's note for me. Thanks. ------- N: ------ > T: Tep: Importantly, we should prefer 'pari~n~naa' as defined by the > > > Buddha to Ven. Buddhaghosa's. > > >According to the Blessed One, pari~n~naa means the cessation of > > >lobha, dosa and moha. ------ N: See my quote above. As to Buddhaghosa, he did not write the Co., he edited the old texts he found, texts which were rehearsed at the first Council. He sometimes gave several opinions of other teachers, and added that one's own opinion is always the weakest of all. We cannot say that this is preposterous. -------- > > N: >Eye, objects, seeing, feeling, they are all objects of awareness. > They appear now. Gradually there can be more detachment from them. > Detachment can grow through the development of satipatthaana. All of > the teachings point to detachment. > ------- > > T: That has been my understanding too. But we differ mainly in the > means to attain the same goal. > > How do you know by yourself that there is more detachment from > the "all"? > How do you know that you have rightly developed satipatthaana? > > In short how do you know that you are on the right road ? ------ N: As I indicated before, it is not a good idea to speak about personal achievements or non-achievements. Rather we should speak about cause and result, the right cause leading to the right result. The right road is correct understanding that any clinging to result is counteractive. Dhammas arise because of conditions, and thus also sati arises by conditions. It is not connected with a person doing this or that, measuring the amount of sati or the lack of it. It all depends on the moment and the next moment is not known. Cittas arise and fall away, arise and fall away, performing their own functions and nobody can interfere. But understanding can be developed, and this stage by stage. Nina. #86781 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/8/2008 10:07:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/6/6 : > > > > ================================ > I've read in more than one place that 'mind' means intention in those > verses. It makes good sense to me that it either means that, or more generally, > "mental state," "mode of thinking," or "attitude." In Dhammapada III the > meaning of 'mind' is clearly either that of the conventional "mental state" or > of the entire aggregate of mental functions. (In the article at > _http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html_ > (http://www.geocities.com/dhammapada2all/dhammapada1.html) , the author states that these verses are a simple > statement of kamma and vipaka, writing "Verses (1) and (2) illustrate the > immutable law of Kamma, under which every deed, good or bad, comes back to the > doer. Here, the Buddha emphasizes the importance of mind in all our actions > and speaks of the inevitable consequences of our deeds, words and thoughts." I realise that you were quoting someone else here, but presumably you did so because you agreed with what was said. If the law of Kamma is as immutable and inevitable as in the above, that every action and intention must have a result, what possibility is there for cessation? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Kamma requires other conditions for its fruition. Moreover, what happens to "us" is conditioned not only by our past kamma, but by other phenomena, including the actions of others. We do not exist alone and separate, but in constant interaction with others - interdependently, in fact, with others. And, looking ahead, our current kamma (intention) which conditions future vipaka is, itself, multiply conditioned, most especially by our desires, including our desire for release from the defilements, making tanha not only the primary condition for dukkha, but also a motor force for release, and, also, our current kamma is conditioned by other factors relatively independent of our will, so that in terms of our knowledge and control, we may effectively treat them as "random" inputs to our willing. The matter is incredibly complex - far from simple. ------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================== With metta, Howard #86782 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Views re self & the world DN29 upasaka_howard Hi, Antony (and Sarah) - In a message dated 6/9/2008 3:26:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, antony272b@... writes: Sarah, Howard and Group, Sorry, the context was this thread after the Pakistan Earthquake: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/51579 with metta / Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Antony Woods" wrote: > > Sarah, Howard and Group, > > I opened my Digha Nikaya on a random page and found the following: > > "There are ascetics and Brahmins > who say and believe: > "The self and the world are eternal. > This is true and any other view is erroneous." > "The self and the world are not eternal..." > "The self and the world are both eternal and not eternal..." > "The self and the world are neither eternal nor not eternal..." > "The self and the world are self-created..." > "They are created by another..." > "They are both self-created and created by another..." > "The are neither self-created nor created by another, > but have arisen by chance." > And similarly with regard to pleasure and pain." ~ Digha Nikaya 29.34 Pasadika Sutta: The Delightful Discourse > Translated from the Pali by Maurice Walshe > > Antony: This will help with grandiose and persecutory delusions after > watching the TV news. > With metta / Antony.9000000 > ============================ Thank you for the context. Without it I hadn't a clue of what you were taking about. I'd still like you to be a bit more specific in what you yourself are asserting to be and to not be the case. As I see it, suffering, by which word I mean "mental pain," has ignorance, attachment, and, most directly, tanha (craving & aversion) as primary but not sole conditions. These are all requisite. With metta, Howard #86783 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:16 am Subject: Perfections Corner (178) nichiconn Dear Friends, ch5 continues: The Commentary speaks further on about effort which has developed to the degree of the enlightenment factor of viriya (sambhojjhanga), one of the factors pertaining to the realization of the four noble Truths. The Commentary uses the Paali term viriyaarambha. Aarambha can mean beginning, attempt or effort. Viriyaarambha is viriya cetasika, it is the putting forth of energy, such as effort to apply oneself to the Buddha's teachings. We read further on about the characteristic of energy which should be developed *1: "Effort is called 'aarambha' because it is striving. The term viriyaarambha renders the characteristic of that kind of striving. What kind of striving? It is striving by way of escaping from idleness. Onward effort is so called by virtue of reaching a higher and higher state. Exertion is so called by virtue of rising up and keeping going. Endeavour is so called by virtue of special exertion; zeal, of being zealous; vigour, of firmness; fortitude, of bearing (supporting) citta and cetasikas, or of bearing the continuity of kusala by unbroken procedure." *1 See the "Expositor" I, Part IV, Ch 2, 145-146. These are the characteristics of viriya. It is the escaping from idleness, progressing towards a higher state, continued exertion without stopping, zeal and fortitude in further progress towards the goal. We read in the Commentary: "Another method of exposition: -This viriyaarambha is 'striving' in expelling lust, 'onward effort' in cutting the bonds, 'exertion' in escaping from the floods *2, 'endeavour' in reaching the further shore, 'zeal' in being a forerunner, 'ardour' in exceeding the limit, 'vigour' in lifting the bolt (of ignorance), and 'fortitude' in producing steadfastness. 'Verily, let the skin, veins and bones dry up'*1 - thus by virtue of unfaltering effort at such time is the 'state of a man of unfaltering effort'." *2 This is the group of defilements of the four floods (oghas): the floods of sensuous desire, of desire for rebirth, of wrong view and of ignorance. *1 The Buddha spoke these words when sitting under the Bodhi-tree before attaining Buddhahood. He would not move even if his skin, veins and bones would dry up. .. to be continued, connie #86784 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 8:00 am Subject: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) truth_aerator Hi Herman, Scott and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > I realise that you were quoting someone else here, but presumably you > did so because you agreed with what was said. If the law of Kamma is > as immutable and inevitable as in the above, that every action and > intention must have a result, what possibility is there for cessation? > > Cheers > > > Herman > Kamma isn't unchangeable. Remember the salt in the bathtub similie? But in any case the Bad Kamma will cause Bad Vipaka, and good good. However by doing good, you can attenuate the bad results. MN 101: Devadaha Sutta — To Devadaha {M ii 214} [Thanissaro]. The Buddha refutes a Jain theory of kamma, which claims that one's present experience is determined solely by one's actions in past lives, and that the only way to undo the effects of past unskillful actions is to "burn them away" through severe practices of austerity. The Buddha here outlines one of his most important teachings on kamma: that it is both the results of past deeds and present actions that shape one's experience of the present. It is precisely this interaction of present and past that opens up the very possibility of Awakening http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html ============================== Finally, the Buddha explains his Great Exposition of Kamma in which he shows that notions of invariability like "the evildoer goes to hell" are much too simple. The minds of people are complex and they make many different kinds of kamma even in one lifetime, some of which may influence the last moment when kamma is made before death, which in turn is the basis for the next life. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html ------------------ Best wishes, Alex #86785 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 8:30 am Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... truth_aerator Hi Nina and Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > N: See my quote above. > As to Buddhaghosa, he did not write the Co., he edited the old texts > he found, texts which were rehearsed at the first Council. He > sometimes gave several opinions of other teachers, and added that > one's own opinion is always the weakest of all. We cannot say that > this is preposterous. > -------- > > How do we know the spiritual level and correctdness of theauthors of those ancient commentaries? Even during the Buddha's time there were bad monks who had followings of their own. Furthermore in DN16 the Buddha has said that Dhamma-Vinaya is the final guide. If a monk or a group of monks says one thing and the suttas say another, the suttas shall be taken as correct. While I am grateful to the Monks of 1st council, we do not know if all their commentaries are 100% Buddha-Aproved. If Ven. Sariputta could make slight mistakes (and had to be gently rebuked by the Buddha) - then what about other monks - Even Arahants, above which Ven. Sariputta has stood head & shoulders higher? It seems that even Arahants could be taught, so... Buddha is the guide, the best there was, is, and ever will be! Best wishes, Alex #86786 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? nilovg Dear Tep and Jon, I just like to say something about q. 1. and 2. As I read it, Tep's and Jon's answers amount to the same, it is very interesting. Op 8-jun-2008, om 22:39 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > T: Thank you very much for answering the four questions. Now let me > give my answers too. > > > Why are 'the five clinging-aggregates' to be directly known? > > Jon: The five clinging aggregates encompass all dhammas that can be > the object of awareness and insight of the non-ariyan. > > T: Because the five clinging aggregates are dukkha sacca, the 1st > noble truth. -------- N: The five khandhas of clinging are impermanent and thus dukkha. Of the five khandhas it is said that they are past, present, future, indicating their impermanence. But this cannot be realized immediately. First the characteristics of nama and rupa, thus, the five khandhas, have to be clearly understood. Nama is different from rupa. There has to be firm understanding of dukkha before the other Truths can be understood. ------- > > T: > Why are 'ignorance & craving for becoming' to be abandoned > > through direct knowledge? > > Jon: Ignorance and craving for becoming are to be abandoned because > they are akusala tendencies that condition rebirth. > > T: Because avijja and tanha are the dukha samuddaya, the 2nd noble > truth. ------ N: The second truth is the cause of dukkha, and actually the arising of nama and rupa at birth is dukkha. > > (snipped) > >Jon: How did I go ? (please don't be too tough in grading my > replies ;-)) > > T: You did very well with respect to the 3rd and 4th questions. Our > answers to the 1st and 2nd questions differ because you are taught by > Khun Sujin and I am taught by the Suttas. ------ N: Through listening we came into contact with the Buddha's Dhamma, and the Dhamma is our teacher, not a specific person. ------ Nina. #86787 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and Accumulations (wasRe: Mental states......) nilovg Dear Scott, perhaps I can add something meanwhile, while Sarah is busy with her mother. Op 8-jun-2008, om 19:53 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I'd be interested to > consider the two ruupas: kaaya-vi~n~natti and vaci-vi~n~natti in this > context. These are produced by the conascent cetanaa, are they not? > These are ruupa and not naama therefore, acts of the body or speech > cannot be confused with kamma. What do you think? -------- N: kaaya-vi~n~natti and vaci-vi~n~natti are rupas produced by citta: cittajaa rupas. When we say citta, the accompanying cetasikas are always included, thus also cetanaa. These rupas are called the doorways of kamma that is produced. For example, when someone orders killing through speech the vaci- vi~n~natti rupa produced by the akusala citta is the doorway of akusala kamma through speech. He may also order killing through gestures, and than the doorway is kaaya-vi~n~natti rupa. He conveys a meaning through his gestures. Kamma is cetanaa, but the term kamma is also used more generally for the deeds motivated by cetana. But when we are more precise, we can explain about the kaaya- vi~n~natti and vaci-vi~n~natti. Nina. #86788 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:50 am Subject: Metta, Ch 7, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, Question: I do not understand yet how we can extend merit [1] to devas when we perform dåna or other kinds of kusala. Khun Sujin: When we perform a good deed devas can appreciate such a deed. However, one should not hope for their protection just by reciting texts. When we have expectations there is lobha and that is different from performing kusala and extending merit so that devas can appreciate one’s kusala and also have kusala cittas. Question: Thus, we can extend merit to devas? Khun Sujin: Yes, when we perform kusala we can extend merit to devas. However, human beings cannot give things such as food to devas, because devas take a different kind of food, more refined than our food. Devas have great wealth, they have precious stones such as diamonds and sapphires, they have valuable jewellery, they have more riches than any king in the world. This is due to their great merit which caused them to be born as devas. As a human being one cannot offer them anything, one can only extend merit to them when one does good deeds. Someone may wish to extend mettå to devas by reciting texts on mettå, and he may expect that they will protect him. However, when he, in spite of this, meets misfortune and trouble, and thus his expectations about being protected by the devas do not come true, he will be disappointed and he may blame the devas. Whereas when the citta has true calm and it is only intent on kusala, there is no expectation of any result, and thus people will not blame anyone, there will be no disappointment or unhappiness. -------- Footnote 1: Extension of merit is giving someone else the opportunity to appreciate one's kusala. It is a way of generosity, one helps others to have kusala cittas. ----------- Nina. #86789 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... nilovg Hi Alex, Op 9-jun-2008, om 17:30 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Furthermore in DN16 the Buddha has said that Dhamma-Vinaya is the > final guide. If a monk or a group of monks says one thing and the > suttas say another, the suttas shall be taken as correct. --------- N: I read this before, and should we repeat all the arguments? What I wanted to remark is that sutta includes more than only the dialogues we usually call sutta. Even Vinaya is called sutta. In the final analysis, let the reader check what is the content of the commentaries. Nina. #86790 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: The Blind and the Cripple /Lame jonoabb Hi Dieter Nice to see you again. Regarding your search for a canonical source for the blind and crippled persons, neither Sarah or I know of one. In fact, the extract you give does not actually say that the simile is from the canon, so the search may be in vain! Do keep us posted with anything you manage to find. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi friends , > > I am trying to trace the parable in the Canon , does anybody have an idea where? > > with Metta Dieter > > #86791 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 1:16 pm Subject: Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... dhammanusarin Dear Nina & Alex, - Thank you both for your discussion. > >Alex: Furthermore in DN16 the Buddha has said that Dhamma-Vinaya is the final guide. If a monk or a group of monks says one thing and the suttas say another, the suttas shall be taken as correct. >N: I read this before, and should we repeat all the arguments? What I wanted to remark is that sutta includes more than only the dialogues we usually call sutta. Even Vinaya is called sutta. In the final analysis, let the reader check what is the content of the commentaries. T: I agree with you, Nina, that the suttas contain more than the Buddha's words. But the Buddha's Dhamma always stands out. The great quality of the suttas is that the Buddha's words are very consistent when we cross-reference them. Can you say the same with regard to the added-on commentaries of the suttas? By the way, how can you tell that the content of the commentaries are right or believable? What do you use as the standard to verify their accuracy, if not the Buddha's words? Alex is right to say that the Teachings in the Suttanta-pitaka are to be the standard guideline for Buddhists to use after the Buddha's Parinibbana, because that was what the Buddha advised before He passed away. Tep === #86792 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 2:14 pm Subject: Re: Views re self & the world DN29 antony272b2 Howard, Thanks for the reply. As in SN22:86 the Anuradha Sutta, I think that the Buddha was teaching something much more immediate than time-consuming thinking and debate about theories about the self and the world. In covering all the possible combinations I think he was saying that he refused to engage in arguments against any of the views and that the very action of formulating the views is a distraction from the full-time duty of realizing the Four Noble Truths. My grandiose delusions were that the suffering of people on the TV news was my kamma-vipaka (self-created). Once I said to Dr Thynn Thynn that maybe I lived in Bosnia in a past life. She smiled and replied "Don't delude yourself" LOL, after which I thought they were not self-created. Then after reading about Dependent Origination I thought they were neither self-created nor created by another. The DN29 quotes has helped me. Thanks for listening / Antony. #86793 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 2:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Just wanna know ... dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Jon, Alex, ..), - Thank you again for the reply. You wrote: Dear Tep, Op 7-jun-2008, om 16:36 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > >N: But now see SN 26 Full Understanding, Pari~n~naa and the note by > B.B.: the Co. states that here there is reference to the three > pari~n~nas. > > T: I do not have the book; so, when you have some free time, please > summarize venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi's note for me. Thanks. ------- N: ------ > T: Tep: Importantly, we should prefer 'pari~n~naa' as defined by the > > > Buddha to Ven. Buddhaghosa's. > > >According to the Blessed One, pari~n~naa means the cessation of > > >lobha, dosa and moha. ------ N: See my quote above. As to Buddhaghosa, he did not write the Co., he edited the old texts he found, texts which were rehearsed at the first Council. He sometimes gave several opinions of other teachers, and added that one's own opinion is always the weakest of all. We cannot say that this is preposterous. -------- > > N: >Eye, objects, seeing, feeling, they are all objects of awareness. > They appear now. Gradually there can be more detachment from them. > Detachment can grow through the development of satipatthaana. All of > the teachings point to detachment. > ------- > > T: That has been my understanding too. But we differ mainly in the > means to attain the same goal. > > How do you know by yourself that there is more detachment from > the "all"? > How do you know that you have rightly developed satipatthaana? > > In short how do you know that you are on the right road ? ------ N: As I indicated before, it is not a good idea to speak about personal achievements or non-achievements. Rather we should speak about cause and result, the right cause leading to the right result. The right road is correct understanding that any clinging to result is counteractive. Dhammas arise because of conditions, and thus also sati arises by conditions. It is not connected with a person doing this or that, measuring the amount of sati or the lack of it. It all depends on the moment and the next moment is not known. Cittas arise and fall away, arise and fall away, performing their own functions and nobody can interfere. But understanding can be developed, and this stage by stage. Nina. ================================================= T: We both know that there is only one Pari~n~na Sutta (SN 22.23) at the Access-To-Insight, and the translator is Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. His translation of pari~n~na is 'comprehension'. On the other hand, Bhikkhu Nanamoli's translation of pari~n~na (in the Patism) is 'full understanding'. But please note that in Patism 'pari~n~na' does not include abandoning(pahana), realizing(sacchikiriya), and developing (bhavana); they have separate functions, not "all in one" as your quote states : full understanding of the known, full understanding by scrutinization, full understanding as abandonment. Please read on. Patism I, 8. The meaning of fully understanding suffering is to be directly known. The meaning of abandoning the origin of suffering ... The meaning of realizing the cessation of suffering ... The meaning of developing the way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be directly known. T: And it is clear to me that the great Arahant Sariputta was not contradicting the Blessed One's words in Pari~n~na Sutta that 'pari~n~na' means 'any ending of passion, ending of aversion, ending of delusion'. Now, in MN 149(Maha-salayatanika Sutta) the Buddha separated the function of 'pari~n~na' from 'abandoning(pahana)', 'realizing (sacchikiriya)', and 'developing(bhavana)'. While reading the passage below, keep in mind that 'comprehend' is the verb of comprehension (pari~n~na) which means an ending of lobha, dosa, moha. "He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, develops through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge. And what qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' should be the reply. ... " [MN149] T: Notice that, according to the Buddha, comprehension of the upadanakkhandhas (dukkha; the first noble truth) does not include abandoning, realizing and developing ("all in one" like the Vism does). Why? Because only some dhammas are to be comprehended (at a given moment), while other different dhammas have to be abandoned, realized and developed. Thus if 'pari~n~na' included abandoning, realizing and developing, then when you comprehend dukkha through direct knowledge, the other three functions would also be accomplished (all in one). Please correct me if you think I am wrong. Tep === #86794 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] egberdina Hi Swee, 2008/6/9 nidive : > Hi Herman, > >> I am reminded of Bahiya, Pukkusati and a few others who were gored >> to death by a cow shortly after becoming Ariyan. I can understand >> how this happened, why would anyone bother getting out of the way >> of a charging cow if they were free from all attachments, cravings >> and wants? > > I think the arahants would try all possible means to get out of the > way of a charging cow since they understand that the cow incurs a > very huge negative kamma if it killed an arahant. Thank you for your reply. I understand that you are trying to be helpful. I hope it is not bothersome that I have more difficulties stemming from your reply. I find it impossible to imagine any being thinking of themselves as an arahant. It seems to me that with the eradication of the conceit "I am", the thought "I am an arahant and for the welfare of this cow I will get out of it's way" is not the thought of an arahant, but of a deluded individual. Also, if a cow kills an ariyan, as in the case of Bahiya and Pukkusati, is it not merely the case that it is ripening of kamma? >> What I don't understand is how some arahants managed to survive >> for decades without the intention to survive. > > Arahants don't have the "intention" to survive. Neither do they have > the "intention" to die. Since they are already alive in the first > place, why not let the natural course of dependent origination roll > along? Do you expect them to starve themselves to death? No, I don't expect that. But we all know that food and the other requisites for the sustaining of life do not fall from the sky. One has to seek these things out. One has to be goal-oriented in their behaviour, in order to stay alive. This seems to be at odds with a view that arahants do not have an "intention" to survive. What would > outsiders think of the ariyan doctrine if every arahant starved > themselves to death? Does it promote the cause of the Dhamma? > Well, I would think that being an ariyan does not necessitate any kind of behaviour. Pacceka-ariyans feel no particular obligation to be a shining light to the world, do they? And what about Sangamaji (Ud1:8)? What about Channo (MN144)? > >> What I understand even less, and if you are able to help me please >> do so, is why an arahant does anything at all. If one is free from >> clinging and aversion, nothing is of any value whatsoever, and >> whether an act is done or not done makes no difference. To be free >> from suffering is to value nothing. > > To be free from suffering is to value the freedom from attachment, > aversion and delusion. One who is free from attachment, aversion and > delusion is an incomparable field of merit for the world. He does not > kill living beings. He does not frighten or instil fear in anyone. He > does not take what is not given. He does not deprive anything what > others had earned through their hard work and sweat. He does not tell > lies. He tells the truth and does not cause anguish to innocent > people by telling an untruth. He does not engage in sexual abuse. He > is compassionate and sympathetic to all beings. He is knowledgeable > about the Way to the Deathless and teaches to others the Way to the > Deathless in seasonal times. On the face of it, all the things listed above are ways of behaving, or not behaving, in relation to others. But the reality is that an ariyan is totally unperturbed by others. "He neither rejoices at his arrival, nor grieves at his departure: This Sangamaji, freed from attachment, him I call a Brahmana." (Ud1:8) > > If to be free from suffering is to value nothing, then all those who > committed suicide must be free from suffering, since by taking their > own life, they obviously value nothing. Suicide is an act of aversion, an escape from unpleasantness, it is goal-oriented. I am sure that you well know the account of the suicide of Channa. The Buddha said of him: ... if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.' MN144) Being aversive to pain, as well as suicide, are clearly not ruled out for an ariyan. > > But are all those who committed suicide free from attachment, > aversion and delusion? From what the Buddha said about Channa, it is only those who commit suicide with a craving for a future becoming that are at fault. > >> Perhaps Angulimala is a good example of someone who values nothing? > > I think not. OK. Thanks again for your reply. Cheers Herman #86795 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 268, 269, and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Can we say clinging can be a condition for any kind of kusala citta, including insight? Larry #86796 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 5:56 pm Subject: Parama.t.thaka Sutta: Not Advocating A Free-For-All scottduncan2 Dear Herman (All), Regarding the following sutta (offered by Herman, and for which I add a second translation and the Paa.li): Sn 4:5 4-5 Parama.t.thaka sutta.m Upholding a View. 796. People upholding views say all other's views are low And they do not go beyond disputes. When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. 800. Paramanti di.t.thisu paribbasaano Yadutatari.m kurute janatu loke, Hitaani a~n~ne tato sabbamaaha Tasmaa vivaadaani avitivatto, ****** 797. Seeing some development in oneself, out of a seen, heard, virtues, or an experience, People cling to views and see all other's views as low. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. 801. Yadattani passati aanisa.msa.m Di.t.the sute silavate (Silabbate) - mute vaa, Tadeva so tattha samuggahaaya Nihinato passati sabbama~n~na.m. ****** 798. The wise said, that, that is the bond, for some reason to see others as low Therefore the bhikkhu should not measure on account of a seen, heard, an experience or virtues. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; 802. Ta.m vaapi gantha.m kusalaa vadanti Ya.m nissito passati hinama~n~na.m, Tasmaa hi di.t.tha.m va suta.m muta.m vaa Silabbata.m bhikkhu na nissayeyya. ****** 799. On account of knowledge or virtues do not hold a view as this is proper Do not think, I'm equal, inferior or superior nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be equal; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative. 803. Di.t.thimpi lokasmi.m na kappayeyya ~naa.nena vaa silavatena vaapi, Samoti attaanamanupaneyya Hino na ma~n~netha visasi vaapi. ****** 800. Dispel the self view, do not think, 'I know' The wise are without disputes and views. Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging,he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. 804. Atta.m pabhaaya anupaadiyaano ~na.nepi so nissaya.m no karoti, Sa ce viyattesu na vaggasaari Di.t.thimpi so na pacceti ki~nci. ****** 801. Do not wish for the two extremities of being and non-being here, or hereafter, Think discriminately about the Teaching and have no roosting places. One who isn't inclined toward either side becoming or not-,here or beyond who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. 805. Yasasubhayante pa.nidhidha natthi Bhavaabhavaaya idhavaa hura.m vaa, Nivesanaa tassa na santi keci Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahita.m. ****** 802. Do not have any thoughts or the smallest perception, about the seen, heard, and experienced The Brahmin is without any views and has nothing to think in this world. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world - this brahman who hasn't adopted views? 806. Tassidha di.t.the va sute mute vaa Pakappitaa natthi a.nupi sa~n~naa, Ta.m braahma.na.m di.t.thimanaadiyaana.m Kenidha lokasmi.m vikappayeyya. ****** 803. Do not get established even in the Teaching, and think it is proper to honour it, A Brahmin is not led on by virtues, crossed over, he does not turn back. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines. A brahman not led by precepts or practices, gone to the beyond Such doesn't fall back. 807. Na kapapyanti na purekkharenti Dhammaapi tesa.m na pa.ticchitaase na braahma.no silavatena neyyo Paara.mgato na pacceti taaditi. Parama.t.thakasutta.m ni.t.thita.m Scott: Again, just curious, but do you think that the above sutta suggests that the Buddha did not teach about things in a certain way? Do you suggest that the sutta advocates that one Do you offer the sutta in support of the notion that the Dhamma is not only as was taught but is only as someone conjectures it to be? Sincerely, Scott. #86797 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 5:59 pm Subject: Re: Parama.t.thaka Sutta: Not Advocating A Free-For-All scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Sorry, I didn't quite finish the following: Me: "Again, just curious, but do you think that the above sutta suggests that the Buddha did not teach about things in a certain way? Do you suggest that the sutta advocates that one Do you offer the sutta in support of the notion that the Dhamma is not only as was taught but is only as someone conjectures it to be?" Scott: The unfinished question is: Do you suggest that the sutta advocates that one also avoid Right View? Sincerely, Scott. Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (10) #86798 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina, Nina: "Vis. IV, 34 does not make much sense as to sharpening the faculties, it is about guarding the sign of the meditation subject of Samatha." Larry: Here is the paragraph again: Vism.XX,21: While thus engaged in inductive insight, however, if it does not succeed, he should sharpen his faculties [of faith, etc.,] in the nine ways stated thus: 'The faculties become sharp in nine ways: (1) he sees only the destruction of arisen formations; (2) and in that [occupation] he makes sure of working carefully, (3) he makes sure of working perseveringly, (4) he makes sure of working suitably, and (5) by apprehending the sign of concentration and (6) by balancing the enlightenment factors (7) he establishes disregard of body and life, (8) wherein he overcomes [pain] by renunciation and (9) by not stopping halfway. He should avoid the seven unsuitable things in the way stated in the Description of the Earth Kasina and cultivate the seven suitable things, and he should comprehend the material at one time and the immaterial at another. Larry: If insight fails to arise the meditator should resort to a quiet meditative life and continue to contemplate impermanence. Larry ps: Beginning with " 'The faculties become sharp in nine ways" is a quotation from something, but there is no note on the source. Also, in my book there is only a beginning quotation mark, but not an ending one. L. #86799 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] truth_aerator Hi Herman and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Swee, > > 2008/6/9 nidive : > > Hi Herman, > > > >> I am reminded of Bahiya, Pukkusati and a few others who were gored > >> to death by a cow shortly after becoming Ariyan. I can understand > >> how this happened, why would anyone bother getting out of the way > >> of a charging cow if they were free from all attachments, cravings > >> and wants? > > > > I think the arahants would try all possible means to get out of the > > way of a charging cow since they understand that the cow incurs a > > very huge negative kamma if it killed an arahant. > > Thank you for your reply. I understand that you are trying to be > helpful. I hope it is not bothersome that I have more difficulties > stemming from your reply. > > I find it impossible to imagine any being thinking of themselves as an > arahant. It seems to me that with the eradication of the conceit "I > am", the thought "I am an arahant and for the welfare of this cow I > will get out of it's way" is not the thought of an arahant, but of a > deluded individual. > Arahants don't have craving. However they may have a desireless decision (functional) to help others. Not out of gaining any benefits, or some atta view, but because metta/karuna & mudita are thir natural nature for them. > Also, if a cow kills an ariyan, as in the case of Bahiya and > Pukkusati, is it not merely the case that it is ripening of kamma? > > > >> What I don't understand is how some arahants managed to survive > >> for decades without the intention to survive. > > > > Arahants don't have the "intention" to survive. Neither do they have > > the "intention" to die. Since they are already alive in the first > > place, why not let the natural course of dependent origination roll > > along? Do you expect them to starve themselves to death? > > No, I don't expect that. But we all know that food and the other > requisites for the sustaining of life do not fall from the sky. One > has to seek these things out. One has to be goal-oriented in their > behaviour, in order to stay alive. This seems to be at odds with a > view that arahants do not have an "intention" to survive. >>>>>>> Do you know what happens to monks who are known to be Arahats? They get bombarded with food. Look at poor people in lets say Burma and famous monks there. Furthermore you can eat fruits and berries found in the forests. In those times the population was not as overpopulated as today. There were 10x as much forests as today. Best wishes, Alex