#90800 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:19 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 2, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, When we abstain from ill deeds we do not harm ourselves, nor others, nor both ourselves and others. When we transgress the five precepts we harm ourselves as well as others. What is the cause of transgression of the five precepts? We read in the “Discourse to Samanamandikå” (Middle Length Sayings II, no. 78) that the Buddha said to Samanamandikå’s son, a carpenter: “And which, carpenter, are the unskilled moral habits? Unskilled deed of body, unskilled deed of speech, evil mode of livelihood-- these, carpenter, are called unskilled moral habits. And how, carpenter, do these unskilled moral habits originate? Their origination is spoken of too. It should be answered that the origination is in the citta. Which citta? For the citta is manifold, various, diverse. That citta which has attachment, aversion, ignorance-- originating from this are unskilled moral habits....” When we neglect the precepts we are selfish and we are not considerate of other beings. So long as we have not attained enlightenment we may neglect the five precepts, there are still conditions for transgressing them. We have committed unwholesome deeds in the past and thus, unwholesome inclinations have been accumulated. Because of our accumulations of akusala there are conditions today for the performing of unwholesome deeds. We may think that we can always observe the five precepts, but is our síla really perfect? We may suddenly find ourselves in very difficult situations which make it hard for us to observe the five precepts and then we may transgress them. We think that we generally do not lie, but do we sometimes say something that is not quite true, or do we tell a “white lie”? We think that we do not steal, but do we always return books we borrowed? Do we never evade the paying of taxes? The “Visuddhimagga” (I, 31) explains that one may neglect síla because of gain, fame, relatives, limbs or life. By these factors síla may be “limited”. We may, for example, generally not be inclined to kill insects, but because of our guests we may kill them. We may generally not be inclined to lie, but because gain or fame we may tell a lie. One’s síla is unlimited if one does not transgress it, no matter what happens. ****** Nina. #90801 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > Maybe this is something we can talk about when we have our Skype > chat. (Will it be you, or Sarah, or a fierce tag team? I'm eager to > find out!!!!!) > ;-)) ;-)) Hope you didn't find us too fierce!! > I think the Buddha taught these clear teachings in > his infinite wisdom knowing that they could be understood correctly > and helpful by different people with different degrees of wisdom. I > think you guys tend to write off the shallow-but-very-helpful > understanding of these suttas too quickly and would thereby deny > those helpful interpretations to people who could benefit from them. > Each person understands the teachings at the level to which they are capable. My point was that there is often a deeper meaning that is not readily apparent to the casual reader. > The thinking I think you have is that people get locked in those > interpretations and therefore can't get any deeper. I think that's > incorrect. I think the easy interpretations help create conditions > that allow the understanding to sink deeper... > No disagreement from me on this. It was nice chatting to you. I can now put a voice to the name (sanna does that, actually ;-)) Jon #90802 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) nilovg Dear Alex, Op 27-sep-2008, om 21:28 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > < Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here > > 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, > >feeling, perception, and formations, > > I politely disagree. In the suttas, nama was defined containing 5 > things. > > "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are > called mentality. The four great elements and the material form > derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. > So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality- > materiality. " ------- N: Yes, right, but: here we are in the context of the D.O. No contradiction. We just have to pay attention to the context. Nina. #90803 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:25 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Alex), - I was very encouraged by your straightforward reply early today. Now reading the reply you gave to Alex (below), I wonder if there is a better reply than "We just have to pay attention to the context". >Alex: > I politely disagree. In the suttas, nama was defined containing 5 > things. > > "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are > called mentality. The four great elements and the material form > derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. > So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality- > materiality. " ------- N: Yes, right, but: here we are in the context of the D.O. No contradiction. We just have to pay attention to the context. Nina. ================== Alex was really curious, it seems. Me too. One important fact that Alex did not mention is that consciousness and a whole bunch of cetasika dhammas are not included in the nama group either. How should we interpret the nama-rupa in the D.O. context differently from nama-rupa in the paramattha dhamma context and for what reason(s)? It is easy to see, though, that consciousness is a separate link from nama-rupa. But is there anything else that you can read from the D.O. context? Please consider the above question when you have time to write a little more. Tep === #90804 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:49 am Subject: Re: Ultimate language, ultimate vs conventional truth is refuted by the Buddha. abhidhammika Dear Alex, Howard, Nina, Sarah, Scott, Jon, Paul, Herman How are you? I dropped by briefly. Alex wrote: "He clearly forbade to give words different meanings from what they mean to ordinary folks." Suan replied: You have dropped a heavy rock on your toes again. The above statement needs modification. Ever since Gotama, Our Father, became the Buddha, he also began to use the old words with new meanings. For example, the terms, brahma and atta, now have new meanings in the Buddhist context. Before the Buddha's awakening, the term 'brahma' has a meaning of creator God. But, in the Buddhist context, it means one of the Jhaana Gods, divine beings who have attained their status of this level through the formal development of samatha as human beings until they obtained one of the Jhaanas. Sometimes, the term 'brahma' may mean an Arahant. Similarly, the term 'atta' has lost the non-Buddhist meanings of a homunculus self inside our bodies and of a cosmic Self, a creator Self, the origin of homunculus selves. But, the term 'atta' retains the pronoun meanings such as I, myself, yourself, himself, herself. Put it another way, the linguistic self or grammatical self is in use in the Buddhist context. As the Buddhist practitioners, it is absolutely harmless to say, 'I practice samatha, I do formal development of the Noble Eightfold Path' Why? Buddhist practitioners understand that there are no homunculus selves in their bodies and cosmic self outside. They understand that their use of I is purely in the linguistic sense and in the Buddhist context. By the way, the terms of paramattha dhammas are all conventions. For example, the terms 'mind', 'matter', and 'nibbaana' are conventions. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #90805 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "...Is cetana vipaka citta or not? Yes or no?" > > Scott: Well, I'll try again, Alex. Cetanaa is not 'citta', it is > actually cetasika - a mental factor - which arises conascent with > citta. So technically, no, cetanaa is not 'vipaaka citta' since it is > not 'citta', but it does arise with vipaaka citta, and every other >citta. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I made a typo. The correct question should be is cetana vipaka or not? (no citta in the question). I believe that in at least some (if not most or all) cases it is NOT vipaka. Ie, one can refrain from doing a bad deed, even though it may severely hurt to do so. Best wishes, #90806 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:01 am Subject: Re: Ultimate language truth_aerator Dear Suan and all, >---"abhidhammika" wrote: > Alex wrote: > > "He clearly forbade to give words different meanings > from what they mean to ordinary folks." > > Suan replied: > > You have dropped a heavy rock on your toes again. The above > statement needs modification. Ever since Gotama, Our Father, became > the Buddha, he also began to use the old words with new meanings. > For example, the terms, brahma and atta, now have new meanings in > the Buddhist context. He was not afraid of using common words and meanings to describe the path especially when he wanted to convert someone. Sometimes he did use commonly accepted words, which he in a discource modified in a Buddhist way. However it was not like today with the two truth's theory where Buddha says one thing and someone reads totally different meaning. The specific thing I had in mind when I wrote this was about "change" (anicca) and MN28 discourse. Some people deny change by denying a thing that changes. However in numerous discources there is arising, *enduring*, and ceasing. "this body composed of the four great elements is seen *standing* for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html "Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they *remained*, known to him they subsided. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html Note again: "known to him they remained" "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) of what stays is discernible." - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.047.than.html Note again: alteration if what *stays* . No need to read-in into the suttas such as MN28 by refering two "two truths theory". Best wishes, #90807 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Scott) - In a message dated 9/28/2008 12:39:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I made a typo. The correct question should be is cetana vipaka or not? (no citta in the question). I believe that in at least some (if not most or all) cases it is NOT vipaka. Ie, one can refrain from doing a bad deed, even though it may severely hurt to do so. Best wishes, ============================ The activity of cetana as understood in the Abhidhamma, at least as reported on DSG, is not always willing, per se, but is frequently a marshaling-of-forces operation, a coordinating of other phenomena. Certainly cetana in that role can easily be seen as part of a mind state that is vipaka. But even willing can, I believe. I gave an example in a recent post on this thread that you haven't responded to yet. Do you think I was off base with that example in some way? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #90808 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/27/2008 7:40:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > So what you are saying basically is that cetana is vipaka citta. > According to this, it is a vipaka cetana that is responcible for > murder, it is vipaka cetana that is responcible for holyness. > > This is terrible! The Buddha has seriously rebuked this fatalism. > =============================== >Suppose you willingly think about something, and that thinking >leads to desire, and that desire leads to the willing and carrying >out of an action. Was not that last willing itself a feature of a >state of consciousness that is vipaka? Is willing uncaused, >unconditioned? > > With metta, > Howard While will has nessesary conditions such as Avijja, 5 aggregates and external circumstances, none of them are *sufficient* conditions. When volition arises, it doesn't have to lead to carrying out of the action, it may lead if indulged in and not restraint, but it may not if viewed with wisdom. I know, I know, that for some people it is very pleasant to think that "volition can't be restrained" and that no effort can or should go against it (because; Hey! thats sakkayaditthi!!!)... If volition says so, then "eat, drink, and be merry" because nothing can be done against that. Best wishes, #90809 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:32 am Subject: Recitation if properly done can lead to awakening AND aruppas truth_aerator Hello Connie, and all, I would like to expand on what I've said about recitation. Recitation CAN lead to awakening Kaccana sutta Ud. 7.8 He for whom mindfulness of the body is always constantly established thus: "If there had not been, there would not be for me, There will not be, and there will not be for me," if he dwells upon that in graded steps, in time he will pass beyond attachment. ======= translation of John D. Ireland ============ "Yassa siyaa sabbada sati Satata.m kaayagataa upannhitaa, No cassa no ca me siyaa Na bhavissati na ca me bhavissati Anupubbavihaari tattha so Kaaleneva tare visattikan"-ti. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka- Nikaya/03Udana/07-Cullavaggo-p1.html#seven8 This and in MN106 is what I suspect is tranquility preceded by insight practice. What must be noted though is that tranquility element IS here. In MN106 the cryptic phrase + addition of "What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' " leads to base neither perception nor non- perception (either as attainment here and now, or as rebirth of evolving consciousness). If the monk doesn't cherish, cling and hold onto equinimity of "base neither perception nor non-perception " then s/he is an Arahant. There are other recitations that can lead anywhere from impertubable to the base neither perception nor non-perception. So recitation CAN be powerful if done constantly, mindfully and energetically through the day. ex: "the disciple of the noble ones, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness." check out more at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html =========== Best wishes, #90810 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:39 am Subject: Re: Reductionist Fallacy truth_aerator Hi Ken and all, >---"kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Tep, Alex and Howard, > > No, the whole does indeed *not* exist! It is just a concept - a > conventional designation. When, for example, the five khandhas are > correctly assembled (arise together) the conventional > designation 'living being' is used. Then how did non-existent Ken write this on non-existent computer, for non-existent people? How do non-existent people travel in non-existent cars? How does non-existent Buddha teaches to non-existent audience? Ken, do you percieve that "I [Ken] do not exist" ? Do you percieve that "The computer, monitor and intended audience does not exist" ? #90811 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma dhammanusarin Hi, Howard, Alex, Sarah, Nina, Sukin, KenH and others, - In the previous post I wrote : >T: Confusion arises when some DSG members keep talking about forms as "colors", "sounds", "hardness", etc., without trying to explain first what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. I have collected additional short quotes of the Buddha's Teachings for you to study and see for yourself what 'rupas'/forms really mean, and how we may contemplate(anupassana) rupas the right way -- the Buddhist way. ......................................... "And what, friends, is form as a clinging-aggregate? The four great existents and the form derived from them. And what are the four great existents? They are the earth-property, the water property, the fire property, & the wind property. -- MN 28. .............................. "The four great existents [the properties of earth, water, fire, & wind] are the cause & condition for the discernibility of the form aggregate. -- MN 109. ............................... "From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. ... ... And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. ... "And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye- medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body- medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media." - - SN 12.2 ............................... "In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving develops. -- SN 12.52. ............................... "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the form aggregate. Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate. -- SN 22.48 ............................... "And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of form, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on form: that is the allure of form. The fact that form is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of form. The subduing of desire & passion for form, the abandoning of desire & passion for form: that is the escape from form." -- SN 22.57. ............................. "And why do you call it 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form. -- SN 22.79. ............................. "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form? -- SN 22.95. ............................. "Form is a clingable phenomenon. Any desire & passion related to it, is clinging related to it. -- SN 22.121. ............................. "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' -- SN 23.2. ............................ "From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-&- form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-&-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-&-form. "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the dimension of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-&-form together with consciousness." -- DN 15. ......................... Any comments or questions? Tep === #90812 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:19 pm Subject: Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > Hi, Howard, Alex, Sarah, Nina, Sukin, KenH and others, - > > In the previous post I wrote : > > >T: Confusion arises when some DSG members keep talking about forms >as "colors", "sounds", "hardness", etc., without trying to explain >first what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. > "this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.047.than.html Attention: Note the "alteration while staying is discernible." "Friends, the arising of form [...of feelings; ...of perception; ...of volition; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, change while standing is manifest." -- S.XXII,37: iii,38 Note: change WHILE STANDING. "thitassa a~n~nathattam" Best wishes, #90813 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:27 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma kenhowardau Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > Hi, Howard, Alex, Sarah, Nina, Sukin, KenH and others, - > > In the previous post I wrote : > > >T: Confusion arises when some DSG members keep talking about forms as > "colors", "sounds", "hardness", etc., without trying to explain first > what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. ------------------- Let me assure you that has *never* happened. The DSG members who talk about rupas in Abhidhamma terminology have *always* explained that the meaning of rupas in the Sutta-pitaka is exactly the same as the meaning of rupas in the Abhidhamma-pitaka. Often (though not always) suttas will use conventional designations, but the meaning is always the same. ------------------------------ T: > I have collected additional short quotes of the Buddha's Teachings for you to study and see for yourself what 'rupas'/forms really mean, and how we may contemplate(anupassana) rupas the right way -- the Buddhist way. Any comments or questions? -------------------------------- I can only repeat that the meaning in the Sutta-pitaka is exactly the same as the meaning in the Abhidhamma-pitaka. Since you feel so strongly that there is a difference, please tell us what that difference is. Ken H #90814 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:56 pm Subject: Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear Alex, - It is important that the Dhamma must not be confusing to practitioners. >Alex: "Friends, the arising of form is manifest, ceasing is manifest, change while standing is manifest." ... >Attention: Note the "alteration while staying is discernible." >Note: change WHILE STANDING. "thitassa a~n~nathattam" T: Along the same line of rupa-anupassana in the suttas that you quoted, there is another good one for Sotapatti-phala aspirants: ============== At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable. "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower ... until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. "One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening." -- SN 25.2. ============== It is not difficult to see inconstancy and alteration (while standing) in this body in the past, future and present. But it is very difficult for me to contemplate: "colors and hardness are inconstant, changeable, alterable" and directly see the anicca characteristics in the body. Thank you, Alex. Tep === #90815 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear KenH (Alex), - I asked: > > Any comments or questions? > -------------------------------- > >KenH: > I can only repeat that the meaning in the Sutta-pitaka is exactly the > same as the meaning in the Abhidhamma-pitaka. Since you feel so > strongly that there is a difference, please tell us what that > difference is. > ........... T: It is not difficult to see inconstancy and alteration (while standing)in this body in the past, future and present. But it is very difficult for me to contemplate: "colors and hardness are inconstant, changeable, alterable" and directly see the anicca characteristics in the body. Hope it is clear. Tep === #90816 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... TGrand458@... Hi Alex, Tep, and All I'd like to know how Abhidhammists explain the "changing while standing" or "persisting while changing" remark often encounter in the Suttas. How does this jibe with -- "Dhammas that arise and immediately pass away"? Or how does "Dhamma theory" explain this? Thanks in advance. TG #90817 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:34 pm Subject: Re: How does one REALLY contemplate impermanence? truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, >---"visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Dear Alex, - > > It is important that the Dhamma must not be confusing to > practitioners. > > >Alex: > > "Friends, the arising of form is manifest, ceasing is manifest, >change while standing is manifest." ... > > >Attention: Note the "alteration while staying is discernible." > >Note: change WHILE STANDING. "thitassa a~n~nathattam" > > T: Along the same line of rupa-anupassana in the suttas that you > quoted, there is another good one for Sotapatti-phala aspirants: > ============== > > At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. > Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are > inconstant, changeable, alterable. > > "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way >is called a faith-follower: This is not a critique. The Question that I am right now trying to fully figure out is. Please explain to me precisely what it means to have "conviction & belief" in impermanence. > > "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has >accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma- >follower Again: what precisely does it mean to "after pondering with modicum of discernment has accepted it." Heraclitus has reasoned a lot about change, radical change, "you can't step into the same river twice". At least one of his disciples have taken it further: "You can't step in the river once" probably meaning that what is called "you standing on a shore" and "you stepping into the river" to be changed flowing processes, just as flowing river whose parts are never the same - a very close if not identical to the anatta doctrine. Why didn't they realize sainthood? > >"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called >a stream-enterer, -- SN 25.2. Again, what exactly does it means to "know and see anicca"? These are questions of prime importance and something tells me that MOST haven't figured it out (I am myself trying to figure this out). Impermanence (and even lack of soul) is NOT something unknown to worldlings. "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may," "Eat, drink, and be merry, for death comes swiftly" , "Strike the iron when it's hot." "if you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life made of." Infact even though the worldlings sees & feel (or at least think) anicca & dukkha (and some even deny the Self) - they still have wrong views. In at least one sutta the Buddha has stated that full realization of anicca leads all the way to Arhatship. And the anicca isn't described om subatomic level. The "with birth there is aging & death" is for example considered a right view (MN9) fully capable of bringing one to Arhatship, and this is well "known" to most if not all worldlings. > ============== > > It is not difficult to see inconstancy and alteration (while >standing) in this body in the past, future and present. If so, then why aren't you an Arahant or Anagamin? What about other people? Full realization of even the gross aspect of the Body (in the Buddhist context) leads to Arhatship or Anagami stage. >But it is very difficult for me to contemplate: "colors and >hardness are inconstant, changeable, alterable" and directly see the >anicca characteristics in the body Please explain what you mean by contemplate. Almost any sane (save Zeno, or Pakkuddha Kaccayana follower) person on the street would agree when you tell them "visual forms change, sounds change, tastes change, thoughts change" and so on. All of us and at all conscious times percieve this change. Yet we aren't awakened. Why not? These questions are NOT critiques of you or the Teaching, they are questions to be discussed that are crucial for understanding. Best wishes, #90818 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... truth_aerator Dear TG and all, >--- TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Alex, Tep, and All > > > I'd like to know how Abhidhammists explain the "changing while >standing" or "persisting while changing" remark often encounter in >the Suttas. How does this jibe with -- "Dhammas that arise and >immediately pass away"? Or how does "Dhamma theory" explain this? >Thanks in advance. > Easy. They'll talk about conventional vs ultimate mode of speech. Whatever suttanta teaching doesn't fit Theravada Abh and the Comy will be said to be mere "conventional speech" where only Abh & Comy talks in Ultimate categories. Or they'll say that "suttas are hard to understand. Just study the Abh and Comy." Mahayanists may say that Pali Suttas are preliminary & provisionary with "meaning to be inferred" while Mahayana (or Vajjrayana) teachings are fully drawn out and final... Best wishes, #90819 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... visitorfromt... Hello TG (Alex, KenH and others), - Thank you for the motivating question; I will answer it, although KenH might say that I am not qualified. :-)) TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Alex, Tep, and All > > > I'd like to know how Abhidhammists explain the "changing while standing" or "persisting while changing" remark often encounter in the Suttas. How does this jibe with -- "Dhammas that arise and immediately pass away"? Or how does "Dhamma theory" explain this? Thanks in advance. > T: Without looking for the Pali words and explain what these terms mean (like all scholars have enjoyed doing), let me offer my one- satang explanation. Most forms (rupas) do not "arise and immediately pass away"; for example, ageing is a kind of change in a rupa "while standing". It is slow and gradual. Some hairs on my head gradually turned white over the past five years. Most of the hairs persist (i.e. not falling off the head or "passing away") while changing in the texture and color. Trying to reply to you, an Dhamma theorist might say as follows: the actual change of color ('rupa') is already going on in the nano-second timescale, but the change is too fast for humans to "visibly" see. S/he may try to convince you that what you "see" is just the so-called continuity. In reality what you are seeing now is just an illusion ! Tep === #90820 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:04 pm Subject: Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, > Tep wrote: > Trying to reply to you, an Dhamma theorist might say as follows: the > actual change of color ('rupa') is already going on in the nano- >second timescale, but the change is too fast for humans to "visibly" >see. S/he may try to convince you that what you "see" is just the so- >called continuity. In reality what you are seeing now is just an >illusion ! > > Tep > === In the Buddha-Dhamma change is a related to dukkha. Whenever in anattalakkhana teaching the Buddha has made the other guy admit that This is Anicca, it also made the other guy admit that "that which is anicca is dukkha". Thus Dukkha is dependent on anicca. Dukkha is a fact of experience and not some abstract truth. Same with anicca. Even non- Ariyans said that this aggregate is Anicca when questioned. Question: Which version of anicca produces more feeling of Dukkha, revulsion, dispassion and so on Version that says that: a) Since particles arise and cease 100 trillion times per second, there is no physical body that suffers and ages. There is ultimately no gray hair, here is no such thing as being carried in an ambulance due to hitting a tree while driving, there is no aging & death, etc etc. Or the version that teaches: b) "what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html Best wishes, #90821 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:41 pm Subject: Recitation if properly done can lead to awakening AND aruppas nichiconn Thanks, Alex, I'd hoped you might say a bit more about this. A: I would like to expand on what I've said about recitation. Recitation CAN lead to awakening Kaccana sutta Ud. 7.8 He for whom mindfulness of the body is always constantly established thus: "If there had not been, there would not be for me, There will not be, and there will not be for me," if he dwells upon that in graded steps, in time he will pass beyond attachment. ======= translation of John D. Ireland ============ C: Can you say more about what dwelling in graded steps means? TIA. I'm thinking it might mean there is more involved than recitation. A: This and in MN106 is what I suspect is tranquility preceded by insight practice. What must be noted though is that tranquility element IS here. C: Another interesting note (Nanamoli/Bodhi #1021, quoting MA) is that in this sutta when Ananda asks what the noble liberation is, the <> MA also says that "This is deathless: the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance" (ATI) also refers to the dry-insight meditator. A: In MN106 the cryptic phrase + addition of "What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' " leads to base neither perception nor non-perception (either as attainment here and now, or as rebirth of evolving consciousness). If the monk doesn't cherish, cling and hold onto equinimity of "base neither perception nor non-perception " then s/he is an Arahant. C: I guess by cryptic phrase you mean the one you quoted above as it occurs in both of these. A: There are other recitations that can lead anywhere from impertubable to the base neither perception nor non-perception. So recitation CAN be powerful if done constantly, mindfully and energetically through the day. ex: "the disciple of the noble ones, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness." check out more at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html c: Thanks for your patience and understanding that I am not trying to be argumentative... even after more than half a century's practice I still haven't quite learned to play well with others. peace, connie #90822 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:47 pm Subject: Re: How does one REALLY contemplate impermanence? visitorfromt... Dear Alex ( and anyone who enjoys a serious discussion), - Believe it or not, I like this post better than most messages you have written so far. .................................. A: This is not a critique. The Question that I am right now trying to fully figure out is. A: These questions are NOT critiques of you or the Teaching, they are questions to be discussed that are crucial for understanding. T: Good. I understand and agree with you, Alex. Yes, it is about time, as I have said here a few times before, for all of us to progress beyond the bland intellectual understanding and heavy quoting the suttas or commentaries or Vism to direct experience: i.e. let's focus more on patipatti and less on pariyatti. Of course, "experience" of a non-ariyan is not as worthy as that of an ariyan; yet, bringing it to the discussion is like adding some depth to a two-dimensional "bland" picture. Concerning the answers I'm giving below, it is necessary to refer to the suttas and Ptsm in order to convince you that I know what I am talking about. You can quiz me further in the next post on the quality of my understanding, if you doubt whether or not it is beyond bland intellectual. But don't expect too much, since even the Arahant Sariputta has often been criticized. ;-) ....................................... > "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: A: Please explain to me precisely what it means to have "conviction & belief" in impermanence. T: Conviction & belief means saddhindriya. It is explained in the definition of Saddha-follower (saddhanusarin) or Faith Devotee, Ptsm, V, 63. "When he gives attention as impermanence, the faith faculty is outstanding in him; with the faith faculty outstanding he acquires the stream-entry path; hence he is called a Faith Devotee. ..." You have an outstanding saddhindriya when you have zero doubt(vicikiccha samyojana) in the anicca-dhamma that was discovered and taught by the Buddha. It can be attained through aniccanupassana on the khandhas as described in MN 10, DN 22. Equivalently, the vicikiccha samyojana is eradicated, along with the other two lower fetters, by yoniso-manisikara on the FNTs as explained in MN 2. I cannot be more precise than this, Alex. I think you already knew all these. ....................................... > > "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has > accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma- follower A: Again: what precisely does it mean to "after pondering with modicum of discernment has accepted it." T: I think Ajaan Thanissaro explains in his note that 'modicum' means medium; the discernment level is not great like that of an Arahant. The definition of Dhamma-follower or Dhamma devotee (dhammanusarin) is given in Ptsm, V, 3 as follows. "When he gives attention as not self, the understanding faculty is outstanding in him; with the understanding faculty outsatnding he acquires the stream-entry path; hence he is called a Dhamma devotee ..." Giving attention, pondering and contemplating are equivalent to 'anupassana'. He has "accepted it" means (to me) that he has no doubt (seeing and knowing truly) about the anatta characteristic in the khandhas: eradication of the sakkaya-ditthi fetter. ....................................... > >"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called >a stream-enterer, -- SN 25.2. A: Again, what exactly does it means to "know and see anicca"? These are questions of prime importance and something tells me that MOST haven't figured it out (I am myself trying to figure this out). Impermanence (and even lack of soul) is NOT something unknown to worldlings. T: It is the knowing and seeing truly with Dhamma Eye that "forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable", after having observed the origination(samudaya) and passing away(vaya) of forms by direct knowledge -- observing the phenomena with sati, sampajanna, and atapa (effort). Yathaatatham = according to truth, true & real. Yathaabhuutam = in reality, in truth, really, definitely, absolutely. I will reply to the remaining questions in the next post -- maybe tomorrow. Tep === #90823 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:01 pm Subject: Re: How does one REALLY contemplate impermanence? visitorfromt... Dear Alex and all, - This the second and last part. Alex: "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may," "Eat, drink, and be merry, for death comes swiftly" , "Strike the iron when it's hot." "if you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life made of." A: Infact even though the worldlings sees & feel (or at least think) anicca & dukkha (and some even deny the Self) - they still have wrong views. In at least one sutta the Buddha has stated that full realization of anicca leads all the way to Arhatship. And the anicca isn't described om subatomic level. The "with birth there is aging & death" is for example considered a right view (MN9) fully capable of bringing one to Arhatship, and this is well "known" to most if not all worldlings. T: The first sentence sounds as if there is a strong doubt in your mind about the SN 25.2 that knowing and seeing truly with Dhamma Eye thus "forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable" is NOT sufficient for Sotapanna. Sakkhayaditthis (twenty of them) are self-views in the khandhas. Seeing anatta in the khandhas is abandoning the self-views and it can be achieved by rightly understanding/seeing that anything that is anicca is dukkha, and anything that is dukkha is anatta. This is beyond the worldings' understanding (seeing & feeling or thinking), I believe. BTW, are you sure that MN9 states that right view alone is enough for "bringing one to Arhatship"? .................................................. > > Tep: > It is not difficult to see inconstancy and alteration (while >standing) in this body in the past, future and present. A: If so, then why aren't you an Arahant or Anagamin? What about other people? Full realization of even the gross aspect of the Body (in the Buddhist context) leads to Arhatship or Anagami stage. T: "Not difficult to see" the anicca dhamma is quite different from "full realization", Alex. You yourself wrote above that "the worldlings sees & feel (or at least think) anicca & dukkha (and some even deny the Self)". I've explained how I see inconstancy and alteration (while standing) in this body" such as head hairs to TG, remember? ..................................... > Tep: >But it is very difficult for me to contemplate: "colors and >hardness are inconstant, changeable, alterable" and directly see the >anicca characteristics in the body A: Please explain what you mean by contemplate. Almost any sane (save Zeno, or Pakkuddha Kaccayana follower) person on the street would agree when you tell them "visual forms change, sounds change, tastes change, thoughts change" and so on. All of us and at all conscious times percieve this change. Yet we aren't awakened. Why not? Please explain to me precisely what it means to have "conviction & belief" in impermanence. T: I can detect some annoyance in you, dear Alex. Maybe you are disappointed that so far I have failed to say that the seeing and knowing must be supported by concentration i.e. jhanas. Am I reading you correctly? Contemplation is the same as 'anupassana'. You have seen this term before, e.g. kayanupassana satipatthana, vedananupassana satipathhana, and so on in MN 10. Contemplate or discern or meditate with the purpose to understand (pa~n~naa) a phenomenon/dhamma, is vipassana. In some meditators, vipassana is preceded by samatha. Another case is when samatha is preceded by vipassana, etc. We have discussed a number of suttas on the various kinds of meditation before, don't you remember? Both samatha & vipassana are required for attaining of vijja and vimutti for Arahantship, and you also know that [MN 149]. Perceiving, considering, or thinking about a dhamma by an uninstructed person is not one of my Dhamma discussion favorites. I already explained "conviction & belief" in impermanence in the first part of my reply. Tep === #90824 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... TGrand458@... Hi Tep Thanks for you answer. I see change as gradual and continuous due to the interaction of phenomena. It is seeing "Dhammas" as arising and immediately falling away...like discrete moments of on/off existence, that I don't get. A bizarre notion, in my mind, that not only seems to have no support in the Suttas, but contradicts them for the most past. TG #90825 From: "rinzeee" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:45 pm Subject: Re: The Practice (MN 39) & DN2 rinzeee Dear Alex, Howard and All --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hello Howard and all, > > >--- upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, all - > > > > The following is from MN 39 with a few comments of mine interspersed: > > > The sutta is awesome. Its plan of action can be summarized as: > Conscience & concern -> Purity of conduct -> Restraint of the senses-> > Moderation in eating -> Wakefulness ->Mindfulness & alertness > -> Abandoning the hindrances -> 4 jhanas ->3 knowledges > > "And how is a monk learned? His evil, unskillful qualities that are > defiled, that lead to further becoming, create trouble, ripen in > stress, and lead to future birth, aging, & death have streamed away. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html#t-10 > > Note: There isn't any direct passage as to "knowing ultimate realities", > at least not after Jhanas. > > > In DN2 sutta the above sequence : > > Sense Restraint -> Mindfulness & Alertness ->Contentedness - >Abandoning > the Hindrances -> 4 Jhanas -> Insight Knowledge -> 6 Abhinnas (one of > which is Arhatship) > > New step is: > > Insight Knowledge > "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, > free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to > imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. > He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the > four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice > and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, > and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and > bound up here.' Just as if there were a beautiful beryl gem of the > purest water — eight faceted, well polished, clear, limpid, consummate > in all its aspects, and going through the middle of it was a blue, > yellow, red, white, or brown thread — and a man with good eyesight, > taking it in his hand, were to reflect on it thus: 'This is a beautiful > beryl gem of the purest water, eight faceted, well polished, clear, > limpid, consummate in all its aspects. And this, going through the > middle of it, is a blue, yellow, red, white, or brown thread.' In the > same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, > unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained > to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge and > vision. He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed > of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished > with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, > dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is > supported here and bound up here.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html > > An important note: This "insight knowledge" is followed after 4 Jhanas. > > > > > Best wishes, > > > Alex > Dear Alex,Howard and All From this Sutta and many other Suttas similar in nature, I come to understand that Lord Buddha is mapping out the `landmarks' to the path to Liberation. These `landmarks' are not an order of sequence as such, but of priority. Therefore when there is Sila, there is Samadhi, through the restraining of once sense perceptions. And when there is Samadhi, there is Panna, conditioning for the `Eye Of Dhamma' to arise. Or when there is Faith with Wisdom, one makes the (4 fold) Right Effort, which paves the way for Concentration, Mindfulness being the principal arbitrator. This `sequence of priority' being the dependent conditions for path consciousness to arise, This is the `modus operandi', the practical approach to the Teachings, that Lord Buddha is trying to put across in the Suttas. And He puts it so well and clearly that It beats me how this could be misconstrued as a `Silabbataparamasa' (wrong practice / formal meditation). Since `Abhidhamma' (proper) is the core Teachings of Buddhism, and therefore cannot be discussed by itself, unless by conventional means / terms / phrases, it follows that, realizing `Abhidhamma' too, should be a reflection of that same principal. To get to the `Heartwood' of a tree, the outlaying bark of the tree will have to be peeled off in phases! Otherwise all that can be said is `to develop understanding' or `be mindful of the Paramtha Dhammas of this moment, now' etc the stock phrases I come across in this forum by some DSG members! (Which, really IS what is happening, when one sits down, to what, some disparagingly call `formal Meditation!') Of course, the Dhamma is to be realized in a moment in the here and now. But this has been mistakenly understood that the Higher Dhamma Teachings can be seen forthright without having to fabricate the path in the mind (conventionally speaking). Of course, there were individuals who were able to do so, on account of their already having fabricated the conditions, during the period when Lord Buddha was there. But how far this can happen, during our times, is dependent on many other factors. Lord Buddha says, "Mind precedes all Dhammas, mind is their chief, mind made are they" –Dhammapada. Everything arises in the mind, that includes the Noble Eightfold Path, too. The means of this fabrication is the Faculties and the Enlightenment factors, the development of which, is the whole process of what is understood as the Practice. Refer http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html May we all see the Dhamma Rinze #90826 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:57 pm Subject: Re: Reductionist Fallacy kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---------- <. . .> H: > Ken, do any of the "realities" underlying your body, the rupas, eat, drink, breathe, circulate blood, clot blood, produce new skin when the old has been cut, and so on? ---------- Point taken! As far as I know a rupa does not have a circulation system. Nor does it sit down to a hearty meal. :-) The important thing to understand, however, it that at all times there are really only the presently arisen, fleeting, selfless (bloodless) conditioned dhammas. ----------------- H: > These global functions occur only because the rupas act (or arise and cease) in concert, following specific patterns. ----------------- Is there an Abhidhamma term for 'global functions' or for 'specific patterns followed by dhammas?' I think you will find they all come under the heading of 'pannatti.' ------------------------- H: > That interaction is not just concept - it is reality. This interaction is a wonder, and it sustains your life in this fortunate human birth. ------------------------- According to my understanding, global functions can be explained only by global sciences. I don't think you will ever find an Abhidhamma explanation for them. (Why would there be? What relevance could they have in a world consisting of the presently arisen paramattha dhammas?) They can be given as similes for understanding paramattha functions, but that's where the connection ends. Ken H #90827 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:02 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 303 and Tiika, part I. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 303, part I. Intro: The following section shows by way of similes how sorrowful it is to be in the cycle of birth and death. Each of these similes has to be applied to our life now, at this moment. We are now overcome by ignorance, blind and stumbling along, falling down from this life to be born into a next life. -------- Text Vis. 303: [As to similes:] ignorance is like a blind man because there is no seeing states according to their specific and general characteristics; --------- N: Each dhamma has its own specific characteristic and furthermore there are the three general characteristics (sama~n~na lakkha.na) of impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. The Tiika states that he does not see dhammas in all manners as they are, as they should be seen in the ultimate sense (paramatthato). --------- Text Vis.: formations with ignorance as condition are like the blind man's stumbling; consciousness with formations as condition is like the stumbler's falling; ---------- N: He falls into the next becoming, as the Tiika explains. --------- Text Vis.: mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition is like the appearance of a tumour on the fallen man; the sixfold base with mentality-materiality as condition is like a gathering that makes the tumour burst; contact with the sixfold base as condition is like hitting the gathering in the tumour; ---------- N:The Tiika explains that because of the appearance of the tumour there is an acute pain. The filth of the defilements is as it were oozing. Contact has as function to contact an object so that citta can experience it. It is as it were hitting the tumour. ----------- Text Vis: feeling with contact as condition is like the pain due to the blow; --------- N: The Tiika refers to the three feelings (pleasant feeling, painful feeling and indifferent feeling) and the threefold dukkha. The three feelings are sorrowful because of the threefold dukkha, as the Tiika explains. As to the threefold dukkha, the first one is: dukkha- dukkha, painful bodily feeling and unhappy mental feeling. The second one is: pari.naama dukkha: dukkha because of change. Even happy feeling is dukkha in change, since it does not last. The third one is dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas that arise and fall away and are thus dukkha. ------------- Text Vis.: craving with feeling as condition is like longing for a remedy; clinging with craving as condition is like seizing what is unsuitable through longing for a remedy; becoming with clinging as condition is like applying the unsuitable remedy seized; birth with becoming as condition is like the appearance of a change [for the worse] in the tumour owing to the application of the unsuitable remedy; and ageing-and-death with birth as condition is like the bursting of the tumour after the change. ------- N: The Tiika mentions in this context the maturing (paako) and breaking (bheda) of the tumour, that is like birth conditioning ageing and death. The same words were used in the Tiika to Vis. 301 with respect to the khandhas that are produced at birth: the nature of the khandhas is maturing and breaking up (paakabhedabhaava). This is the way the khandhas occur. At each moment there is as it were maturing and breaking of the tumour, when a reality arises and fallas away. ----- Conclusion: We are like a blind person, not knowing the particular and general characteristics of dhammas. This points to not knowing the right practice: directly knowing the characteristics of realities through sati and pa~n~naa. So long as we are confused about the specific characteristics of naama and ruupa as they appear at this moment, we shall never realize the three general characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. Conditioned dhammas appearing in our daily life have the general characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. First we have to be clear what these conditioned dhammas are: all naama and ruupa of our daily life as they appear through the six doors. Thus, first right understanding of the specific characteristics of naama and ruupa has to be gradually developed. So long as the true characteristics are not known we stumble and fall, that is, falling from this life and then arising in a next life. Death is seen as falling. We are subject to death and rebirth until we have reached nibbaana, the deathless. As a blind person we are stumbling and groping when performing kamma that leads to rebirth. We have read in Vis. 119: Hence this is said: As one born blind, who gropes along Without assistance from a guide, Chooses a road that may be right At one time, at another wrong, So while the foolish man pursues The round of births without a guide, Now to do merit he may choose And now demerit in such plight... --------- We may believe that birth is good, we cling to life. But by all these similes we are reminded that birth leads to sorrow, that it is like a painful tumour that matures and will burst. When we are born we experience objects through the six doors, and this leads to defilements that are trickling and oozing; this means more suffering. In order to be cured of our blindness the true characteristics of realities have to be understood. (to be continued) ***** Nina. #90828 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:06 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 2, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, The sotåpanna, the person who has attained the first stage of enlightenment, has no more conditions for transgressing the five precepts. He sees realities as they are and he has eradicated the wrong view of self. As we have seen, lobha, dosa and moha are the causes for neglecting síla. The sotåpanna has not eradicated lobha, dosa and moha, but they do not have the intensity so as to condition the transgression of the five precepts. For him there are more conditions for lovingkindness and compassion. It is sati, not self, that prevents the transgression of the five precepts. Only through the development of right understanding of whatever reality appears, also of akusala citta, the wrong view of self can be eradicated. Then there will be no more conditions for transgressing the five precepts. During the seminar we discussed the abstaining from different kinds of wrong speech. Only abstention from lying is included in the five precepts, but we should see the benefit of abstaining from all kinds of wrong speech. Laypeople may observe five precepts, but on Uposatha Day many laypeople in Sri Lanka observe eight precepts. Refraining from eating after midday, from using cosmetics and wearing jewelry, and from lying on high and soft beds are included in the eight precepts. Khun Sujin pointed out that laypeople who develop satipatthåna can undertake another set of eight precepts. In addition to the five precepts one can observe three precepts with regard to speech. Apart from refraining from lying which is among the five precepts, one can train oneself in refraining from slandering, harsh speech and useless, idle talk. Thus, in this set of eight precepts there are four with regard to speech. One can train oneself each day in these eight precepts. We are often forgetful and heedless with regard to our speech. It is beneficial to know more about the types of citta which motivate our speech. During the seminar we discussed different kinds of unwholesome speech. Someone remarked that it is so difficult to refrain from gossiping when people around us are doing so. In society gossip is considered a means to keep the conversation going; before we realize it we have added a little to the disagreeable things others say about someone else. When we are forgetful we give in to wrong speech. If there is more right understanding of the present moment, this will condition refraining from gossip. Instead of gossip there can be mettå and karunå. ******* Nina. #90829 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? sarahprocter... Dear Alex, On the whole, you reject the ancient commentaries, but seem to have no trouble accepting what is written in Wikipedia. Take the following, for example: --- On Sun, 28/9/08, Alex wrote: >Speaking generally, the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga tend more strongly to emphasize the negative sides of asceticism (i.e., asceticism as a process of negating desire), and show a strong concern with regulating everyday bodily activities and sexual desires. They also place considerable emphasis on the rejection of all views, and are reluctant to put forward positions of their own regarding basic metaphysical issues. .... S: Is this you understanding? Are all views rejected or just wrong views? .... >The Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga also differ in their articulation of Buddhist meditation practices, leaning heavily on what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little evidence of vipassana at all, despite the important role played by the balance of these two elements in later Buddhism. This seems to be connected to the rejection of views, for if there is no correct view to gain insight into, meditation would be conceived simply as the practice of cultivating a mental state devoid of views. ... S: Do you agree with these comments you quoted? When I read the Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga, every sutta, beginning with the first one, "Kaama Sutta" is about the development of vipassana and the attainment of enlightenment. They are all about the development of right understanding, right view and the eradication of wrong views and other defilements. For example, the last stanza of this first sutta reads (Ven Saddhatissa transl.): "Therefore, let one always be thoughtful and avoid sensual pleasures; having abandoned them let him cross the flood [of defilements] and, like baling out a damaged ship, go to the further shore [Nibbaana]." S: In other words, he has realised the Four Noble Truths through the development of vipassana and 'crossed the flood'. In the Udana, V, ch vi Sona, we read about how Sona had been discouraged by Maha Kaccana from ordaining until he was 'mature'. One day he went to visit the Buddha. They shared a lodging and the Buddha asked Ven Sona to recite this section of the Dhamma (the sixteen suttas of Atthakavagga)for him. At the end, the Buddha highly praised him, saying he had "well considered and reflected" on these suttas, reciting well and making the meaning clear. The commentary (Masefield)elaborates: "'One able to render the meaning perceptivle (atthassa vi~n~naapaniyaa): one capable of rendering its implicit meaning perceptible.'" The commentary also states that "he (Ven Sona)then, at the culmination of that melodic recitation, established vipassanaa and, as he was comprehending the formations, in due course reached arahantship." Simply put, Ven Soma understood the significance of the verses with regard to the deep meaning and development of insight, in a way which clearly the writer of the passages you quote from Wikipedia doesn't. I don't really mind about the "3 strata of language in the Tripitaka". What's important is the understanding of the Truths contained in them. Through the development of vipassana, samatha is developed as well. In this case, the samatha is accompanied by the right understanding that all dhammas are anicca, dukkha AND anatta. Metta. Sarah ======== #90830 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:01 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil > > > Maybe this is something we can talk about when we have our Skype > > chat. (Will it be you, or Sarah, or a fierce tag team? I'm eager to > > find out!!!!!) > > > > ;-)) ;-)) Hope you didn't find us too fierce!! Ph: As Obama said to Hillary, "you're likeable enough." It was really nice! > > > I think the Buddha taught these clear teachings in > > his infinite wisdom knowing that they could be understood correctly > > and helpful by different people with different degrees of wisdom. I > > think you guys tend to write off the shallow-but-very-helpful > > understanding of these suttas too quickly and would thereby deny > > those helpful interpretations to people who could benefit from them. > > > > Each person understands the teachings at the level to which they are > capable. My point was that there is often a deeper meaning that is not > readily apparent to the casual reader. Ph: Sure, but some suttas are easier to understand than others. I personally shy away from MN on the whole, there are many suttas which are quite incomphrenisble to me. I can't get into SN 12, the samyutta on D.O. Way over my head. Most suttas in AN are easier to understand, I'm sure. Deeper meanings? Yes, I'll give you that. > > The thinking I think you have is that people get locked in those > > interpretations and therefore can't get any deeper. I think that's > > incorrect. I think the easy interpretations help create conditions > > that allow the understanding to sink deeper... > > > > No disagreement from me on this. > > It was nice chatting to you. I can now put a voice to the name (sanna > does that, actually ;-)) Ph: Yes, let's do it again sometime. At some point I'd like to find out if other people have skype and would like to chat. metta, phil #90831 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:19 am Subject: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) upasaka_howard Hi, all - The following is for our consideration: ________________________________ "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?" "'Everything exists' is the chief form of worldly philosophy, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of worldly philosophy, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of worldly philosophy, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of worldly philosophy, brahman. "Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. "Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." =========================== With metta, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90832 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reductionist Fallacy upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/29/2008 1:58:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ---------- <. . .> H: > Ken, do any of the "realities" underlying your body, the rupas, eat, drink, breathe, circulate blood, clot blood, produce new skin when the old has been cut, and so on? ---------- Point taken! As far as I know a rupa does not have a circulation system. Nor does it sit down to a hearty meal. :-) The important thing to understand, however, it that at all times there are really only the presently arisen, fleeting, selfless (bloodless) conditioned dhammas. ----------------- H: > These global functions occur only because the rupas act (or arise and cease) in concert, following specific patterns. ----------------- Is there an Abhidhamma term for 'global functions' or for 'specific patterns followed by dhammas? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I neither know nor care. Do you deny them? For me they are obvious - crystal clear, in fact. The realm of rupas is not just a dust bin. There is order and interrelationship, and I do not believe that you think otherwise! --------------------------------------------- ' I think you will find they all come under the heading of 'pannatti.' --------------------------------------------- Howard: It makes no difference to me what term you throw at them. They are quite real, unimagined. --------------------------------------------- ------------------------- H: > That interaction is not just concept - it is reality. This interaction is a wonder, and it sustains your life in this fortunate human birth. ------------------------- According to my understanding, global functions can be explained only by global sciences. ---------------------------------- Howard: Ken, returning the favor, I ask you "Is there an Abhidhamma term for 'global sciences'?" Why, how dare you try to make a point using a term not in the Abhidhamma! LOL! ----------------------------------- I don't think you will ever find an Abhidhamma explanation for them. -------------------------------------- Howard: I wouldn't attempt a search. It is of no concern to me. -------------------------------------- (Why would there be? What relevance could they have in a world consisting of the presently arisen paramattha dhammas?) They can be given as similes for understanding paramattha functions, but that's where the connection ends. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Tell that to the author of the Patthana. Incidentally, most conditionality spans time, going well beyond what is presently arisen - for example, the conditionality expressed in the 12-fold scheme of dependent origination. Some even take that to refer to a three-lifetime period, though I don't take that as its primary meaning. =========================== With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #90833 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... visitorfromt... Hello TG, - You made a very good observation. TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Tep > > > Thanks for you answer. I see change as gradual and continuous due to the interaction of phenomena. > > > It is seeing "Dhammas" as arising and immediately falling away...like > discrete moments of on/off existence, that I don't get. A bizarre notion, in my > mind, that not only seems to have no support in the Suttas, but contradicts > them for the most past. > > > TG > T: In DN 22 (Maha-satipatthana Sutta) all four anupassanas on body, feelings, mind states, and phenomena that are internal & external, far or near, etc., involve origination(samudaya) and passing-away(vaya). And you are right that both origination & passing away do not have to be immediate. Tep === #90834 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "The correct question should be is cetana vipaka or not? (no citta in the question). I believe that in at least some (if not most or all) cases it is NOT vipaka... " Scott: Okay, thanks for the clarification. Technically there is always citta in question since mental factors arise conascently with citta and cannot arise alone. Cetasikas arise with citta, fall away with citta, have the same object as citta, and share the same base. Cetanaa arises with all consciousness including vipaaka citta, since it is one of the sabbacittasaadhaara.na cetasikas - a universal. Vipaaka citta occurs at only a certain point in the citta-viithi - they are the wholesome or unwholesome cittas which occur , and so you are correct to state that cetanaa arises with other types of consciousness (all types, as noted). As I understand it, wholesome and unwholesome vipaaka cittas include the cittas limited to moments of eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, receiving and investigating consciousness proper. Each of these occurs at a given point along the course of the citta-viithi. A: "Ie, one can refrain from doing a bad deed, even though it may severely hurt to do so." Scott: It is very hard to convey, seemingly, how 'refraining from a bad deed' is not at all the act of a person. The 'refraining' is a function of many mental factors arising and falling away; the 'bad deed' does not occur given the presence of certain wholesome consciousness. I believe that it is over the course of the seven cittas within the javana sequence which follows on from seeing, etc., that cetanaa relates to 'doing a bad deed' etc. Sincerely, Scott. #90835 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:12 am Subject: Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... visitorfromt... Dear Alex (TG, KenH, Nina, Sukin and others), - You asked which "anicca version" a) or b) "produces more feeling of Dukkha, revulsion, dispassion and so on", where a) is the theoretical nano-second discrete on/off switching model of realities/phenomena, and b) is the Sutta teaching say on ageing or any phenomenon in the "daily life". >"what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html T: Of course, ageing that appears to the eye of the beholder is gradual, not an on/off switching phenomenon. But what if there is no beholder, no Buddha, no ariya puggalas, no Sarah, no KenH, no Sukin ?? ? The whole world is turned upside down by that wrong view. No good logic, even the Buddha's Teaching on ageing, makes sense to illogical thinkers. Tep === #90836 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (and Jon), Regarding: S: "...I would encourage/ask everyone (even those who disagree with what A.Sujin and some of us say most the time) to listen to at least the first track or two (only 20 mins segments)and to give your comments." Scott: Thanks for the ongoing series. The quality of the recording is very good. I'm on track three. I like the following, seeing it as a clear statement related to various threads on the go at the moment: "...Its not one's own understanding its just there own thinking...So we understand the meaning of development of understand and if we know theoretically what is ruupa and what is naama its not like the moment of awareness when it arises...That is the moment of real studying - the characteristic of a reality - to be ruupa or to be naama by not naming it or by not thinking about it but by understanding that characteristic as hardness cannot be anything besides hardness itself. And that which experiences hardness is different. One at a time until its so natural and one is used to understand[ing] that. We don't have to name or call it 'naama'. We don't have to look whether this is naama or ruupa but when awareness arises its the moment of beginning to understand that little by little as 'that reality cannot experience anything at all. We don't have to say out or speak in words or think in words but the understanding of that characteristic begins to distinguish its characteristic from other things..." Scott: The 'real studying' is has nothing to do with books. Sincerely, Scott. #90837 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:23 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 nilovg Dear Scott, Op 29-sep-2008, om 14:29 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > One at a time > until its so natural and one is used to understand[ing] that. We > don't have to name or call it 'naama'. We don't have to look whether > this is naama or ruupa but when awareness arises its the moment of > beginning to understand that little by little as 'that reality cannot > experience anything at all. We don't have to say out or speak in > words or think in words but the understanding of that characteristic > begins to distinguish its characteristic from other things..." > > Scott: The 'real studying' is has nothing to do with books. ------- N: Your quote shows very clearly: nothing to do with books. . One may in the beginning doubt before sati arises: how to know the difference between nama and rupa, can I ever make it, the "I" again. But when the real, not the premeditated, sati arises, it is very natural as Kh Sujin always stresses. Just as natural as seeing now, as Ann reminded us. No preparation needed, just understanding more and more. Nina. #90838 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:13 am Subject: Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) visitorfromt... Hi Howard, - "Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ..." How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the middle"? Tep === #90839 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/29/2008 2:19:15 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: right understanding that all dhammas are anicca, dukkha AND anatta. Metta. Sarah ....................................... Hi Sarah A correct statement "in and of itself.". But when we disagree as to the nature of "Dhammas," the mechanics of impermanence, and the reason that conditioned phenomena are anatta, then it doesn't really mean anything. LOL Right understanding for you is the commentarial view, subsequent analysis of the same, and the Suttas "seen in that light" and in that light only. Right understanding for me is the Sutta presentation and an understanding derived for the whole of that. For me, any commentary or analysis must match the Suttas and not the other way around. If a commentary says the "dhammas" arise and immediately fall away. I say -- where do the Suttas say "immediately fall away"? They DON"T to my knowledge. They DO say "changing while persisting" which the commentaries seem to ignore. Therefore, I find this aspect of commentarial analysis flawed and irrelevant. The same goes for terms like "own characteristic," ultimate realities," and so on. TG #90840 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:15 am Subject: Re: Recitation if properly done can lead to awakening AND aruppas truth_aerator Hello Connie and all, >---"connie" wrote: > > Thanks, Alex, > I'd hoped you might say a bit more about this. > > A: I would like to expand on what I've said about recitation. > > Recitation CAN lead to awakening > > Kaccana sutta Ud. 7.8 > He for whom mindfulness of the body is always constantly >established thus: > "If there had not been, there would not be for me, > There will not be, and there will not be for me," > if he dwells upon that in graded steps, in time he will pass beyond > attachment. > ======= translation of John D. Ireland ============ > > C: Can you say more about what dwelling in graded steps means? >TIA. I'm thinking it might mean there is more involved than >recitation. IMHO, The recitation may install a sense of equinimnity through attainment of perhaps 8th Jhana (see mn106), especially if one adds "what is, what comes to be, that I abandon". It may be a way of turning the mind from anything. You know, what you ponder enough, becomes inclination of the mind. In the case of "what is, what comes to be, that I abandon" first what happens is one temporary abandons sensuality and bad mental states. Then one abandons 1st Jhana. Then 2nd and so on, abandoning everything until one stops at 8th Jhana or even cessation. Ajahn Brahm teaches to use certain thoughts at certain times within his heavy samatha practice to guide the mind to relinquish attachments that keep one from entering deeper states. I wish I knew for sure what "graded steps" would mean. Lower Jhanas? Insight knowledges along the way? Both? > > A: This and in MN106 is what I suspect is tranquility preceded by insight practice. What must be noted though is that tranquility element IS here. > > C: Another interesting note (Nanamoli/Bodhi #1021, quoting MA) is >that in this sutta when Ananda asks what the noble liberation is, >the <the practice of the dry-insight meditator (sukkhavipassaka), who >attains arahantship without depending on a jhaanic attainment.>> MA >also says that "This is deathless: the liberation of the mind >through lack of clinging/sustenance" (ATI) also refers to the dry- >insight meditator. Please check the note 1017, 2nd paragraph.pg1316. Nanamoli/Bodhi says that MA thinks that it is equinimity of insight, however the equinimnity of 8th Jhana can also be intended. After all, the same key phrase used to achieve 8th Jhana can also make one an Arahant, if there is no clinging to the best object of clinging - 8th Jhana. The long list of things of Noble Liberation appear to be all the previous ways taken together and without stoping at them. "I have taught the way to cross over the flood by going from one support to the next, the noble liberation. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html Best wishes, #90841 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >---sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex, > .... > S: Is this you understanding? That would need to be clarified. > Are all views rejected or just wrong views? > .... 1st) It depends upon what you mean by "view" 2nd) Ultimately and at a certain stage even the "Dhamma" has to be let go of (not rejected though) - parable of the raft, and MN74. > >The Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga also differ in their > articulation of Buddhist meditation practices, leaning heavily on > what would come to be defined as samatha and showing very little > evidence of vipassana at all, despite the important role played by > the balance of these two elements in later Buddhism. This seems to >be > connected to the rejection of views, for if there is no correct >view > to gain insight into, meditation would be conceived simply as the > practice of cultivating a mental state devoid of views. > ... > S: Do you agree with these comments you quoted? A lot of things depend on what precisely do we meen by insight & samatha. Can lets say aruppa's be used for an insight and as aid to insight? Would using Aruppas (for liberation, ex mn106) be counted as insight or samatha? > When I read the Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga, every sutta, beginning with the first one, "Kaama Sutta" is about the development of vipassana and the attainment of enlightenment. They are all about the development of right understanding, right view and the eradication of wrong views and other defilements. > > For example, the last stanza of this first sutta reads (Ven Saddhatissa transl.): > > "Therefore, let one always be thoughtful and avoid sensual pleasures; having abandoned them let him cross the flood [of defilements] and, like baling out a damaged ship, go to the further shore [Nibbaana]." > > S: In other words, he has realised the Four Noble Truths through the development of vipassana and 'crossed the flood'. > By lack of "insight" the author may have meant that those suttas stress what you call "conventional" activities and situations. The suttas do NOT speak about heavy theoretical teachings of 89/121 cittas each lasting 1 trillionth of a second, 24 conditions and all that (it may be right, but sometimes sticking to the basics is the most important first step). best wishes, #90842 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/29/2008 12:14:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard, - "Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ..." How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the middle"? Tep ====================== With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that nothing exists "from its own side." With metta, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90843 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:35 pm Subject: Re: How does one REALLY contemplate Dhamma-Principle? truth_aerator Dear Tep, Sarah, Jon, Nina and all, >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Dear Alex and all, - > T: Maybe you are disappointed that so far I have failed to say that >the seeing and knowing must be supported by concentration i.e. jhanas. >Am I reading you correctly? Believe it or not, I had a different thing in mind. The issue is that there has to come the knowledge of "stability of Dhamma" or "regularity of dhamma" (dhammatthiti nana) and then the knowledge of entailment (anvaye nana). Or (dhammatthiti-nana -> nibbana-nana). From some suttas (Susima) it almost appears as if some people have achieved from pondering it. However there must be something involved as in SN12.68 sutta the dependent origination has to be "putting aside conviction, putting aside preference, putting aside tradition, putting aside reasoning through analogies, putting aside an agreement through pondering views: Do you have truly personal knowledge [alex: of Dependent Origination]" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.068.than.html One has to not only see anicca-dukkha-anatta of things now, but know as a principle that it has always been, is and will be that only that can remove lingering doubts. "Any [aggregate] whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near:... 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.' " SN 22.59 The question that I would love to have asked the Buddha would be: "Why can a person say "I believe that!" and yet not be an Ariyan"? What exactly must be done to have the same sort of conviction in the above as one knows that "all proper triangles in euclidean space have 3 3 sides and 3 angles. Always have, are, and will always be, without any exception." This is perhaps one of the things that separates perception of impermanence done in Ariyan vs Worldling. A worldling, even subconsciously, may have reservations that "even though all is impermanent, maybe there is or will be something permanent in the future." Best wishes, #90844 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:01 pm Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Scott, Thank you for your answer. >--- "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > As I understand it, wholesome and unwholesome vipaaka cittas include > the cittas limited to moments of eye-consciousness, ear- >consciousness, > nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, > receiving and investigating consciousness proper. Each of these > occurs at a given point along the course of the citta-viithi. > I see no mind-consciousness, so that gives the possibility that the mental choice and intention is not vipaka (not predetermined from conditions since Big Bang). > A: "Ie, one can refrain from doing a bad deed, even though it may > severely hurt to do so." > > Scott: It is very hard to convey, seemingly, how 'refraining from a > bad deed' is not at all the act of a person. The 'refraining' is a > function of many mental factors arising and falling away; the 'bad > deed' does not occur given the presence of certain wholesome > consciousness. I believe that it is over the course of the seven > cittas within the javana sequence which follows on from seeing, >etc., > that cetanaa relates to 'doing a bad deed' etc. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Can you please in conventional language answer this: Can a person abstain from bad Action, or is a person merely a puppet without choice & free will of (to abstain or to fall into completion of a crime, even heineous one) to develop or not understanding of realities appearing now? Please no derailing of an honest question by attacking word "person" in the question. Best wishes, #90845 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:36 pm Subject: Re: How does one REALLY see DhammaPrinciple? - correction/addition truth_aerator Dear Tep, Sarah, Jon, Nina and all, >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Dear Alex and all, - > T: Maybe you are disappointed that so far I have failed to say that >the seeing and knowing must be supported by concentration i.e. jhanas. >Am I reading you correctly? Believe it or not, I had a different thing in mind. The issue is that there has to come the knowledge of "stability of Dhamma" or "regularity of dhamma" (dhammatthiti nana) and then the knowledge of entailment (anvaye nana). It is also called (dhammatthiti-nana -> nibbana-nana). From some suttas (Susima) it almost appears as if some people have achieved from pondering it. However there must be something involved as in SN12.68 sutta the dependent origination has to be seen through Personal Knowledge: "putting aside conviction, preference, tradition, reasoning through analogies, an agreement through pondering views: Do you have truly personal knowledge [alex: of Dependent Origination]" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.068.than.html One has to not only see anicca-dukkha-anatta of things now, but know as an inviolatable principle that it has always been, is and will be. Only seeing the principle can remove lingering doubts. "Any [aggregate] whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near:... 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.' " SN 22.59 The question that I would love to have asked the Buddha would be: "Why can a person say "I believe that!" and yet not be an Ariyan"? What exactly must be done to have the same sort of conviction in the above as one knows as a principle that "all proper triangles always have, had and will have 3 angles" . I would also love to ask the Buddha: "I believe/know that "nothing is worth clinging to", however I often have lust, anger, conceit and so on arise. What is wrong? What is to be done?" =========================== Back to impermanence: This understanding of the principle, is perhaps one of the things that separates the perception of impermanence in Ariyan vs Worldling. A worldling, even subconsciously, may have reservations that "even though all is impermanent, maybe there is or will be something permanent in the future." Best wishes, #90846 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:47 pm Subject: Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) visitorfromt... Hi, Howard (and Sukin) - >"Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ..." >Tep: How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the middle"? ====================== Howard: With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that nothing exists "from its own side." ........................ T: I assume that all kinds of existence have an origination. That must be a good assumption since the Buddha in MN 10 advised the monks to contemplate origination and passing away of the four dhammas (kaya, vedanas, cittas, dhammas that include the khandhas). Does nibbana exist? Your above statements do not explicitly say yes or no. If you say yes, then how does nibbana as the unconditioned dhamma exist with no origination? If you say no, then how could Buddhist monks in the sutta stories take nibbana as the object of consciousness? [See AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta] I think the Suttas teach both conditioned and unconditioned dhammas. The philosophy of existence is not found in the Suttas. In my humble opinion, the dependent origination principle of the 'paticcasamuppada dhammas' is "the Dhamma via the middle" because it is the only right view among all conceived the extreme wrong views. Please correct me like Alex has done by showing me relevant sutta evidences. Thanks. Your old friend, Tep === #90847 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:00 pm Subject: Important questions about Right View & practice truth_aerator Dear Rinzee, and all DSG'ers, >---"rinzeee" wrote: > > Dear Alex,Howard and All > > From this Sutta and many other Suttas similar in nature, I come to > understand that Lord Buddha is mapping out the `landmarks' to the > path to Liberation. These `landmarks' are not an order of sequence > as such, but of priority. Of course the steps are landmarks and are like a staircase. If you stick to this step, you may not rich the higher ones. Of course it is that only with Right View can there be Right practice. > This is the `modus operandi', the practical approach to the > Teachings, that Lord Buddha is trying to put across in the Suttas. > And He puts it so well and clearly that It beats me how this could > be misconstrued as a `Silabbataparamasa' (wrong practice / formal > meditation). Rites and Rituals can also mean "superstitious approach to..." . A good "practice" can be taken in a proper, or superstitious approach. The fault isn't always with practice itself, but with approach toward it. Right? > Since `Abhidhamma' (proper) is the core Teachings of Buddhism, and Dependent Origination is the core of the Buddha. As Buddha has said somewhere: "Who sees DO sees the Dhamma and who sees the Dhamma sees DO." Abhidhamma, IMHO is better for: a) To check one's progress on the Path. b) As a tool, a vocabulary, for explaining one's Arhatship. Lets not forget: It is easy to miss the forest among the trees... > Otherwise all that can be said is `to develop understanding' or `be And exactly how is this done? > mindful of the Paramtha Dhammas of this moment, now' etc the stock There has to be something more. ALL of us in waking hours ALWAYS percieve something happening NOW. Yet how many arhats do we meet on the street? I strongly believe in the necessity of Yoniso Manasikara, but it has to properly done. Merely being aware of nama&rupa dhamma arising is what everyone ALREADY sees. What is the difference between Buddhist awareness and the one which we had for 24, 30, 40,50,60,80+ years? Most (99.9%) people if asked "is there mental & physical phenomena" would answer YES. Then, why don't they have nama-rupa nana? Most (99.9%) people if asked "is there inconstancy? Is it happiness or unhappiness" would answer YES. Then why don't they have corresponding Nanas? The worldling wisdom is fulled with references to inconstancy: "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may," "Eat, drink, and be merry, for death comes swiftly" , "Strike the iron when it's hot." "if you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life made of." Yet it doesn't seem to lead to certain nanas. Why not? Best wishes, #90848 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:11 pm Subject: Re: How does one REALLY see DhammaPrinciple? - correction/addition visitorfromt... Hi Alex, - >Alex: I would also love to ask the Buddha: "I believe/know that "nothing is worth clinging to", however I often have lust, anger, conceit and so on arise. What is wrong? What is to be done?" T: You need to know how to handle akusala vitakkas the way the Buddha taught in MN 20 :Vitakkasanthana Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html All defilements can be handled by abadoning 'asavas' as described in MN 2 : Sabbasava Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html I think you already know the above two suttas and must have studied them as well. Kilesas/asavas cannot be abandoned by reading and discussing about them. Go beyond reading and discussing into earnest practice according to these two suttas. Best wishes, Tep === #90849 From: "colette" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:00 am Subject: Does a detonator = the actual explosion? ksheri3 Hi Group, I'm focusing on the aggregat-ization of an event or an action. I'm particularly focusing on the Western philosophical principle of DUTY ETHICS: I'm out of time but I got this going. toodles, colette #90850 From: "colette" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:38 am Subject: Does a detonator = the actual explosion? ksheri3 Good Day Group, The subject line clearly shows the phallacy, the illusion, that peoplee are under when they encounter reality: while on the surface, as if walking on water as insects tend to do and as the christian creationist programming clearly dictates, is the "Duty Theories: "...base morality on specific, foundational norm or RELATIVE TRUTH we often fail to see that this truth is written from an ULTIMATE TRUTH and only manifested as a RELATIVE TRUTH. The aggregate is not the individual yet the indiviudal certainly is the aggregate, AS IS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE ABHIDHAMMA TEXT. We can banty over triffles 'til the cows come home but is it worth it since we principles of obligation. ... sometimes called deontological from the Greek deon or duty in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They're also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions". <...> Consequentialism implies RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. Therefore what is JUSTICE? What is RETRIBUTION? What is CAUSE & EFFECT? What is the hallucination of a heaven? What is the hallucination of a hell? Is it possible to hallucinate anything other than a heaven or a hell? As John Lennon once said: "I wonder if you can." If you have no imagination then what are you other than a programmed robot? YES! Why I do believe we are on to something Ronald Epstein and yes, it's a total mind-game since we certainly know that the mind can make the body sick but what about the mind making the aggregate of bodies sick as in a REVERSE PYRAMID OF BLACK MARKET ECONOMICS where a single mind makes the entire group, the aggregate, sick? You certainly have to agree that if the mind can make the body sick and the mind is used as in the case of the aggregate of minds and the aggregate of bodies, then a single mind can manifest a illness in the single body i.e. Adam Kadmon of kabbalistic fame which leads me into QUANTUM PHYSICS and Quantum Theory. I'VE BEEN CENSORED! Obviously people do not want me using, applying Kabbalah here since kabbalah was created after Abhidhamma and therefore is RESULTANT. yet, my theory is that these two are independent of each other and that I have to disprove the existance of a Buddha Nature in order to disprove the existance of the Dharma. That's a stretch, isn't it? Don't you see? The Dharma = Buddha Nature. Now we're talkin' MIND GAMES! Just what is Enochian Chess? I've never played it, I've been exposed to two dimensional organisms that are completely addicted to the paper i.e. "the paper holds their faces to the floor, and every day the paper boy brings more" Pink Floyd. But I have never found the time to access definitions of what Enochian Chess actually is and their cohorts in the Quantum Physics field. <...> So why isn't a detonator the same as the actual explosion? How can you say that the detonator came before the explosion? If TIME DOES NOT EXIST THEN WHAT ABOUT SPACE and, WELL, WHAT ABOUT CONTEXT, SINCE IF YOU CANNOT PROVE A DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS THEN IT'S AWFUL HARD TO SPEEK OF SPATIAL MEMORY ISN'T IT? toodles, colette #90851 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) truth_aerator Hello Howard and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between > independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - >namely conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, >except for nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that >nothing exists at all nor is it that there are self-existent >entities. What is the case is that phenomena exist, but not > separately, and not intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that >nothing exists "from its own side." > > With metta, > Howard Dependent origination starts with "Ignorance" and ends with "aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html#dep endent Sounds very much like soteriological, eschatological, etiological and pragmatic ethico-psychological teaching! Best wishes, #90852 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/29/2008 6:06:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dependent origination starts with "Ignorance" and ends with "aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html#dep endent Sounds very much like soteriological, eschatological, etiological and pragmatic ethico-psychological teaching! =============================== The 12-step program (LOL!) of dependent origination is the application of conditionality to the arising and ceasing of dukkha, and indeed it is as you describe it. With metta, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90853 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Sukin) - In a message dated 9/29/2008 4:49:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi, Howard (and Sukin) - >"Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ..." >Tep: How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the middle"? ====================== Howard: With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that nothing exists "from its own side." ........................ T: I assume that all kinds of existence have an origination. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not assume so. I assert that nibbana exists but is a reality beyond condition, and it does NOT originate. If it did originate it would cease, for whatever arises ceases. --------------------------------------------------- That must be a good assumption since the Buddha in MN 10 advised the monks to contemplate origination and passing away of the four dhammas (kaya, vedanas, cittas, dhammas that include the khandhas). --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Though the Buddha never said so, I do believe that all conditioned dhammas originate. Nibbana does not fall into that category, not being conditioned and not originating. ------------------------------------------------- Does nibbana exist? Your above statements do not explicitly say yes or no. If you say yes, then how does nibbana as the unconditioned dhamma exist with no origination? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It does indeed exist, and it did not originate, being beyond time and all condition. ------------------------------------------------ If you say no, then how could Buddhist monks in the sutta stories take nibbana as the object of consciousness? [See AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta] --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't say "no." I say "yes." --------------------------------------------------- I think the Suttas teach both conditioned and unconditioned dhammas. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly one unconditioned dhamma. ------------------------------------------------ The philosophy of existence is not found in the Suttas. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha spoke of non-existence, most particularly as regards selves. As regards existence, he taught conditionality. That is his ontology, and it subsumes both anicca and anatta, and, with a basis in tanha,it also subsumes dukkha. ------------------------------------------------- In my humble opinion, the dependent origination principle of the 'paticcasamuppada dhammas' is "the Dhamma via the middle" because it is the only right view among all conceived the extreme wrong views. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course. It excludes the extremes of essentialism and nihilism. --------------------------------------------------- Please correct me like Alex has done by showing me relevant sutta evidences. Thanks. Your old friend, Tep =============================== With metta, Howard #90854 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:56 pm Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex A: "I see no mind-consciousness, so that gives the possibility that the mental choice and intention is not vipaka (not predetermined from conditions since Big Bang)." Scott: Once the viithi-cittas which are vipaaka fall away, votthapana-citta arises; this is the 'determining consciousness' - also known as the mano-dvaaraavajjana-citta or the 'mind-door adverting consciousness. This particular citta is kiriyacitta and simply performs its function and falls away, to be followed by the javana viithi-cittas. As I understand it, vipaaka-citta is rootless and is merely result of kamma. It is not 'functional' in the sense of leading to its own result. When cetanaa functions as one of the mental factors in any given moment of consciousness, its flavour contributes to the overall 'coherence' of that given moment. In this sense it is not 'kamma'. See below. A: "Can a person abstain from bad Action, or is a person merely a puppet without choice & free will of (to abstain or to fall into completion of a crime, even heineous one) to develop or not understanding of realities appearing now? Please no derailing of an honest question by attacking word 'person' in the question." Scott: Everything happens all the time. Non-conventionally, there is akusala kamma and there is kusala kamma. There are akusala dhammas and there are kusala dhammas. These arise and fall away according to conditions. When it appears as if 'a person abstains from a bad action', and given the presence of mental factors whose function prevented the arising of akusala, then there is cetanaa. Have you done no good in your life, Alex? Or no ill? Can't you consider the times when either of these actions occur for you? Why do you need to see it that 'you' did good? 'Good' just happens according to conditions. Same for 'bad'. Kh. Sujin (A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, pp. 420-421) gives a concise description: "Volition (cetanaa cetasika) wills or intends; it is active in fulfilling its own task and in coordinating the tasks of the naama dhammas arising together with it at that moment. Cetanaa cetasika is kamma-condition (kamma-paccaya). Cetanaa cetanaa accompanying vipaakacitta is conascent kamma-condition (sahajaata-paccaya); it performs its function as cetanaa that is vipaaka, arising together with vipaakacitta and the other cetasikas that are also vipaaka* and then it falls away. Cetanaa cetasika that is kiriya is also conascent kamma-condition. It performs its function as it arises together with kiriyacitta and the other cetasikas that are kiriya cetasikas, and then it falls away. However, akusala cetanaa which accompanies akusala citta and accomplishes akusala kamma patha (course of action which is completed) and kusala cetanaa which accompanies kusala citta and accomplishes kusala kamma patha, are, after they have fallen away, 'kamma-condition' operating from different moment (naanaa-kha.nika kamma-paccaya). This type of kamma produces vipaaka citta and cetasikas arising later on. Thus, when akusala and kusala cetanaa that are cause, have fallen away, they can produce results in the form of vipaakacitta and cetasikas later on, at a time different from the actual committing of evil and good deeds. That is why they are kamma-condition operating from a different time, naanaa-kha.nika-kamma-pacaya." Scott: Consider this footnote - the question is answered: *"Thus it is different from akusala kamma and kusala kamma that bring their results later on. One usually thinks of kamma as a good or bad deed, but the reality of kamma is actually cetanaa cetasika. Cetanaa is not only akusala or kusala, but it is also vipaaka and kiriya. Cetanaa that is vipaaka or kiriya merely coordinates the tasks of the citta and the cetasikas it accompanies, and thus it is conascent kamma-condition. Cetanaa that is akusala or kusala has a double task: it coordinates the tasks of the accompanying naama dhammas and it 'wills' or intends akusala or kusala" Sincerely, Scott. #90855 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:00 pm Subject: Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 glenjohnann Dear Sarah and Jonothan Wonderful to hear the recording - like being there! In the first segment on January 9,I particularly appreciate being able to hear Loedvijk's questions re nimitta and "what is sati" and Khun Sujin's very detailed and thorough responses. Seems to hit home more the way it is explained here. I was caught by her explanation of the very gradual development of sati - how very gradually one will be able to notice when there are moments of sati and when there are not, and how panna will slowly be able to distinguish just a bit the difference between nama and rupa (visible object and seeing being the example used). As for listening with pencil and paper at hand - I listened before I read Sarah's suggestion re taking some notes. I will definately be listening again, as this segment is so useful, and will try to remember to do so properly equipped (paper and pencil, that is)!. Thank you so much for your "labour of love" in producing the recordings - these seem especially valuable. Ann > #90856 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:25 pm Subject: What is Contact? bhikkhu0 Friends: Diversity of Contacts prompt Urge & Search: The Blessed Buddha once explained: There is eye-sensitivity, visual forms, & visual consciousness. The meeting of these three elements, is eye Contact... There is ear-sensitivity, audible sounds, & auditory consciousness. The encounter of these three elements, is ear Contact... There is nose-sensitivity, smellable odours, & olfactory consciousness. The occurrence of these three elements, is nose Contact... There is tongue-sensitivity, tastable flavours, & gustatory consciousness. The happening of these three elements, is tongue Contact... There is body-sensitivity, sensible touches, & tactile consciousness. The coming together of these three elements, is body Contact... There is mental-sensitivity, mental states, & mental consciousness. The coincidence of these three elements, is mental Contact... Friends, it is in dependence on the diversity of these elements, that there arises the multiplicity of perceptions; & in dependence on the multiplicity of perceptions, that there arises the variety of intentions; & in dependence on the variety of intentions, that there arises the diverseness of contacts; & in dependence on the diverseness of contacts, that there arises the array of feelings; & in dependence on the array of feelings, that there arises the mishmash of desires; & in dependence on the mishmash of desires, that there arises the manifold of fevers; & in dependence on the manifold of fevers, that there arises the abundance of searches; & in dependence on the abundance of searches, that there arises multifarious enthralling urges... How so? Regarding e.g. form; in dependence on intention for form, there arises contact with form; in dependence on contact with form, there arises feeling born of contact with form; in dependence on feeling born of contact with form, there arises desire for form; in dependence on desire for form, there arises fever for form; in dependence on fever for form, there arises the search for form; in dependence on the search for form, there arises the need of form... Such is the emergence of this manifold hunt, urge & wanting! Obvious example: Porn, food, & most entertainment! Intention=>Contact=>Feeling=>Desire=>Fever=>Search=>Urge=>Need=>Pain! Every second of our lives this bombardment of sensuality creates suffering! Source: The Grouped Sayings on the Elements by the Buddha. Dhatu-Samyutta Nikaya XIV http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html What is Contact: Causes & Effects? Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90857 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Original Buddhism pt3. Core within a core. The earliest teachings? sarahprocter... Hi TG & all, --- On Tue, 30/9/08, TGrand458@... wrote: S:...right understanding that all dhammas are anicca, dukkha AND anatta. ... S: This should, of course, have read 'all *conditioned* dhammas....', but at least you kindly read it as intended:-). ... TG:> A correct statement "in and of itself.". But when we disagree as to the nature of "Dhammas," the mechanics of impermanence, and the reason that conditioned phenomena are anatta, then it doesn't really mean anything. LOL ... S: LOL indeed....more later... Metta, Sarah ======= #90858 From: "rinzeee" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:02 am Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma rinzeee Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: Tep: The important term "form" (rupa) is a component of both the aggregate (rupakkhandha) and the nama-rupa link of the Paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination or Dependent Co-arising). Confusion arises when some DSG members keep talking about forms as "colors", "sounds", "hardness", etc., without trying to explain first what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. Rinze: For those of us, who come to the DSG, with a `Sutta Background' of the Dhamma, is bound to get confused, in trying to understand the Dhamma as presented here, by some members of the DSG, who are with a primarily, `Abhidhamma' point of view.. Sutta Quotes: Sariputta: "And what, friends, is form as a clinging-aggregate? The four great existents and the form derived from them. And what are the four great existents? They are the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property. Rinze: Pathavi (the earth property) is the element of extension and not `earth' (note the distinction `property'), as is conventionally known. But, when this element of extension, which is directly known (without having to think), is to be conveyed to someone, it has to be conceived (to think) in the mind of that person first. In conceiving he calls it with a concept that bears the closest resemblance to what he experienced. Therefore he calls it Earth. In describing this further, he comes up with it's characteristics like, hardness, softness, lightness, and so on. And so with liquid property, fire property and wind property. But these 4 Mahabuthas are not independent of each other. In fact their very nature is the cause of their inter-dependence. So it is called Earth, when the quality of hardness manifests, similarly with the other mahabuthas. If any one of these Mahabuthas is absent the `thing' disintegrates, simply vanishes. That is my understanding of the Sutta quoted below. Sutta Quotes: "And why is it called 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form. [SN 22.79] Rinze: Imagine a lump of earth on your palm. It is held together by its wetness, ie water. But as you heat it, it gradually breaks up into dust (recall the sand dunes of a desert). Lord Buddha says that even in a speck of dust, you find these 4 great elements, which is why you can still see that speck and it hasn't vanished as yet. This might give you an idea of how subtle Rupa is (in mind). But what is significant in all this is: Sutta Quotes: Sariputta: "And what, friends, is form as a clinging-aggregate? …… Whatever internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained [by craving] Rinze: …. That it is `sustained by craving' hence Form becomes (birth) a `clinging-aggregate'. When is a `Thing' NOT a thing? When it is considered as MINE! As long as there is no attachment (craving), there is no clinging. Hence a form can BE as an aggregate (the aggregates of an Arahant). The thing IS. "Arising is manifest, dissapperance is manifest, change while standing is manifest." So the Thing is changing while it is, Rupa ruppati. Any Archeological site can be considered as Rupa ruppatti, which is what it is, until an Archeologist goes and unearths it and makes it `Mine'. Then it gets a new phase of `life' and it is sustained by `clinging'. Sutta Quotes: "And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Whatever internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained: Rinze: Here Ven. Sariputta describes the gross forms of Pathavi in and on the body. And so He describes the Apo, Tejo and Vayo nature in and on the body in the other Sutta Quotes. Sutta Quotes: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. ... "Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate." [SN 22.48] Rinze: Ven. Sariputta here, takes all forms, whatever is, was and ever will be, and puts them into the 11 standard categories, that one could experience. I hope things are clear. Metta Rinze #90859 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:26 am Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear Rinze, - I very much appreciate the contribution you have made : explain what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. It is without any question that your intention is 'kusala'. Sadhu! I agree with and am delighted by your following comments on 'rupas' : Rinze: In conceiving he calls it with a concept that bears the closest resemblance to what he experienced. Therefore he calls it Earth. In describing this further, he comes up with it's characteristics like, hardness, softness, lightness, and so on. T: The "coming up" with those characteristics is mental, not through touching with finger/hand : it is perception. Rinze: Imagine a lump of earth on your palm. It is held together by its wetness, ie water. But as you heat it, it gradually breaks up into dust (recall the sand dunes of a desert). T: That is precisely what I call contemplation, which is directly knowing or experiencing, so that the truth about the earth element can be seen. Rinze: Form becomes (birth) a `clinging-aggregate'. When is a `Thing' NOT a thing? When it is considered as MINE! As long as there is no attachment (craving), there is no clinging. T: I have understood it the same way : there is 'my self' only when there is clinging. Thus when a meditator meditates on rupas he sees their characteristics truly when he perceives rupas as 'separate' or 'other'. There is no Self Demon running around in that moment. Rinze: Ven. Sariputta here, takes all forms, whatever is, was and ever will be, and puts them into the 11 standard categories, that one could experience. T: So that one could directly experience through contemplation (anupassana) and see the characteristics as they actually are. >Rinze: I hope things are clear. T: Yes, except one : "If any one of these Mahabuthas is absent the `thing' disintegrates, simply vanishes." I see a tree; I see the earth element and water element, but I don't have any idea about the wind and fire elements. Hence the latter two elements are "absent" to me. But the tree does not vanish. There is only the earth element left in the old bones of a mummy in an Egyptian tomb, yet the mummy has not vanished yet. Thanks again. Tep === #90860 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:36 am Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, I've been looking further into this: A: "Can a person abstain from bad Action, or is a person merely a puppet without choice & free will of (to abstain or to fall into completion of a crime, even heineous one) to develop or not understanding of realities appearing now?..." Atthasaalinii goes into the complexity underlying the question. Here is a sample (relating only to the 'door of an act of body'): (p. 109-110): "...Which are the 'three doors of action? Door of an act of body, door of an act of speech, door of an act of thought...the three kinds of action, five kinds of consciousness, five doors of consciousness, six kinds of contact, six doors of contact, eight [modes of] non-restraint, eight doors of non-restraint, eight [modes of] restraint, eight doors of restraint, ten courses of immoral acts, ten courses of moral acts... "...In the expression 'act of body', body is fourfold: that which is grasped at, that which is produced by food, by the caloric order, by mind. Of these, eight material qualities produced by kamma, namely, those beginning with the organ of sight and ending with life control, and the eight material qualities produced by kamma, viz., the four elements, colour, odour, taste, and nourishing essence constitutes the body as that which has been 'grasped at' (by desire, etc., attending the kamma in question). These eight qualities born of food constitute the body as produced by food; the same eight born of caloric order constitute the body as produced by heat; and the same eight born of consciousness constitute the body as produced by mind... "...Concerning that door [of an act of body], it has been said, 'Which quality of body is called body-intimation? It is that particular quality of body which informs, intimates, or communicates in a unique manner, and which aids, supports, or strengthens the body of a person who, with a moral or immoral or unmoral thought, moves forward, or steps back, looks straight ahead or obliquely, bends or extends his limbs.' "To expand: When a thought, 'I will move forward or step back' occurs, it sets up bodily qualities (born of mind). Now there are eight groups of these bodily qualities: the four primaries, extension, cohesion, heat, mobility, and four depending on these: colour, odour, taste, nutritive essence (ojaa). Among these, mobility strengthens, supports, agitates, moves forward or backward the coexisting body. Now in a cognitive process of simple 'adverting' (of attention), whe the seven moments of apperception (javana) are set up, the first six cause to arise only such mobility as can strengthen and support the coexisting body, but cannot move it. In consequence, however, of this work of the first six moments, the seventh moment sets up mobility able to both move forward and backward and to cause the act of looking straight ahead or obliquely, of bending and extending the limbs. Hence there results an act of going or coming or both; (by repetition of more than a thousand times) it enables us to say that a man 'has gone a yojana, gone as far as ten yojanas.'..." Scott: There is clearly much that goes into a consideration of an act constituting kamma-patha. There are clearly many 'realities appearing now'. Sincerely, Scott. #90861 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:02 am Subject: Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) visitorfromt... Hi Howard, - Thank you for being consistently attentive in reading and responding to questions. indriyabala@... writes: >"Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ..." > How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the middle"? >T: I assume that all kinds of existence have an origination. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not assume so. I assert that nibbana exists but is a reality beyond condition, and it does NOT originate. If it did originate it would cease, for whatever arises ceases. T: The latter point is absolutely essential. --------------------------------------------------- >T: Does nibbana exist? Your above statements do not explicitly say yes or no. If you say yes, then how does nibbana as the unconditioned dhamma exist with no origination? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It does indeed exist, and it did not originate, being beyond time and all condition. T: Do you just believe so through (some) experience, or do you take it for granted until you can experience it? For me nibbana simply is the state without greed, aversion and delusion. Some time I experience alobha, some other times adosa. But I know that I have not yet experienced amoha because it is most subtle. ------------------------------------------------ >T: The philosophy of existence is not found in the Suttas. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha spoke of non-existence, most particularly as regards selves. As regards existence, he taught conditionality. That is his ontology, and it subsumes both anicca and anatta, and, with a basis in tanha,it also subsumes dukkha. T: He never philosophized on existence/non-existence. Views on existence and non-existence are considered as worthless (wrong views). Tep === #90862 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/30/2008 9:03:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard, - Thank you for being consistently attentive in reading and responding to questions. indriyabala@... writes: >"Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle ..." > How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the middle"? >T: I assume that all kinds of existence have an origination. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not assume so. I assert that nibbana exists but is a reality beyond condition, and it does NOT originate. If it did originate it would cease, for whatever arises ceases. T: The latter point is absolutely essential. --------------------------------------------------- >T: Does nibbana exist? Your above statements do not explicitly say yes or no. If you say yes, then how does nibbana as the unconditioned dhamma exist with no origination? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It does indeed exist, and it did not originate, being beyond time and all condition. T: Do you just believe so through (some) experience, or do you take it for granted until you can experience it? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I take it for granted, but I have great confidence. Certainly it was taught to be beyond condition. ----------------------------------------- For me nibbana simply is the state without greed, aversion and delusion. Some time I experience alobha, some other times adosa. But I know that I have not yet experienced amoha because it is most subtle. ----------------------------------------- Howard: A state that is without the three poisons is not an acquired state, but is the way things are after relinquishment. The event of uprooting all defilements is bodhi. It arises, and then ceases. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ >T: The philosophy of existence is not found in the Suttas. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha spoke of non-existence, most particularly as regards selves. As regards existence, he taught conditionality. That is his ontology, and it subsumes both anicca and anatta, and, with a basis in tanha,it also subsumes dukkha. T: He never philosophized on existence/non-existence. Views on existence and non-existence are considered as worthless (wrong views). -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider the Kaccayangotta Sutta as presenting the Buddha's understanding of existence and non-existence. ---------------------------------------------------- Tep =========================== With metta, Howard #90863 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Skeptical! Skeptical! Skeptical Alex. visitorfromt... Hi Alex, Rinze - Doubt in the Dhamma is one of the lower fetters. Doubt or skeptical in one's own knowledge or in other person or in the Dhamma is a hindrance. It is also a view clinging. Alex (#90847): >There has to be something more. ALL of us in waking hours ALWAYS percieve something happening NOW. Yet how many arhats do we meet on the street? >I strongly believe in the necessity of Yoniso Manasikara, but it has to properly done. Merely being aware of nama&rupa dhamma arising is what everyone ALREADY sees. What is the difference between Buddhist awareness and the one which we had for 24, 30, 40,50,60,80+ years? >The worldling wisdom is fulled with references to inconstancy: "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may," "Eat, drink, and be merry, for death comes swiftly" , "Strike the iron when it's hot." "if you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life made of." >Yet it doesn't seem to lead to certain nanas. Why not? ..................... T: Because you have doubt. Plain and simple. Tep === #90864 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:23 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 nilovg Dear Ann, Op 30-sep-2008, om 5:00 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > In the first segment on January 9,I particularly appreciate being > able to hear Loedvijk's questions re nimitta and "what is sati" and > Khun Sujin's very detailed and thorough responses. Seems to hit home > more the way it is explained here. > > I was caught by her explanation of the very gradual development of > sati - how very gradually one will be able to notice when there are > moments of sati and when there are not, and how panna will slowly be > able to distinguish just a bit the difference between nama and rupa > (visible object and seeing being the example used). ---------- Of my notes about nimitta before:She said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle of fire. Or it seems that there is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa- nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na- nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta. I asked whether this means that one is aware of a concept of that reality. She said yes. But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a different order, more subtle. We could use the word shadow of a reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. ------- As I understand: not to worry about being there nimittas, it is possible that there will be just awareness of characteristics that appear. We do not have to think of nimittas. As to Lodewijk's Q. about sati: I transcribed it all before from my tapes. She thinks of the attitude of the person who asks the Q. One may want to know: what is sati, but, it is actually understanding that matters. Understanding the anattaness of sati and of all realities. "Leave it to conditions. Is one courageous enough to do so? We need patience too." She then turns the attention to this moment: I think this is very important. Not trying to have sati and wondering: when is it coming. She also said: A slight difference: because the hardness is the same as when there is no sati. But sati follows the experience of the object by body- consciousness. It is just a very short moment of sati that can 'slip in'. But it is conditioned by more understanding about realities as just dhammas. As said, the attention should be more on understanding. ***** Nina. #90865 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Dear Tep & all, Thank you for pointing out any confusion. It's always helpful to be asked for clarifications. --- On Sun, 28/9/08, Tep wrote: >The important term "form" (rupa) is a component of both the aggregate (rupakkhandha) and the nama-rupa link of the Paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination or Dependent Co-arising). Confusion arises when some DSG members keep talking about forms as "colors", "sounds", "hardness", etc., without trying to explain first what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. >>Sarah (#90501): ... the hardness/softness we take for the body is just the same as the hardness/softness anywhere. We call it 'head- hair', 'cushion', 'tree' or 'computer', but actually, what is experienced is just hardness/softness regardless. Some softness we cling to as being part of our body, but actually the different realities, including such rupas, are all disintegrating as soon as they've arisen and there's no body, no tree, no computer, no atta in any of them. >>Nina(#90473) : What we take for "my body" are only different physical phenomena, rúpas, which arise and fall away all the time. We do not feel "our body" through touch; it is only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure that can be experienced through touch; different elements that arise and fall away. >T: The above two quotes are typical of the paramattha-based definitions that are not in good agreement with many suttas. .... "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. ... "Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate. " [SN 22.48] ***** S: Let's pause at the first sutta quote you give and consider whether the "paramattha-based definitions" are truly "not in good agreement with many suttas". You mentioned recently that you'd read most books of the Abhidhamma (and accept them as authoritative), so you may remember that the Vibhanga (2nd book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) begins with just the same quote as you give from the sutta, followed by a considerable amount of detail on each of the points. For example, after clarifying what past and future form are, we read about present form: "Therein what is 'present material quality'? That material quality which is born, become, begotten, existent, fully existent, apparent, risen, well risen, uprisen, well uprisen, which is present and is classed among the things that are present, (i.e.,) the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials. This is called the present material quality."* .... S: "the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials" which are "born....existent....present" refer to: a) The 4 mahaabhuuta(great) rupas, i.e earth element which is experienced as hardness/softness, water element [only experienced through the mind-door] as cohesion, fire element experienced as heat/cold and air element experienced as pressure/motion. b) The upaadaaya (derived) rupas, i.e the other 24 rupas which are derived from the 4 mahabhuta rupas. These include (but of course are not limited to) the 5 pasaada (sense-base) rupas, visible object, sound, smell and taste. All the examples that Nina and I gave above are rupas classified as 'gross' rupas, i.e those more readily apparent. They are examples of rupas which can be known at this very moment when they are experienced if awareness arises. Computers, people and trees, on the other hand, are not included in the definitions of "whatever form - past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near". It is true, however, that without the various rupas mentioned, without sanna marking their characteristics and without cittas (and accompanying cetasikas) thinking about them, there'd be no idea of 'computers, people and trees'. I hope this clarifies a little and indicates how we see both the Abhidhamma and Suttanta pointing to just the same dhammas as Ken suggested. Metta, Sarah *[Ya.m ruupa.m jaata.m bhuuta.m sa~njaata.m nibbatta.m abhinibbatta.m paatubhuuta.m uppanna.m samuppanna.m u.t.thita.m samu.t.thita.m paccuppanna.m paccuppanna.msena sa.mgahita.m - cattaaro ca mahaabhuutaa ca mahaabhuutaana.m upaadaaya ruupa.m - ida.m vuccati ruupa.m paccuppanna.m] #90866 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:59 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 2, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, With regard to idle, useless talk, we may find it very difficult to refrain from it when we are in conversation with others. We are tempted to think that since only the arahat has eradicated conditions for this kind of talk we can wholeheartedly engage in it. We cannot be perfect, but if we realize more often whether the citta of the present moment is kusala citta or akusala citta we shall see the value of abstaining from wrong speech, even if it is more subtle such as idle, useless speech. Khun Sujin adviced us to speak more often with mettå and karunå. Even when the conversation is about the weather or about relatives we can speak with kusala citta. There are many types of citta which can think of such topics as the weather or relatives. Mettå, karunå, muditå (sympthetic joy) and upekkhå (equanimity) have to be developed in daily life, also during our ordinary conversations. When we, for example, speak about the weather that has improved we may think of the wellbeing of other people who may profit from good weather. Is the citta kusala citta or akusala citta while we are talking? The citta that motivates speech cannot be ‘neutral’, it is either kusala citta or akusala citta. Most of the time it is akusala citta. The best cure for wrong speech is right mindfulness of the nåmas and rúpas that appear through the six doors, no matter whether we are speaking or whether we are silent. When there is right mindfulness, the six doors are “guarded”, and this is a way of síla, the “virtue of restraint of the faculties” (indriya samvara síla, Visuddhimagga I, 42). When there is no mindfulness, all kinds of akusala are bound to arise on account of what is experienced through the six doors. Politeness which is sincere and paying respect are ways of síla. Bhante Dhammadhara pointed out that politeness may not always be sincere. We may have selfish motives for politeness, for example, when we want to have a good reputation, or when we want to obtain favours from someone else. Politeness which is kusala must be sincere. As regards paying respect, do we really understand what it is? It is not an empty gesture. Why is it wholesome to pay respect? What are the reasons for paying respect? When we see good qualities and virrtues in others we can show our appreciation of these qualities through the body or through speech. We pay respect to the Buddha, not to his statue, but to his virtues; we think of his wisdom, his compassion and his purity. We pay respect to the monks because they have left their homes for the homeless life in order to “fare the brahman life completely fulfilled”. For a layman it is difficult to observe síla perfectly. Since one has to live in a house and one has to prepare food, one may find oneself in circumstances which make it difficult to always observe síla perfectly. A person who has accumulations for monkhood leaves his home for the homeless life, he leads a life of non-violence and of fewness of wishes. ****** Nina. #90867 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:04 am Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear Sarah (KenH, Scott, Nina) - I appreciate your response to my prior observation: "The above two quotes [#90501,#90473] are typical of the paramattha- based definitions that are not in good agreement with many suttas. >Sarah: You mentioned recently that you'd read most books of the Abhidhamma (and accept them as authoritative), so you may remember that the Vibhanga (2nd book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) begins with just the same quote as you give from the sutta, followed by a considerable amount of detail on each of the points. T: But I was comparing your and Nina's "paramattha-based definitions" to the suttas, not the Vibhanga elaboration of the sutta's definition of rupas. You should notice that the several sutta quotes (that I gave in the previous message in this thread) do not talk about the 24 rupas. After having presented the Vibhanga's elaboration on rupas i.e. "Therein what is 'present material quality'? That material quality which is born, become, begotten, existent, fully existent, apparent, risen, well risen, uprisen, well uprisen, which is present and is classed among the things that are present, (i.e.,) the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials. This is called the present material quality.", you further comment : >S: "the four great essentials and the material qualities derived from the four great essentials" which are "born....existent....present" refer to: a) The 4 mahaabhuuta(great) rupas, i.e earth element which is experienced as hardness/softness, water element [only experienced through the mind- door] as cohesion, fire element experienced as heat/cold and air element experienced as pressure/motion. b) The upaadaaya (derived) rupas, i.e. the other 24 rupas which are derived from the 4 mahabhuta rupas. These include (but of course are not limited to) the 5 pasaada (sense-base) rupas, visible object, sound, smell and taste. T: It is true that the Dhammasangani and Vibhanga give listings on the derived rupas. For example, the Dhammasangani says " other rupas that are dependent on the 4 mahabhuta rupas" : e.g. the matika elaborates on the internal/external, near/far etc. aspects of the rupas and rupas that are objects of phassa and vinnana. The ten ayatanas are classified as rupas in the ekatasaka-matika. But remember my point is NOT about what the Abhidhamma books say or not say; it is about what the suttas say about rupas and your and Nina's "paramattha-based definitions" in comparison to what the suttas say about rupas ! I will respond to the second part of your post later today when I have more time. BTW Can you show that the Vibhanga's elaboration on the rupakkhandha is about the 24 rupas that you mentioned above and can be found in the Vism? Tep === #90868 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Tep, Op 30-sep-2008, om 18:04 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > BTW Can you show that the Vibhanga's elaboration on the rupakkhandha > is about the 24 rupas that you mentioned above and can be found in the > Vism? ------- N: See Vis. Ch XIV, from the beginning, all details of them. Sorry for the shortness of my mails, but I can hardly get my work done. Nina. #90869 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear Nina, - Thank you for the kind reply. Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > Op 30-sep-2008, om 18:04 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > > > BTW Can you show that the Vibhanga's elaboration on the rupakkhandha > > is about the 24 rupas that you mentioned above and can be found in the > > Vism? > ------- > N: See Vis. Ch XIV, from the beginning, all details of them. Sorry > for the shortness of my mails, but I can hardly get my work done. > Nina. > -------------- I am sorry for the poor wordings. I meant to say that the information about 24 rupas can ALSO be found in the Vism. I have the book. Tep === #90871 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:22 pm Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" >wrote: > > Dear Alex > A: "Can a person abstain from bad Action, or is a person merely a > puppet without choice & free will of (to abstain or to fall into > completion of a crime, even heineous one) to develop or not > understanding of realities appearing now? Please no derailing of an > honest question by attacking word 'person' in the question." > > Scott: Everything happens all the time. I didn't ask if everything happens all the time. > Non-conventionally, there is > akusala kamma and there is kusala kamma. There are akusala dhammas > and there are kusala dhammas. These arise and fall away according >to > conditions. I agree so far. > When it appears as if 'a person abstains from a bad > action', and given the presence of mental factors whose function > prevented the arising of akusala, then there is cetanaa. While it is true that any action can be more technically and precisely describe through Dhamma theory - the question remains. Can there be a volitional choice between abstaining and commiting an offence. > > Have you done no good in your life, Alex? Or no ill? Can't you > consider the times when either of these actions occur for you? Why >do > you need to see it that 'you' did good? 'Good' just happens No need to see reified "I" . What is important is to know that killing, stealing, raping, plundering and abstention from them are volitional choices of impersonal process. Best Wishes, #90872 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:06 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. visitorfromt... Dear Sarah and All, - This is the second part that I promised to post today. It is educational and worthwhile when one compares the two different perspectives on rupas : 1) given in the suttas (taught by the Buddha and expounded by the Chief Disciple Sariputta as quoted in my post #90763) and 2) given by the DSG Abhidhamma/paramattha-dhammas approach. >S #90501: ... the hardness/softness we take for the body is just the same as the hardness/softness anywhere. We call it 'head- hair', 'cushion', 'tree' or 'computer', but actually, what is experienced is just hardness/softness regardless. ... actually the different realities, including such rupas, are all disintegrating as soon as they've arisen and there's no body, no tree, no computer, no atta in any of them. >N #90473: What we take for "my body" are only different physical phenomena, rúpas, which arise and fall away all the time. ... We do not feel "our body" through touch; it is only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure that can be experienced through touch ... T: On one (very big) hand, the suttas define rupa and rupakkhandha based on the four great elements(earth, water, fire, wind) and directly relate them to the 32 body parts (head hairs, body hairs, nails, ...livers, hearts, bones, etc.) for meditative purposes. Notice that the 24 derived rupas are not mentioned even once in these suttas. Do you know why? On the other (much smaller) hand, the paramattha-dhamma /Abhidhamma approach of DSG never ever talks about the 32 body parts and their linking to the maha-bhutarupas (earth, water, fire, wind). Why? >Tep (#90763): Carefully read the above three sutta quotes [i.e. SN 22.48, SN 22.79, MN 28] yourself, and you'll know why I complain about the "confusion" above. ............................... >Sarah (#90865): All the examples that Nina and I gave above are rupas classified as 'gross' rupas, i.e those more readily apparent. They are examples of rupas which can be known at this very moment when they are experienced if awareness arises. >Computers, people and trees, on the other hand, are not included in the definitions of "whatever form - past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near". It is true, however, that without the various rupas mentioned, without sanna marking their characteristics and without cittas (and accompanying cetasikas) thinking about them, there'd be no idea of 'computers, people and trees'. >I hope this clarifies a little and indicates how we see both the Abhidhamma and Suttanta pointing to just the same dhammas as Ken suggested. T: Thank you but there is no need to justify your approach, Sarah. I only want to compare this DSG-abhidhamma approach to the Suttas so that the interested members can see the differences, and also if someone can answer the "why" questions I asked above. Sincerely, Tep === #90873 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:42 pm Subject: Re: Skeptical! Skeptical! Skeptical Alex. truth_aerator Hi Tep and all, >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > T: Because you have doubt. Plain and simple. > Tep > === Or Dhamma-Inquiry. Lets talk about doubt. What are the things that can never be reasonably doubted and why? Lets take this phrase: "all triangles have 3 sides" . Do you doubt that? No. Why not? Have you seen all triangles that are existent in the Universe? No. Nothing to say about triangles of the past and the future. What gives such a certainty? It is seeing the structural necessity of "triangles to have 3 sides" rather than a statistical evidence. If a person doesn't see structural necessity, then there can always be doubt. No amount of lists cataloguing "large triangles, small triangles, coloured triangles, gross triangles and subtle triangles" will be able to cardinally change doubt. Statistical evidence can be doubted and due to lack of omniscience it is generally never 100% certain. Swans, can be black. And who knows, maybe there are white crows somewhere in the hidden jungles. As it relates about Dhamma: As I understand it, one needs to see the structural necessity of "with the arising of this, that arises. When this ceases, that ceases." Mere observation and gathering statistical evidence is not and can not ever be enough. Person may achieve ALL nanas and still choose to go back to Xtianity (this has happened, I've heard it from a monk). One of the things that is missing I believe is seeing the structural necessity of insights , and this doesn't seem to be emphasised anywhere. Such a crucial thing! It is very easy to overlook key teachings among the 5,500 condensed pages of pali canon. There isn't a Buddha living now who could tell one exactly what is needed. So hard research should be made. Best wishes, #90874 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:26 pm Subject: Re: Skeptical! Skeptical! Skeptical Alex. visitorfromt... Dear Alex, - It all began with this mundane observation : > T: Because you have doubt. Plain and simple. Alex: Lets talk about doubt. What are the things that can never be reasonably doubted and why? ............................................... T: There are things that one must not doubt. These are the truths that lead to the right view for the cessation of dukkha. If you doubt these truths, you cannot abandon dukkha. Many people these days don't know and don't care about these noble truths. When you talk about statistics you are talking about random events, not deterministic ones. "All triangles have three sides" is a deterministic statement based on a deterministic rule of geometry. ............................................... >Alex: As it relates about Dhamma: As I understand it, one needs to see the structural necessity of "with the arising of this, that arises. When this ceases, that ceases." Mere observation and gathering statistical evidence is not and can not ever be enough. Person may achieve ALL nanas and still choose to go back to Xtianity (this has happened, I've heard it from a monk). One of the things that is missing I believe is seeing the structural necessity of insights , and this doesn't seem to be emphasised anywhere. Such a crucial thing! >It is very easy to overlook key teachings among the 5,500 condensed pages of pali canon. There isn't a Buddha living now who could tell one exactly what is needed. So hard research should be made. ................................................. T: That DO truth "with the arising of this, that arises" is a deterministic statement. You accept it because it is "seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come and see, pertinent, to be seen by the wise for themselves". ['dhammo sanditthiko, akaliko, ehipassiko, opanayiko, paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi.'] If the rule were not deterministic, i.e. randomly varying, it would be time dependent and not timeless. If you invited someone to see a random event that is not predictable, how could you convince others whom you invited to come and see for themselves? Want to know more about samatha & vipassana for ~nana? 1) Earnestly practice according to the instruction in a suitable sutta such as MN 149. 2) Seek advice from a person (preferably an ariyan) who has ~nana (he does not lie to you, unlike an average retreat instructor). Tep === #90875 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:23 pm Subject: Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Tep), I correct you on this issue with monotonous regularity. But I have to; it's my job! :-) ------- > >Tep: How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the > middle"? > > ====================== > Howard: > > With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between > independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely > conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for > nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists > at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the > case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not > intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that nothing exists "from its own > side." -------- Nothing could be more wrong! The middle way is the alternative to the various *conventional* ways of seeing the world. It is the alternative to beliefs in 'eternal' and 'annihilated' souls. It is the alternative to beliefs in 'controlling' and 'controlled' selves. The Middle Way is *not* a denial of sabhava: it is not a denial of the intrinsic, inherent characteristics of paramattha dhammas. Until next time :-) Ken H #90876 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/30/2008 7:23:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (and Tep), I correct you on this issue with monotonous regularity. But I have to; it's my job! :-) --------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! Self-employed, I see! ;-)) ----------------------------------------- ------- > >Tep: How does Howard understand the D.O. to be "the Dhamma via the > middle"? > > ====================== > Howard: > > With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between > independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely > conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for > nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists > at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the > case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not > intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that nothing exists "from its own > side." -------- Nothing could be more wrong! The middle way is the alternative to the various *conventional* ways of seeing the world. It is the alternative to beliefs in 'eternal' and 'annihilated' souls. It is the alternative to beliefs in 'controlling' and 'controlled' selves. The Middle Way is *not* a denial of sabhava: it is not a denial of the intrinsic, inherent characteristics of paramattha dhammas. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: The middle way in this context is conditionality of existence. Read the Kaccayangitta Sutta, and don't superimpose your preset beliefs. ------------------------------------------ Until next time :-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! I can hardly wait! ========================= With metta, Howard Ken H /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90877 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:51 pm Subject: Interconnectedness? philofillet Hi all As I was saying the other evening to Sarah, I've been re-reading some of the non-Theravadin books I was into before I came across DSG. Again and again there are references to interconnectedness, the interconnectedness of all conditioned things (formations?), one in all, all in one, like a great web. Can it be said that interconnectedness is a teaching that only appears in Mahayana? (And Tibetan, I forget the proper term.) Interconnectedness is deliciously appealing. But as with all deliciously appealing things, I tend to be wary... Does the kind of interconnectedness I describe above feature in Theravada in a way that can be supported textually rather than by our own feelings/hunches/theories? I guess the answer is no. And if the answer is no, could a scholarly type briefly lay out the way this teaching came to be emphasized as Buddhism developed historically. Thanks! Thanks for any feedback on this. metta, phil #90878 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:59 pm Subject: Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree philofillet Hi all I mentionned this to Jonothan the other evening when we were talking. A few weeks ago when I was talking with James, I mentionned the joke I had made online about Jonothan going on a meth- amphetamine fuelled binge in Hong Kong, robbing passers-by to feed his habit, etc. My point when making the joke was that knowing Jonothan, it is just absurd to imagine such a thing. It has to be acknowledged that some people are more prone to grossly unwholesome deeds than others, and their approach to Dhamma and the Dhamma offered them can or should reflect this. But James remembered having seen a reference to it and thought it was true! OMG!!! It was a joke. I still think there is a point to it, though. Yes, the "gentle surfers" got involved in that violence and are in prison. We never know. But I have known many surfers here in Japan (I used to live in Japan's version of Malibu) and there is, alas, a tendency towards sensuality (to put it kindly) and a fondness for drugs and alcohol that makes it not surprising to me. (Sorry Ken.) I still think the notion of Jonothan running around on meth is absurd because he is a person who is blessed with wholesome dispositions and a long history of wholesome behaviour. It's not absurd to imagine *me* running around on meth because I have done it! (Well, something close) THe Dhamma can be offered to different people in light of thier history of behaviour, I think. Anyways, the point of this post is to clarify that in case anyone has been harboring that image of Jon. (Get it out of you brains! Now!) metta, phil #90879 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Interconnectedness? TGrand458@... Hi Phil The answer is yes. It is encapsulated in the Buddha's principles of Dependent Arising -- This being, that is; from the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not; from the ceasing of this, that ceases. I don't think you can get anymore interconnected than THAT !!! This is not a theory. This is the "mechanics" of phenomena. The Buddha applied these "mechanics" to the issue of suffering and the 12 Fold Chain is the result. Here's some quotes supporting these principles ... “This being, that is; From the arising of this, that arises; This not being, that is not; From the cessation of this, that ceases. (The Buddha . . . The Udana & The Itivuttaka, pg. 15, Udana 1.3) “…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid aside the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings [pleasant, painful, neutral] are born of contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; with the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.â€? (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1270) “ . . . each feeling arises in dependence upon its corresponding condition, and with the cessation of its corresponding condition, the feeling ceases.â€? (Ven. Nandaka instructing nuns at the request of the Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 1122, Advice from Nandaka, Nandakovada Sutta, #146) “By reason of a cause it came to be By rupture of a cause it dies awayâ€? (Ven. Sela . . . Kindred Sayings, vol. 1, pg. 169) “Thus, monks, one state just causes another state to swell, one state just causes the fulfillment of another state…â€? (The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. 5, pg. 4) Of course you only need some common sense to know the conditioned and interconnected nature of phenomena. However, I know some folks are more guided by a few select books than practical observations. Phenomena influence other phenomena only when coming into "contact," or coming into range, of "each other," and only in proportion to the conditions of the phenomena involved. TG In a message dated 9/30/2008 10:51:18 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi all As I was saying the other evening to Sarah, I've been re-reading some of the non-Theravadin books I was into before I came across DSG. Again and again there are references to interconnectedness, the interconnectedness of all conditioned things (formations?interconnectedness all in one, like a great web. Can it be said that interconnectedness is a teaching that only appears in Mahayana? (And Tibetan, I forget the proper term.) #90880 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:40 pm Subject: EGO= Double Trouble ;-) bhikkhu0 Friends: 'I'-dentification leads both to mental & bodily Suffering: The Blessed Buddha once explained the root of EGOISM like this: How, friends, is one troubled both in body and troubled in mind? Here, friends, the uneducated ordinary person, who is not a friend of the Noble Ones and is unskilled and untrained in their Dhamma, who is not a friend of any Great Men, and is unskilled and untrained in their Dhamma, such one regards form as a ‘self’, or ‘self’ as possessing form, or form as inside ‘self’, or ‘self’ as inside form. He lives obsessed by the notions: 'I am form, this form is mine'... As he lives obsessed by these notions, that form of his inevitably changes, alters & decays! With the change and alteration of this form, there arises in him sorrow, lamentation, grief, pain, discontent, and quite much desperate despair... Such one regards feeling, perception, construction & consciousness as the ‘self’, or the ‘self’ as possessing feeling, perception, construction & consciousness, or feeling, perception, construction & consciousness as hidden inside the ‘self’, or the ‘self’ as hidden inside feeling, perception, construction & consciousness. He lives obsessed & possessed by these subconscious concepts: 'I am this very feeling, perception, construction & consciousness, this feeling, perception, construction & consciousness is all mine'... As he lives obsessed by these imaginations, his feeling, experience, mental construction & consciousness inevitably changes, & decays... With this change and alteration of feeling, perception, construction & consciousness, there arises in him sorrow, crying, pain, discontent, & desperate despair... It is in this way, friends, that one is troubled both in body and in mind!!! On the fact of the No same inner “‘self’â€? exists: EGO = Double Trouble! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_’self’.htm Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22(1): [III 1-5] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-001.html Have a nice ‘self’less day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90881 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& James), --- On Wed, 1/10/08, Phil wrote: I mentionned this to Jonothan the other evening when we were talking. A few weeks ago when I was talking with James, I mentionned the joke I had made online about Jonothan going on a meth- amphetamine fuelled binge in Hong Kong, robbing passers-by to feed his habit, etc. My point when making the joke was that knowing Jonothan, it is just absurd to imagine such a thing. It has to be acknowledged that some people are more prone to grossly unwholesome deeds than others, and their approach to Dhamma and the Dhamma offered them can or should reflect this. But James remembered having seen a reference to it and thought it was true! OMG!!! It was a joke. .... S: I thought it was funny when you wrote it, but poor James must have been very nervous at meeting Jon in Hong Kong:-). Friends may forget that you're a novelist. When your book comes out with 'Jonathan Abbott' as a key player (doing goodness-knows what?), I expect there'll be a few more people getting the wrong idea, lol! As you say, different tendencies apparent in this life anyway.... As for the surfers, definitely alcohol played a big role. As we know, abuse of alcohol can lead to the other precepts being violated. I hope to have a serious chat with Nelson (one of the surfers involved, the one who has always been very kind to us) about this if he gets out on bail at the next hearing. So yes, I won't be talking to him about seeing and visible object, but about alcohol and its dangers. Perhaps this is your point. ... P:>I still think the notion of Jonothan running around on meth is absurd because he is a person who is blessed with wholesome dispositions and a long history of wholesome behaviour. It's not absurd to imagine *me* running around on meth because I have done it! (Well, something close) THe Dhamma can be offered to different people in light of thier history of behaviour, I think. .... S: It's very true, of course, that in this lifetime Jonothan "is blessed with wholesome dispositions", but actually we all need to hear and consider a lot more Dhamma, because this life is just a 'blip' in samsara and all kinds of tendencies have been accumulated. It's only right understanding of present dhammas that will lead to the eradicated of such gross tendencies for good. If we're not aware of the more subtle defilements arising now, such as the inclination to anger or the wrong views arising in a day, such as when we really think our problems are due to the actions of other people, then there will be more and more chance of the gross defilements arising and the breaking of precepts leading to great harm to ourselves and others. ... P:> Anyways, the point of this post is to clarify that in case anyone has been harboring that image of Jon. (Get it out of you brains! Now!) ... S: :-)) Metta, Sarah p.s James, yet another huge typhoon/cyclone/hurricane in Hong Kong and then Taiwan last week/weekend. Do hope all is well where you live. At Big Wave Bay, the waves were the largest in over 60 years (according to an old man we know there) and lots of uprooted trees and other damage. ======== #90882 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Interconnectedness? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Wed, 1/10/08, Phil wrote: >As I was saying the other evening to Sarah, I've been re-reading some of the non-Theravadin books I was into before I came across DSG. Again and again there are references to interconnectedness, the interconnectedness of all conditioned things (formations? )... .... S: I'll leave aside the 'interconnectedness' for now, but this did remind me of the topic we touched on before I had to excuse myself. (Actually, I was about to have a coughing attack which often happens to me on the telephone too). Anyway, you linked up the reading of some Zen, TNH and other books to the discussion you'd been having with Jon here on reading the deeper meaning into the Dhammapada. We'd discussed how with the growing understanding of dhammas in daily life, we can be busy at work or read anything we like and sati and panna can slip in. There is seeing and visible object regardless of the conventional situation we find ourselves in. You understood me to be suggesting we could read a deeper meaning into the non-Theravadin books, for example and suggested that this is what you do these days. However, my meaning was that even if we are reading a magazine, the newspaper or a novel, there are realities which panna can know at anytime without doing anything special or trying to have it arise. For me, I don't mind about whether I'm reading the newspaper or a Dhamma book. I don't think of one as being 'dhamma study' or 'dhamma practice' and the other as being 'non-dhamma study' or 'non-dhamma practice'. I really think that the understanding more and more about how life is just made up of dhammas affects every aspect of our thinking. The interesting thing is that though I don't feel any 'pressure' at all to pick up a dhamma book, listen to recordings or write here, this is what I'm inclined to do by interest and by appreciating the value of such listening and considering. You always give us interesting points to consider, Phil. Perhaps the dhamma points you sent off-list before the skype-chat can be considered further here as well if you'd care to forward them (or I can). I know you discussed the latent tendencies one with Jon. Not sure about the others. Metta, Sarah ============ #90883 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:31 am Subject: Re: Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree buddhatrue Hi All and Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi all > > I mentionned this to Jonothan the other evening when we were > talking. A few weeks ago when I was talking with James, I mentionned > the joke I had made online about Jonothan going on a meth- > amphetamine fuelled binge in Hong Kong, robbing passers-by to feed > his habit, etc. My point when making the joke was that knowing > Jonothan, it is just absurd to imagine such a thing. It has to be > acknowledged that some people are more prone to grossly unwholesome > deeds than others, and their approach to Dhamma and the Dhamma > offered them can or should reflect this. But James remembered having > seen a reference to it and thought it was true! OMG!!! It was a joke. James: Hehehe...yeah, I remember that conversation. You had mentioned something about your example about Jon using drugs and going crazy and how ridiculous that was supposed to be, and then I told you that I thought he had really done that. LOL! The look on your face was priceless! ;-)) But, you didn't fully understand, because I didn't change my opinion of Jon and his dedication to the Dhamma NOW one iota just because he might have gone crazy on drugs. The propensity for that type of behavior is alive in each of us. Personally, I witnessed both my brother and my sister spiral down into drug abuse leading to their deaths. But let me tell you, my brother and sister were not born bad people. They were both very sweet and loving and loved me very much. I can still remember my brother telling me alone in the car, in-between his many arrests and terminated jobs, "Don't believe anything they tell you [my parents], I love you very much!" Being so young, I was embarrassed and confused by this declaration, but I never forgot it. It is through conditions that good people turn bad and bad people turn good. This is why I value so much the mental states of hiri and ottappa- they are the saviors of the world. In all the confusion of living, we all need an ethical compass. > > I still think there is a point to it, though. Yes, the "gentle > surfers" got involved in that violence and are in prison. We never > know. But I have known many surfers here in Japan (I used to live in > Japan's version of Malibu) and there is, alas, a tendency towards > sensuality (to put it kindly) and a fondness for drugs and alcohol > that makes it not surprising to me. (Sorry Ken.) James: Sorry Phil, but this is an unfair stereotype. I'm sure that there are surfers who don't have a fondness for drugs and alcohol- Ken, Sarah, and Jon being three I could name off-hand. I read Sarah's post about the surfers involved in the killing and I got a different sort of impression. Maybe Sarah and Jon were so surprised because they are rather naive and a poor judge of character? Hate to be so blunt, but that is what I thought. When you live all of your life inside of your head thinking about namas and rupas, and denying the existence of people, you are naturally going to become a poor judge of character. (Again, I mean no offense and Sarah and Jon are very sweet people). I still think the > notion of Jonothan running around on meth is absurd because he is a > person who is blessed with wholesome dispositions and a long history > of wholesome behaviour. It's not absurd to imagine *me* running > around on meth because I have done it! (Well, something close) THe > Dhamma can be offered to different people in light of thier history > of behaviour, I think. James: How long of a history can you base your judgement?? Two minutes, two days, two weeks, two years, two decades, two centuries, two lifetimes, two million lifetimes? The only way to evaluate people, I think, is in the here and now. > > Anyways, the point of this post is to clarify that in case anyone > has been harboring that image of Jon. (Get it out of you brains! > Now!) James: Okay, if you insist. :-) > > metta, > phil > Metta, James #90884 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 2:18 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 303 and Tiika, part II. nilovg Continuation of Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 303. Text Vis.: Or again, ignorance here as 'no theory' and 'wrong theory' befogs beings as a cataract does the eyes; --------- N: ‘Theory’ is here the translation of pa.tipatti, but this is usually translated as practice. Also in this context the translation of theory is off the mark, since pa.tipatti relates to the understanding of the characteristics of realities. P Maung translates this as vision. ‘No theory’ can mean failing to see the specific and general characteristics of dhammas as they are. Wrong theory is seeing them in the wrong way, being on the wrong Path. The Tiika remarks that just as through an eye cataract one does not see visible object, or sees it wrongly, evenso overcome by ignorance one does not see the truths of dukkha etc. or sees them in the wrong way, with wrong view. The truth of dukkha relates to dukkha in our daily life at this moment. Realities such as seeing or visible object arise and then fall away immediately and thus they are dukkha. --------- Text Vis.: the fool befogged by it involves himself in formations that produce further becoming, as a cocoon-spinning caterpillar does with the strands of the cocoon; ----------- N: The Tiika explains: Kamma-formations are like the strands of a cocoon that a caterpillor makes himself; they are the cause of roaming about in one’s own cycle. We are wrapped up in the kamma-formations made by ourselves, and we are going around, roaming about from one life to another. -------- Text Vis.: consciousness guided by formations establishes itself in the destinies, as a prince guided by a minister establishes himself on a throne; --------- N: The Tiika explains that without the committing of kamma- formations, vi~n~naa.na, rebirth-consciousness would not be established in planes of existence, even as a prince would not be established in his kingdom without being guided by a minister. ---------- Text Vis.: [death] consciousness conjecturing about the sign of rebirth generates mentality-materiality in its various aspects in rebirth-linking, as a magician does an illusion; --------- N: The translator should not translate here vi~n~naa.na as death- consciousness, it is the rebirth-consciousness. P. Maung translates: < by dwelling on the sign of rebirth, consciousness gives rise to various kinds of name-and-form at rebirth>. As to the sign of rebirth, this is the object of kamma etc. the Tiika explains. The last javana-cittas of the previous life experience as object the kamma that will produce rebirth-consciousness, a symbol or sign of it, or the future destiny, or another object experienced through one of the six doors. The rebirth-consciousness of the next life experiences that object. There is a great variety of naama/ruupa conditioned by rebirth-consciousness, since there are many kinds of rebirth in the different planes of existence, conditioned by kamma. The magician creates many kinds of illusions of devas, humans, deer, birds etc., and evenso is naama/ruupa conditioned by vi~n~naa.na an illusion that is manyfold. ----------- Text Vis.: the sixfold base planted in mentality-materiality reaches growth, increase and fulfilment, as a forest thicket does planted in good soil; contact is born from the impingement of the bases, as fire is born from the rubbing together of fire sticks; feeling is manifested in one touched by contact, as burning is in one touched by fire; -------- N: A human does not have the sensebases complete at birth. Kamma produces the bodysense at the moment of birth and later on the other sensebases develop and reach maturity. Different objects impinge on the sensebases and on account of the objects that are experienced, kusala cittas and akusala cittas arise that can motivate kamma. As to contact that is born from the impingement of the bases, the Tiika explains that the sense-bases and the object bases are facing each other. This is compared to the firesticks that are rubbing together. Phassa is like fire, and feeling conditioned by contact is very painful, it is like burning oneself on a fire. --------- Text Vis.: craving increases in one who feels, as thirst does in one who drinks salt water; one who is parched [with craving] conceives longing for the kinds of becoming, as a thirsty man does for drinks; -------- N: The Tiika explains that craving is like thirst, it is longing for the manifestation of objects. One wishes to experience objects again and again. -------- Text Vis.: that is his clinging; by clinging he clings to becoming as a fish does to the hook through greed for the bait; ------- N: The Tiika states that he clings to becoming, because he does not know that becoming leads to ruin and misfortune. ---------- Text Vis.: when there is becoming there is birth, as when there is a seed there is a shoot; and death is certain for one who is born, as falling down is for a tree that has grown up. So this Wheel of Becoming should be known thus 'as to similes' too in whichever way is appropriate. -------- N: The Tiika repeats that sa”nkhaara is compared to the strands of a cocoon woven by a caterpillar and also to the minister who guides the prince so that he becomes established in the kingdom. Evenso kamma- formations lead to establishment in different existences, in the cycle of birth and death. ----------- Conclusion: We are involved in the cycle of birth and death, just as a caterpillar spinning a cocoon. Evenso we cannot escape from this involvement so long as there is ignorance of the characteristics of realities. We cling to rebirth not knowing that it leads to ruin and misfortune. As we read: “death is certain for one who is born, as falling down is for a tree that has grown up.” We cling to life but we are born to die. All these similes can instill a sense of urgency in us. We have no time to lose and therefore, we should attend to the characteristics of seeing, visible object, and all realities presenting themselves at this moment. This is the way to understand them as just naama dhamma or just ruupa dhamma, non-self. ********* Nina. #90885 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 3:59 am Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "...Can there be a volitional choice between abstaining and commiting an offence." Scott: No. Not 'volitional choice', although I don't know what you mean by this particular term - it seems cumbersome and, to me, is constructed out of a hope that there is still room of 'self-control'. I like to think of the fact that not everything is kamma or the result of kamma. If you look for some 'wiggle room', this is it. There is room for the development of kusala. Consider this (Atthasaalinii, p. 127-128): "As to their content, these eight restraints are reducible to five states, namely: immorality (dussiilya.m), forgetfulness (a~n~naa.na.m mu.t.thassacca.m), absence of patience (akkhanti), laziness (kosajja.m). Not one of these arises in the five-doored cognitive process till after the instant of determining. It arises only in the moment when apperception begins. Unrestrained consciousness arisen in apperception is called non-restraint in the five doors..." Cakkhuasa.mvaro sota… ghaana… jivhaa… pasaadakaaya… copanakaayaasa.mvaro vaacaaasaṃvaro manoasa.mvaroti â€" ime a.t.tha asa.mvaraa naama.Te atthato 'dussiilya.m mu.t.thassacca.m a~n~naa.na.m akkhanti kosajja'nti ime pa~nca dhammaa honti. Tesu ekadhammopi pa~ncadvaare vo.t.thabbanapariyosaanesu cittesu nuppajjati, javanakkha.neyeva uppajjati. Javane uppannopi pa~ncadvaare asa.mvaroti vuccati. "The eight 'restraints' are those of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the skin, the moving body, of speech, and mind. In the ultimate sense they are five principles, namely: virtue (siila.m), mindfulness (sati), knowledge (~naa.na.m), patience (khanti), and energy (viiriya.m)." Cakkhusa.mvaro sota… ghaana… jivhaa… pasaadakaaya… copanakaaya… vaacaa… manosa.mvaroti ime pana a.t.tha sa.mvaraa naama. Te atthato 'siila.m sati ~naa.na.m khanti viiriya'nti ime pa~nca dhammaa honti. Scott: The sa.mvaraa and the asa.mvaraa naamaa are the cetasikaa noted in the passage. These dhammaa serve the function of restraint or non-restraint. If I'm understanding this correctly, these dhammaa function during the javana citta-viithi, and this 'running through of the object' occurs to quickly to be directed. I'll look, as always for some correction here, since I'm enjoying learning about this but may not have it correct. A: "...What is important is to know that killing, stealing, raping, plundering and abstention from them are volitional choices of impersonal process." Scott: What do these terms 'volitional choices' and 'impersonal process' mean? Your definition of these terms is very important to an understanding of your point of view here. Sincerely, Scott. #90886 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Interconnectedness? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/1/2008 12:51:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi all As I was saying the other evening to Sarah, I've been re-reading some of the non-Theravadin books I was into before I came across DSG. Again and again there are references to interconnectedness, the interconnectedness of all conditioned things (formations?), one in all, all in one, like a great web. Can it be said that interconnectedness is a teaching that only appears in Mahayana? (And Tibetan, I forget the proper term.) Interconnectedness is deliciously appealing. But as with all deliciously appealing things, I tend to be wary... Does the kind of interconnectedness I describe above feature in Theravada in a way that can be supported textually rather than by our own feelings/hunches/theories? I guess the answer is no. And if the answer is no, could a scholarly type briefly lay out the way this teaching came to be emphasized as Buddhism developed historically. Thanks! Thanks for any feedback on this. metta, phil ================================== I referred in one post to the Mahayana concept of the "Net of Indra," which points exactly the interconnectness you are speaking of. I would make two points: 1) This interconnectedness is usually indirect, not direct. Not everything is directly related to everything else, but considering all possible direct and indirect relationships that hold, growing* out of conditionality alone, there do not seem to be any unrelated phenomena anywhere, and 2) While the general interconnectedness of phenomena is apparently not emphasized in the Tipitaka, it seems clear to me that it follows from what is directly stated there. With metta, Howard * There are many sorts of relations holding between phenomena that spring from conditionality but are not themselves instances of conditionality. There are endlessly many. For example, any two phenomena that share a common requisite condition are thereby related, though neither need be a condition, direct of indirect, for the other. Also, all of the conditions that are requisite for a given phenomenon are related to each other by that shared trait, though none of them need be a condition for any others of them. /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #90887 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 6:10 am Subject: Re: Skeptical! Skeptical! Skeptical Alex. rinzeee Dear Alex Alex: What gives such a certainty? It is seeing the structural necessity of "triangles to have 3 sides" rather than a statistical evidence. If a person doesn't see structural necessity, then there can always be doubt. Rinze: Very well presented, Alex! This is the reason why to see Paticca Samuppada (PS) is to see the Dhamma. PS is the fundamental structure in all Dhamma. He who sees the Dhamma, sees PS. What then is PS? The 4 Noble Truths. (1) Dukkha (2) Its Cause (3) That it can be realized (4) The Path to Realization. The 12 factored PS, that we are familiar with, is the skeletal structure, of the 4 Noble Truths. It can be seen, as the anatomy of Dukkha. May we all see the Dhamma Rinze #90888 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 2, no 5 nilovg Dear friends, We read in the “Greater Discourse to Saccaka” (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 36) that the Buddha said to Aggivessana: “... Now, Aggivessana, before my Self-awakening while I was still the bodhisatta, not fully awakened, it occurred to me: Narrow is the household life, a path of dust, going forth is in the open, nor is it easy while dwelling in a house to lead the Brahma-faring completely fulfilled, utterly purified, polished like a conchshell. Suppose now that I, having cut off hair and beard, having clothed myself in saffron garments, should go forth from home into homelessness?...” The goal of monkhood is arahatship and the way of life of the monk is actually the way of life of the arahat. The monks can remind us of the ariyan Sangha even when they are not ariyans, because they strive after the virtues of the ariyans. We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Elevens, Ch II, § 4) that the Buddha said to Subhúti: “.... In this connection, Subhúti, a monk is virtuous, he lives restrained with the restraint of the Obligation (Påtimokkha), well equipped with range of practice, seeing danger in minutest faults, and undertaking the practice of the training applies himself thereto....” It is proper that laypeople pay respect to the monks who train themselves in observing so many rules in order to lead the “Brahma- faring completely fulfilled”. At such moments there are no lobha, dosa or moha, no jealousy or conceit. When we are jealous of others or when we have conceit, we are unable to pay respect. If we are developing satipaììhåna with a sincere inclination, we should be more eager to pay respect to those who deserve respect since this is a means to have less defilements. Bhante Dhammadhara spoke about respectful behaviour of laypeople when they are in the company of monks and when they are listening to the Dhamma. We laypeople were traveling around all the time in the company of the group of foreign monks who had come from Thailand and during such a journey one may forget to be respectful to monks at all times. One may forget to let them always go ahead and not to speak casually to them in the same way as one speaks to friends. Bhante Dhammadhara reminded us not to interrupt monks when they were speaking. I found this reminder most helpful. If someone else does not remind us of the fact that we are interrupting others we may never realise this. Such a reminder can prompt us to find out what kind of citta motivates us to interrupt others. Often we are so attached to our point of view we want to bring up in the conversation that we cannot wait until someone else has finished speaking. We become impatient and then there is aversion. When we see the value of respecting the other person instead of finding only ourselves important, there are conditions for refraining from interrupting someone else; instead we can wait with kusala citta, with mettå and patience, until he has finished speaking. Jonothan, the Australian layman who attended to the monks during this journey, remarked to me that one should not only refrain from interrupting when monks are speaking to us, but also when friends speak to us. Why should we be impolite to friends? This made me see all the more the value of restraint from interrupting, no matter with whom one is. When we do not interrupt others we are more able to listen to them and we shall understand them more. We shall understand the motives that make them speak and we shall understand their problems. ****** Nina. #90889 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 8:53 am Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma rinzeee Dear Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > Dear Rinze, - Tep: I very much appreciate the contribution you have made : explain what 'rupas' actually mean in the Suttas. Rinze: This is a rather general question. If you could state exactly where the confusion lies then I could focus on that issue, as otherwise I'd have a lot of typing to do. Rinze: Imagine a lump of earth on your palm. It is held together by its wetness, ie water. But as you heat it, it gradually breaks up into dust (recall the sand dunes of a desert). T: That is precisely what I call contemplation, which is directly knowing or experiencing, so that the truth about the earth element can be seen. Rinze: Contemplation involves thinking, reasoning. Thinking is conceiving. Therefore contemplation is not directly knowing. >Rinze: I hope things are clear. T: Yes, except one : "If any one of these Mahabuthas is absent the `thing' disintegrates, simply vanishes." I see a tree; I see the earth element and water element, but I don't have any idea about the wind and fire elements. Hence the latter two elements are "absent" to me. But the tree does not vanish. T: There is only the earth element left in the old bones of a mummy in an Egyptian tomb, yet the mummy has not vanished yet. Rinze: By `absent' I don't mean absent from one's consciousness. By `absent' I meant it is technically not there. All 4 mahabutas must technically be there for Rupa to be, if any one of them is technically not there, the other 3 mahabutas cannot be. The tree, as a thing of nature (a dhamma) can be, even if one cannot comprehend, the causal relations of any one of the mahabutas, in the being of the tree. You said "There is only the EARTH element left in the old bones of a mummy in an Egyptian tomb, yet the mummy has not vanished yet." True. Because in the earth, there is the other 3 elements also in less prominence. But if you touch the `old bones' it might crumble to dust. This is because `water' must be the least present (technically). And it is not sufficient enough to bind the `earth' together in the old bones (to represent it as `old bones' still further), when somebody touches it. Since in touching (the old bones) one introduces more `earth' (as pressure), which the `water'(in the old bone) cannot bear. Therefore it crumbles and the `old bone' is no more (vanishes), and dust remains. Metta Rinze #90890 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 8:54 am Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: "...Can there be a volitional choice between abstaining and > commiting an offence." > > Scott: No. Not 'volitional choice', although I don't know what you > mean by this particular term - it seems cumbersome and, to me, is Please stop playing the sort of games I meant before, "derailing and obfuscating an important question. The language uses subjects, objects, predicates and actions. You can't avoid meaningful discussion by avoiding nouns, verbs, adjectives and so on. I want to repeat the question again in a clear english language: Does a person have an ability to abstain from arisen unwholesome volition such as: parricide, matricide, killing and Arahant, wounding a Buddha, knowingly causing schism in the sangha, murder, rape, incest, plunder, drug abuse, BSM, and so on? Please answer precisely: yes, no, or it depends. If you answer: "it depends" , the please provide specific examples when the answer would be "yes" and when the answer would be "no". Your answers before may have been amusing. But it is getting old quick. Buddha himself didn't refuse to answer questions dealing with here and now using so called "conventional speech". Best wishes, #90891 From: "connie" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 11:25 am Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) nichiconn Dear Alex, Scott, > A: "...Can there be a volitional choice between abstaining and commiting an offence." > > Scott: No. Not 'volitional choice', although I don't know what you mean by this particular term - it seems cumbersome and, to me, is A: Please stop playing the sort of games I meant before, "derailing and obfuscating an important question. c: I think your 'question' is valid, Scott. Conventionally speaking, Alex, we say a person has a choice, but when we get right down to talking about namas and rupas, there is neither person nor choice. Whether or not a good or bad deed is done depends on the relative strengths of the defilements and kusala cetasikas that arise during the period of time under consideration. You mention to Scott that his "answers before may have been amusing. But it is getting old quick." To me, that suggests a certain level of dosa arising within you. Did we have a choice whether this happens or not? I'd suggest that if we are unable to control/prevent this seemingly minor bit of akusala from occurring, the answer to the bigger acts is the same: not at all, but when the right conditions for a given result are all in place, the result naturally occurs. peace, connie #90892 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 8:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and Alex & Scott) - So, Connie, if there is nothing we can do about anything and there is no "we" to do it anyway - that is, if whatever happens, happens randomly in the sense of independently of human will, then what is the point (or even the possibility) of intentionally studying Dhamma or being a Buddhist or doing anything for that matter? (Do these things happen by accident? Is it that all of a sudden it's "Oh, my! How about that! Suddenly there's a book of suttas in my hands!") If so, there can be no responsibility for actions, no purposely taken actions, no fruit of purposely taken actions, no ... . Wait one moment: Isn't there a sutta describing that as wrong view? Why are all mental activities except those comprising volitional activities given the DSG imprimatur? I don't understand that. I never have and probably never will. ----------------------------------------- peace, conniew ========================= With metta, Howard /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #90893 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:44 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Hello Rinze, - Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me. Only few people here are interested in a serious discussion. > >Rinze: Imagine a lump of earth on your palm. It is held together by its wetness, ie water. But as you heat it, it gradually breaks up into dust (recall the sand dunes of a desert). >T: That is precisely what I call contemplation, which is directly knowing or experiencing, so that the truth about the earth element can be seen. Rinze: Contemplation involves thinking, reasoning. Thinking is conceiving. Therefore contemplation is not directly knowing. T: Contemplation is 'anupassana' with the same meaning as in kayanupassana, ..., dhammanupassana. Also, there are the seven-fold contemplations : (1) Contemplating (formations) as impermanent, one abandons the perception of permanence. (2) Contemplating (them) as painful, one abandons the perception of happiness (to be found in them). (3) Contemplating (them) as not self, one abandons the perception of self. (4) Becoming dispassionate, one abandons delighting. (5) Causing fading away, one abandons greed. (6) Causing cessation, one abandons originating. (7) Relinquishing, one abandons grasping" (Pts.M. I, p. 58). ....................... >T: There is only the earth element left in the old bones of a mummy in an Egyptian tomb, yet the mummy has not vanished yet. Rinze: By `absent' I don't mean absent from one's consciousness. By `absent' I meant it is technically not there. All 4 mahabutas must technically be there for Rupa to be, if any one of them is technically not there, the other 3 mahabutas cannot be. T: I have no clue what "technically" means and why it is important to you. Rinze: You said "There is only the EARTH element left in the old bones of a mummy in an Egyptian tomb, yet the mummy has not vanished yet." True. Because in the earth, there is the other 3 elements also in less prominence. But if you touch the `old bones' it might crumble to dust. This is because `water' must be the least present (technically). And it is not sufficient enough to bind the `earth' together in the old bones (to represent it as `old bones' still further), when somebody touches it. Since in touching (the old bones) one introduces more `earth' (as pressure), which the `water'(in the old bone) cannot bear. Therefore it crumbles and the `old bone' is no more (vanishes), and dust remains. T: I can follow your explanation about the function of "water" as binding the bone material, otherwise the mummy will be nothing just dust. What about the fire element -- how do you know it is still present in the mummy? On a second thought, let's not worry about the issues that are not important. Tep === #90894 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:53 pm Subject: No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechanism) truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, > Howard: >So, Connie, if there is nothing we can do about anything and there >is no "we" to do it anyway - that is, if whatever happens, happens >randomly in the sense of independently of human will, then what is >the >point (or even the possibility) of intentionally studying >Dhamma or being a Buddhist or doing anything for that matter? (Do >these things happen by accident? Is it that all of a sudden >it's "Oh, my! How about that! Suddenly there's a book of suttas in > my hands!") If so, there can be no responsibility for actions, no >purposely taken actions, no fruit of purposely taken actions, >no ... . Wait one moment: Isn't there a sutta describing that as >wrong view? Why are all mental activities except those comprising >volitional activities given the DSG imprimatur? I don't understand >that. I never have and probably never will. > ----------------------------------------- I Agree. If any "choice" and responce to it (carry or abstain) just happens due to causes and conditions that were supposed to happen that way, then obviously it begs the question. Why study, why try to avoid: "snorting crack, cocaine, methymethane, paricide, matricide, rape, plunder, lies & deceit"? "Isn't is silabataparamasa to consider, "I can do it, I can abstain."? I understand that "no-control" DSG (c) teachings can be very reasuring and a great coping mechanism re: past misdeads. "Hey! it wasn't really my fault! There is no really me who suffers or does misdeeds!" "Eat, drink, snort, surf and be merry! for thus conditioned the almighty cetasikas and to abstain would be engaging in the "formal meditation" which is 'wrong'!" Too must wisdom (at the expense of other factors such as virtue, concentration, faith and so on) can produce such monstrous philosophies of "there is NO murder! It was just a 30 grams of silver passing through 150 pounds of Earth, water, fire and air element. OJ didn't kill anyone, for there is no OJ, no victim, and so on." This doesn't even look like "excess of Wisdom". It is a perversion of it This is a teaching of "non-action" and such of certain heretical teachers. . The Buddha really rebuked it in DN2. Please forgive me for blunt examples. I am simply trying to drive a point. If all you have is a hammer, then treat everything like a nail. Best wishes, #90895 From: "connie" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 3:41 pm Subject: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) nichiconn Dear Howard, Scott, Alex, ..., Not there is or was or might be a river, but just suppose there were one. What is a river? A supposition. A supposed fact of reality. We can live with that. So what are other givens for a river? Generally, flowing with various depths and currents but there can be stagnation, too... mutability, then. Straight and winding - like a woman's mind. Well, I thought sexism might be the better part of virtue here. BTW, Howard, do you belive in safe sects? Yes, for me, that's how it's happened: "Oh, my! How about that! Suddenly there's a book of suttas in my hands!" I thought i'd died and gone to heaven. I couldn't care less whether it's 'by accident', but I don't believe in accidents, either. 'Accident' is shorthand for 'go figger'. Sometimes we call one a miracle. Sometimes it wasn't really suttas in my hands, but sutras. I didn't know the difference. But you know what they say: "No Buddhist prayer goes unanswered" & I've made my share along the way. Good when i learn to stop. So much already we can't carry the load in one lifetime. That's pathetic. Let me find different answers. Is there a certain way to pray for that? Even though I've heard this is one of the we-don't-need-'em kinds, I'll try Scott's: << Note 75 (pp. 1410-1411, Bh. Bodhi's SN translation): "Spk gives a long explanation, which I translate here partly abridged*: " <...> I will set up javana with just eye-consciousness as limit. I will not go beyond the limit and allow the mind to arise by way of lust, etc. So too for the heard and the sensed. The 'cognized' is the object cognized by the mind-door adverting (manodvaaraavajjana). In that cognized, 'merely cognized' is the adverting (consciousness) as the limit. As one does not become lustful, etc., by adverting, so I will set up my mind with adverting as the limit, not allowing it to arise by way of lust, etc. You will not be 'by that' (na tena): you will not be aroused by that lust, or irritated by that hatred, or deluded by that delusion. Then you will not be 'therein' (na tattha): When you are not aroused by that lust, etc., then 'you will not be therin' - bound attached, established in what is seen, heard, sensed, and cognized." >> *with connie cutting <...> even more. I'm not here to quibble about whether i lead a conventional life or not. I think it's rather self-evident. I'm interested in the way out. Whether getting a grip on the 3rd basket helps, who am i to know, but i'm interested in that. But just because something falls into your lap doesn't mean "there can be no responsibility for actions, no purposely taken actions, no fruit of purposely taken actions, no ... . Wait one moment: Isn't there a sutta describing that as wrong view?" Any purposive action not leading to the exit is pointless. How could there ever not be "responsibility" for kamma patha? Actions speak louder than words, so I figure the thinking is prayer and the bodily movement is prayer with a stick. I think there's something bigger than responsibility that 'we deny' or lack of wisdom prevents. H: Why are all mental activities except those comprising volitional activities given the DSG imprimatur? c: Of course, volition involves other cetasikas as well. I don't think "DSG" denies that. Nor that there is always volition involved when the topic is citta. Does anyone suggest that we ever do anything unintentionally? Do you mean why don't some people want to talk about stories or situational ethics concerning someone doing something to make something else happen and stuff like that? Maybe because we can talk about people and trees with anyone but think this is a possible venue for something more analytical or whatever you want to call it. We all say we're here for the Buddha Dhamma, but just what is that? Enlightenment itself, cessation. peace, connie #90896 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 12:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 10/1/2008 6:42:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Howard, Scott, Alex, ..., ============================= We're quite far apart as regards our perspective on the Dhamma, Connie, but I appreciate your replying, and I admire your writing. You have an excellent way with words. :-) With metta, Howard /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #90897 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 4:50 pm Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) truth_aerator Dear Connie, Scott, KenH and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Howard, Scott, Alex, ..., > > Not there is or was or might be a river, but just suppose there were >one. What is a river? A supposition. A supposed fact of reality. We >can live with that. So what are other givens for a river? Generally, >flowing with various depths and currents but there can be stagnation, >too... mutability, then. A river has certain functions, certain properties, that are not found in in its parts, nor are found in rupa, citta, and cetasikas parts. Same with the chariot. None of the parts fulfill the function of a Chariot, thus the chariot cannot be called 'nonexistent' solely due to its composite nature. None of the cittas, cetasikas, rupas and so on "drive" or "carry" or "pulled by a horse". To insist that whole doesn't exist because non of the parts contain the whole - is ridiculous. Whole has a function that isn't found in any of its parts. Best wishes, #90898 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree philofillet Hi James and all >But I have known many surfers here in Japan (I used to live > in > > Japan's version of Malibu) and there is, alas, a tendency towards > > sensuality (to put it kindly) and a fondness for drugs and alcohol > > that makes it not surprising to me. (Sorry Ken.) > > James: Sorry Phil, but this is an unfair stereotype. Of course you're right. My stereotyple probably comes from Japan, where surfing is kind of bogus because the waves are so small so the parties associated with surfing become the end all. "Gaijin" (foreigners) who become surfers in Japan might be an especially sleazy breed and all the ones I knew were very heavy drinkers and it led to wild behavioiur with lots of people hurt by it. Just an objective observation that certain kinds of behaviour lead more often than not to certain kinds of painful results. I'm very much interested in behaviour and its results. metta, phil p.s of course this doesn't mean they are "bad" people. I'm just talking about behaviour and its results, and the predictability of lifestyles centered on drinking and parties and promiscuity leading to more suffering than lifestyles that are not centered on them. #90899 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 5:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree philofillet Hi Sarah >>I hope to have a serious chat with Nelson (one of the surfers involved, the one who has always been very kind to us) about this if he gets out on bail at the next hearing. So yes, I won't be talking to him about seeing and visible object, but about alcohol and its dangers. Perhaps this is your point. Yes, that's my point exactly! And not only the dangers of alchohol, but perhaps, if he's receptive, other basic aspects of Dhamma that have to do with unwise behaviour leading to painful results. Stuff that, as people alwyas point out, are not the aspects unique to Dhamma, but which the Buddha taught better than anyone else (in my opinion) and which lead into the deep teachings that are unique to the Buddha. Something like that. > ... > P:>I still think the notion of Jonothan running around on meth is absurd because he is a person who is blessed with wholesome dispositions and a long history of wholesome behaviour. It's not absurd to imagine *me* running around on meth because I have done it! (Well, something close) THe > Dhamma can be offered to different people in light of thier history > of behaviour, I think. > .... > S: It's very true, of course, that in this lifetime Jonothan "is blessed with wholesome dispositions", but actually we all need to hear and consider a lot more Dhamma, because this life is just a 'blip' in samsara and all kinds of tendencies have been accumulated. Ph: Very true. As you know I think the "blip" that occurs with a human birth and exposure to the Dhamma is (or can be, if we are wise) a especially powerful "blip" when it comes to conditioning, but I may be wrong. >>>It's only right understanding of present dhammas that will lead to the eradicated of such gross tendencies for good. If we're not aware of the more subtle defilements arising now, such as the inclination to anger or the wrong views arising in a day, such as when we really think our problems are due to the actions of other people, then there will be more and more chance of the gross defilements arising and the breaking of precepts leading to great harm to ourselves and others. Ph: Its true. My behaviour is for the time being at least running in much more wholesome patterns than it used to and I can't say why that is. Listening to the talks and reflecting on present dhammas could have played just as important a role as my sutta study and samattha meditation and so on. No way of knowing. I'm happy to be studying Abhidhamma again. All the various studying and reflecting we do adds together in some way or other we can't know. metta, phil p.s thanks all for feedback so far on "interconnectedness." I'll be reading it later. #90900 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Alex, All I find myself somewhat on the side of the DSGers on this issue (dammit) but for different reasons perhaps. I also believe there is no-control. No-control does not mean there are no intentions, or that there are no effects from actions. So the charge of this being so excuse for bad actions is mute. There is no "self" to take responsibility for actions. But there ARE conditions that will experience the results of conditions. In effect, it works out similarly. But, one view is delusional, the other is not. The view that is not delusional is on the side of insight, the other is not. No-control DOES mean that "intentions" cannot somehow 'override' or be 'outside' of conditionality. It is all conditionally driven. The intentions to strive in the Path that the Buddha discovered would be non-existent without the conditions of the Buddha's experience and teaching...and the events that have preserved that teaching till now. Those of us who have met with the conditions to discover Buddhism can utilize it. A Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. that has not met with the conditions to discover Buddhism has ZERO chance of following the Buddha's teaching NO MATTER HOW motivated they may potentially be to do so. The necessary conditions are not in place. There really is no control to pick up a sutta and read it. The conditions dictate it. The conditions are extremely complex, but they have momentums/tendencies and those in this group have the tendency to study Buddhism based on an array of past conditioning. One such condition is to practice being mindful of Buddhist practices...this stirs mental momentums in that direction. To toss up our hands and say "we can't do it" is also a condition that has effect. Its a defeatist condition. And if that is how you incline the mind, the will become the tendency of the mind. No control does not mean no effort, it does not mean no results...it means there is no self or entity at the core of these Five Aggregates that is "directing the show." To say the no-control means you can't make an effort...doesn't follow in my book. Efforts are made...conditionally... from past teachings, trainings, and experiences. It wasn't "our idea" to make the effort. It was learned, i.e., conditioned! TG #90901 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) scottduncan2 Dear connie, Howard, Alex, ..., I like the direction this discussion has taken... First, for me, there was a Wife then Cancer then Death then a Total Change. None of which was controlled by me. A beautiful horrible lesson. Had I not been in charge of my life? Didn't I put in all that energy to pursue all those pipe dreams? I know no control. Then there was Dhamma. It just came up. (I still find even the word to have a certain exquisite joyful quality whenever thought or spoken.) This devotion to the Dhamma, this energy that directs the eyes to read the tipi.taka, the commentaries, the thoughts to proliferate - this was also not controlled by me. I know anatta just a little bit based on experience alone. Coming to the Dhamma has no doubt or aversion related to 'no control' that I see in others. I've no control over that either. Paramattha dhammas? I dig it. No question. Convention and concepts where I used to think 'reality' was? Beautiful. Clear. No doubt. Peaceful, actually. Very. And I waded through a lot of Nonsense-cum-Buddhism, leaving it behind until I found some of the Like-Minded. Just inclinations. When I think some one is wrong I just do. Sometimes I can see why, often only dimly. Can't help it. No Control. I live in the World. Lots of Faith. Lots of Energy - sometimes. Lots of Anger. Lots of Lust. A bit of Kindness. A bit of Compassion. All the rest in dribs and drabs. No Control. Dhamma. Beautiful. Sincerely, Scott. #90902 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... truth_aerator Hi TG and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Howard, Alex, All > > > No-control does not mean there are no intentions, or that there >are no effects from actions. Of course there are effects from intentions. However is "one" dommed to commit a crime and suffer from it, all due to past causes? And are those past causes due to even earlier causes, ad infinitum? Extrapolating this to the distant past (like one would extrapolate a strait line), does this mean that my future action is due to certain causes in very distant past (perhaps almost infinitely long)??? > There is no "self" to take responsibility for actions. But there >ARE conditions that will experience the results of conditions. Taking the above argument that I've wrote, does that means that the future is set in stone yesterday? Does that all mean that a "person" is doomed to become a paricide or a matricide in some future (and cannot do anything to stop it?)? Best wishes, #90903 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "Does a person have an ability to abstain from arisen unwholesome volition such as: parricide, matricide, killing and Arahant, wounding a Buddha, knowingly causing schism in the sangha, murder, rape, incest, plunder, drug abuse, BSM, and so on?" A: "...does this mean that my future action is due to certain causes in very distant past (perhaps almost infinitely long)???" A: "Does that all mean that a 'person' is doomed to become a paricide or a matricide in some future (and cannot do anything to stop it?)?" Scott: You worry so much. Do you doubt the reality of kusala? Sincerely, Scott. #90904 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Alex) - In a message dated 10/1/2008 9:36:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard, Alex, All I find myself somewhat on the side of the DSGers on this issue (dammit) but for different reasons perhaps. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with almost all that you say in the remainder of your post. If that is what the "DSGers" mean, then I agree with them as well. I am simply not at all sure that this IS what they mean. I insert a few comments below. -------------------------------------------------- I also believe there is no-control. No-control does not mean there are no intentions, or that there are no effects from actions. So the charge of this being so excuse for bad actions is mute. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I DO think that some use 'no control' (which should mean "no controller") as an excuse for non-action. -------------------------------------------------- There is no "self" to take responsibility for actions. But there ARE conditions that will experience the results of conditions. In effect, it works out similarly. But, one view is delusional, the other is not. The view that is not delusional is on the side of insight, the other is not. No-control DOES mean that "intentions" cannot somehow 'override' or be 'outside' of conditionality. It is all conditionally driven. The intentions to strive in the Path that the Buddha discovered would be non-existent without the conditions of the Buddha's experience and teaching...and the events that have preserved that teaching till now. Those of us who have met with the conditions to discover Buddhism can utilize it. A Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. that has not met with the conditions to discover Buddhism has ZERO chance of following the Buddha's teaching NO MATTER HOW motivated they may potentially be to do so. The necessary conditions are not in place. There really is no control to pick up a sutta and read it. The conditions dictate it. ------------------------------------------- Howard: And that conditionality, as it involves desire and will, is exactly control - or, better said, influence. ------------------------------------------- The conditions are extremely complex, but they have momentums/tendencies and those in this group have the tendency to study Buddhism based on an array of past conditioning. One such condition is to practice being mindful of Buddhist practices...this stirs mental momentums in that direction. To toss up our hands and say "we can't do it" is also a condition that has effect. Its a defeatist condition. And if that is how you incline the mind, the will become the tendency of the mind. No control does not mean no effort, it does not mean no results...it means there is no self or entity at the core of these Five Aggregates that is "directing the show." ------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly! No controller. ----------------------------------------------- To say the no-control means you can't make an effort...doesn't follow in my book. Efforts are made...conditionally... from past teachings, trainings, and experiences. It wasn't "our idea" to make the effort. It was learned, i.e., conditioned! TG ======================= With metta, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90905 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... TGrand458@... Hi Alex, All In a message dated 10/1/2008 8:19:50 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi TG and all, >--- In _dhammastudygroup@dhammastudygdha_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , TGrand458@.., TG > > > Hi Howard, Alex, All > > > No-control does not mean there are no intentions, or that there >are no effects from actions. Of course there are effects from intentions. However is "one" dommed to commit a crime and suffer from it, all due to past causes? And are those past causes due to even earlier causes, ad infinitum? Extrapolating this to the distant past (like one would extrapolate a strait line), does this mean that my future action is due to certain causes in very distant past (perhaps almost infinitely long)??? ................................................. TG: Yep. But part of that history is a man we call the Buddha...and the conditions implemented around his actions have opened a path by which we can escape samsara....if those conditions are put into place. The Buddha motivated folks in his time and many became arahats. That motivation lingers today but without the power of directly encountering the Buddha. So our task today is much more difficult. Our studies, practices, and groups like this keep us focused and plugging away. Yet, I don't know of any of us that are enlightened even though most of us want to be. I guess we don't have enough "control." BTW --- "Fathom long past" sounds like one of the Buddha's terms. :-) ............................................. > There is no "self" to take responsibility for actions. But there >ARE conditions that will experience the results of conditions. Taking the above argument that I've wrote, does that means that the future is set in stone yesterday? ............................................................................ TG: Only if you could calculate near infinite amount of conditions through near infinite increments of time. Making an effort is part of the Path...a huge part. Wondering about "what is set in stone" is mere speculation and definitely a hindrance to the path. So strive onward to a good friend! A good friend because anyone that investigates the Dhamma the way you do, and helps me focus on the same, is a good friend. .................................................................. Does that all mean that a "person" is doomed to become a paricide or a matricide in some future (and cannot do anything to stop it?)? ........................................................................ TG: Nope. We just don't know if we're not "on the Path" where we will go. But if we're "on the Path" we do...according to the Buddha. TG OUT #90906 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 10/1/2008 9:00:40 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: There really is no control to pick up a sutta and read it. The conditions dictate it. ------------------------------------------- Howard: And that conditionality, as it involves desire and will, is exactly control - or, better said, influence. ------------------------------------------- .......................................................... TG: "Influence" is MUCH better said. :-) TG OUT #90907 From: "colette" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) ksheri3 Hi Tep, Below find two extremely good characterisations of The Path of the Arrow, ooops, that's a practice in Western Esoteric groups concerning a direct link between Malkuth-Yetzirah-Tiphareth-Daath-Kether, while it is the Middle Path of the Kaballah, BOTH Howard & Ken Howard give extremely valuable insight, VIPISSANA, here concerning the differences between Theravadans and many other lineages of the Buddhist family. > > Howard: > > > > With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between > > independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely > > conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for > > nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists > > at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the > > case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not > > intrinsically. The Tibetans put it that nothing exists "from its own > > side." > -------- > > Nothing could be more wrong! The middle way is the alternative to the > various *conventional* ways of seeing the world. It is the alternative > to beliefs in 'eternal' and 'annihilated' souls. It is the alternative > to beliefs in 'controlling' and 'controlled' selves. The Middle Way > is *not* a denial of sabhava: it is not a denial of the intrinsic, > inherent characteristics of paramattha dhammas. colette: accept Ken H's aggitation in the begining of his depiction as being nothing more that bickering over triffles because if you look closely at what they say they are speaking of the Middle-Path yet they are speaking of different aspects characteristics of that Path. toodles, colette #90908 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 10:06 pm Subject: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Dhamma friends, In MN vol. III, p. 115: "Na kho, AAnanda, arahati saavako satthaara.m anubandhitu.m yadida.m sutta.m geyya.m veyyakara.nassa hetu" Horner's translation, p. 159: "Ananda, it is not fit that a disciple should follow after a teacher if it is for the sake of an exposition of the Discourses that are in prose and in prose and verse" Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, p. 976: " Ananda, a disciple should not seek the teacher's company for the sake of discourses, stanzas, and expositions." My questions are: " ... for the sake of an exposition of the Discourses that are in prose and in prose and verse." and " ... for the sake of discourses, stanzas, and expositions." Which translation is correct? How do other Pali (or Chinese) counterparts of the same text record the words, sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, in the context? Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas Law #90909 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 11:59 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 2, no 6 nilovg Dear friends, We all have weak points and we may not notice them. When someone tells us, for example, that we are interrupting others, it reminds us to consider more our different cittas, whereas before, we may have been forgetful at such moments. All aspects of the Dhamma can help us to develop right understanding in daily life. When one develops satipatthåna one should not neglect other ways of kusala. When someone tells us what is wrong with us he renders us a service. He finds something for us that is as hard to find as a hidden treasure. We read in the “Dhammapada” (vs. 76): “Should one see a wise man, who, like a revealer of treasures, points out faults and reproves, let one associate with such a wise person; it will be better, not worse, for him who associates with such a one.” We can say that such a person actually hands us a treasure. The good friend in Dhamma not only helps us to develop satipatthåna, he also points out our faults to us. We may not find someone who tells us the truth and the cause may be our unwillingness to listen. We may always talk back and find excuses for what we are doing. Bhante Dhammadhara spoke several times about the “Anumåna Sutta” (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 15). In this sutta it is said that there are sixteen qualities which make a monk “difficult to speak to”, sixteen reasons why someone else does not want to point out to that monk his weak points. The monks have to reflect on this sutta twice or three times daily, but also laypeople can benefit from this sutta. We should remember that the purpose of the suttas is not just reading, they must be applied in daily life. We read that Mahå Moggallåna, while he was staying in Sumsumåragira, in Bhesakalå Grove in the deerpark, spoke to the monks about the qualities which make a monk difficult to speak to: “.... Herein, your reverences, a monk comes to be of evil desires and in the thrall of evil desires. Whatever monk, your reverences, comes to be of evil desires and in the thrall of evil desires, this is a quality that makes him difficult to speak to. And again, your reverences, a monk exalts himself and disparages others... a monk comes to be wrathful, overpowered by wrath.... a monk comes to be wrathful and because of his wrath is a faultfinder.... a monk comes to be wrathful and because of his wrath is one who takes offence.... a monk comes to be wrathful and because of his wrath utters words bordering on wrath.... a monk, reproved, blurts out reproof against the reprover.... a monk, reproved, disparages the reprover for the reproof.... a monk, reproved, rounds on the reprover for the reproof... a monk, reproved, shelves the question by (asking) the reprover another, answers off the point, and evinces temper and ill- will and sulkiness... a monk, reproved, does not succeed in explaining his movements to the reprover.... a monk comes to be harsh, spiteful... a monk comes to be envious, grudging... a monk comes to be treacherous, deceitful... a monk comes to be stubborn, proud... And again, your reverences, a monk comes to seize the temporal, grasping it tightly, not letting go of it easily, this too is a quality that makes him difficult to speak to. These, your reverences, are called the qualities which make it difficult to speak to a monk.” ******* Nina. #90910 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) nilovg Dear Scott, It is all so true that you write. I pass it on to Lodewijk who just said this morning that he finds: no Nina, no Lodewijk not a good formulation. I keep on explaining: 'there is no being' does not mean there is nothing, but what we call Nina and Lodewijk are citta, cetasika and ruupa. Nina. Op 2-okt-2008, om 3:57 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > No Control. I live in the World. Lots of Faith. Lots of Energy - > sometimes. Lots of Anger. Lots of Lust. A bit of Kindness. A bit > of Compassion. All the rest in dribs and drabs. No Control. Dhamma. > Beautiful. #90911 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas & all, Welcome to DSG! You raise an extract from an interesting (and deep)passage in MN 122. --- On Thu, 2/10/08, thomaslaw03 wrote: >In MN vol. III, p. 115: >"Na kho, AAnanda, arahati saavako satthaara.m anubandhitu. m yadida.m sutta.m geyya.m veyyakara.nassa hetu" >Horner's translation, p. 159: "Ananda, it is not fit that a disciple should follow after a teacher if it is for the sake of an exposition of the Discourses that are in prose and in prose and verse" >Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, p. 976: " Ananda, a disciple should not seek the teacher's company for the sake of discourses, stanzas, and expositions. " <...> >Which translation is correct? How do other Pali (or Chinese) counterparts of the same text record the words, sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, in the context?< ***** S: I've collected some extracts from past discussions here which I think you'll find relevant. [I'm including the link in case you wish to check the entire messages/discussion]: ***** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/22905 1) Jim A: >According to a quick search on the CSCD an enumeration of the nine (or in part) are presented 42 times in the Suttantapi.taka, 9 times in the Abhidhammapi.taka, and twice in the Vinayapi.taka. 1. In the Majjhimanikaaya: 4 times in the Alagguupamasutta, MN 22 (M I 133-4), once in the Mahaasu~n~natasutta, MN 122 (M III 115), note that in this sutta only the first three are given. 2. In the Anguttarnikaaya: 20 times in the Book of Fours, 6 times in the Book of Fives, twice in the Book of Sixes, and three times in the Book of Sevens. 3. In the Khuddakanikaaya: five times in the two Niddesas. 4. Once in the Vibhanga. 5. 8 times in the Puggalapa~n~natti.< ***** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/81791 2) Sarah: >...Atthasaalinii, Introductory Discourse (PTS transl.) "Which are the 'nine parts'? The entire Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na, Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhuta, Vedalla. "Herein, the dual Sutta-Vibha"nga, the Niddesa, the Khadhakas, and Parivaara, the Ma"ngalasutta, Ratanasutta, Naalakasutta, Tuva.takasutta of the Sutta-Nipaata, and any other words of the Tathaagata bearing the name of Sutta should be regarded as Sutta. "All the Suttas with verses should be understood as Geyya. In particular, all the chapters with verses in the Sa.myutta-Nikaaya form Geyya. "The entire Abhidhamma-Pi.taka, Suttas without verses and any other words of the Buddha not included in the eight parts should be understood as Veyyaakara.na, or exposition. "Dhammapada, Theragaathaa, Theriigaathaa, those pieces in the Sutta-Nipaata not called Sutta, and entirely in verse should be known as Gaathaa. "Eighty-two Suttantas connected with verses due to knowledge and joy should be understood as Udaana. "One hundred and twelve Suttantas taught in this wise: 'Thus was it said by the Blessed One,' etc., should be understood as Itivuttaka.... "Five hundred and fifty birth-stories beginning with Apa.n.naka constitute the Jaataka. "All Suttantas connected with wonderful and the marvellous things spoken in this wise: 'There are, bhikkhus, four wonderful and marvellous things in Ananda,' should be understood as Abbhuta. "All Suttantas in the form of questions asked through repeated attainment of delight and understanding, such as the Suttas: Cullavedalla, Mahaavedalla.....etc., should be understood as Vedalla. Such are the nine parts."< ***** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/46484 3) Sarah: >'Heard with the Ear' (AN, 4s, 191, PTS) " ‘Monks, four advantages are to be looked for from the frequent verbal practice of teachings heard with the ear (sotaanugataana"m), from considering them in the mind, from thoroughly penetrating them by view. What are the four? Herein a monk masters Dhamma, to wit: Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na and the rest (Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhutadhamma and Vedalla)*. Those teachings heard with the ear, often practiced verbally, considered by the mind, are thoroughly penetrated by view.'" ..... [S: digression from 4s, 186 ‘Approach' (Ummagga) On the meaning of ‘mastery, being well learned and knowing Dhamma by heart: "...Well, monk, I have taught Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na ,Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhutadhamma and Vedalla .Now if a monk understands the meaning and (text of) dhamma, - even if it be but a stanza of four lines, - and be set on living in accordance with Dhamma, he may well be called ‘one widely learned, who knows Dhamma by heart.'"< **** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27018 4) Jon: >Vism.EngPali.XIV, 24 (e) 'Here a bhikkhu knows the Dhamma (Law)--the Discourses, Songs, [Expositions, Stanzas, Exclamations, Sayings, Birth Stories, Marvels, and] Answers to Questions--this is called the "discrimination of law". He knows the meaning of whatever is said thus : "This is the meaning of this that was said; this is the meaning of this that was said"--this is called the "discrimination of meaning" ... idha bhikkhu dhamma.m jaanaati sutta.m geyya.m...pe0... vedalla.m. aya.m vuccati dhammapa.tisambhidaa. so tassa tasseva bhaasitassa attha.m jaanaati `aya.m imassa bhaasitassa attho, aya.m imassa bhaasitassa attho'ti. aya.m vuccati atthapa.tisambhidaa.< ***** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58533 5) Sarah: >...the 'Alagadduupama Sutta'. The simile of the snake starts with these lines (Nanamoli/Bodhi translation). "Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma - discourses, stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories, marvels, and answers to questions - but having learned the Dhamma, they do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom." So what is included here within the Dhamma are (from the Pali): "sutta, geyya, veyyakarana, gatha, udana, itivuttaka, jataka, abbhutadhamma, and vedalla." All the Pitakas are included in the 9 angas as clarified in the point above.< ***** [S: To add further: From Nyanaponika's commentary notes to the Alagadduupama Sutta From the commentary: "....There are, to wit, three manners of studying the Teaching: studying it in the manner of the Snake-simile (alagadda-pariyatti); studying it for the sake of crossing over (ni.t.tharana-pariyatti); and studying in a treasurer's (or store-keeper's) position (bhandaa-gaarika-pariyatti)" It then goes on to describe how the first kind of study or pariyatti is for fame and gain and is ‘the wrong grasp'. I like this: "but better than such a study would be for him to sleep and not to study at all". The second way is by fulfilling morality when it's the subject, letting concentration take root when it's the subject and establishing himself in insight when it's the subject. This is "studying for the sake of crossing over" as expressed in the simile of the Raft. The third way of study is the arahant's,who like the treasurer, he studies the teachings "as a keeper of the scriptures, as a guardian of the tradition, as a preserver of the continuity".] **** S: I hope these various quotes and references are helpful in response to your question. As we often discuss here, in the end the Teachings are 'not in the book'. If you feel inclined to say a little more about what is behind your question and how you came to raise it, that would be interesting as would any introduction (however brief) that you might care to give. Please also raise any points from any of the quotes I've given for further discussion too if you (or others) like to. Metta, Sarah ======= #90912 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 2:14 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Threes (1-6) , part 1. nilovg Dear friends, DN 33 Threes (1-6) , part 1. DN 33.1.10(1) 'Three unwholesome roots: of greed, hatred, delusion. Tii.ni akusalamuulaani - lobho akusalamuula.m, doso akusalamuula.m, moho akusalamuula.m. DN 33.1.10(2) 'Three wholesome roots: of non-greed, non-hatred non- delusion. Tii.ni kusalamuulaani - alobho kusalamuula.m, adoso kusalamuula.m, amoho kusalamuula.m. ------- The Co. states that lobha is lustful, dosa is angry and moha is deluded. The wholesome roots are the opposites of these. N: A root is the foundation of the akusala citta and the kusala citta. Akusala cittas may be rooted in moha and lobha, or in moha and dosa, or they may have moha as their only root. Moha arises with each akusala citta. Moha is blind, it does not know the danger of akusala. Kusala cittas are rooted in alobha and adosa and they may be rooted in amoha or pa~n~naa as well. There are many shades and degrees of the akusala roots and sobhana roots. The Co. uses verbes: Here lobha lusts, Tattha lubbhatiiti lobho.. The subco. states that there is no other doer than dhamma, that is why it is said lobha lusts. It is the same for the other roots. ------- N: We take attachment arising at this moment after seeing for self, but there is no other doer, it is a dhamma that is attached. It is dosa that hates or has aversion, it is moha that is deluded, these are mere dhammas. Evenso, the sobhana roots are mere dhammas. --------- Co:Tattha lubbhatiiti lobho. Akusala~nca ta.m muula~nca, akusalaana.m vaa muulanti akusalamuula.m. Dussatiiti doso. Muyhatiiti moho. Tesa.m pa.tipakkhanayena alobhaadayo veditabbaa. ------- DN 33.1.10(3) 'Three kinds of wrong conduct: in body, speech and thought. Tii.ni duccaritaani - kaayaduccarita.m, vaciiduccarita.m, manoduccarita.m. ------- DN 33.1.10(4) 'Three kinds of right conduct: in body, speech and thought. Tii.ni sucaritaani - kaayasucarita.m, vaciisucarita.m , manosucarita.m. -------- The Co. explains that the kinds of wrong conduct are ugly and the kinds of right conduct are beautiful. N: The akusala hetus are the cause of wrong conduct, of neglecting siila, and the sobhana hetus are the cause of right conduct. Whatever conduct we follow in daily life, it is conditioned by the wholesome or unwholesome roots accumulated from life to life. There is no self who can determine to do wrong or to do what is right, it is conditioned by the roots and many other factors. Each moment, whatever we do, is conditioned. ---------- Co: Du.t.thu caritaani, viruupaani vaa caritaaniiti duccaritaani. Kaayena duccarita.m, kaayato vaa pavatta.m duccaritanti kaayaduccarita.m. Sesesupi eseva nayo. Su.t.thu caritaani, sundaraani vaa caritaaniiti sucaritaani. ---------- The Co distinguishes between the wrong conduct as to the training, sikkhaapada and wrong conduct that is akusala kamma patha, a wrong course of action. There are transgressions of the rules (for the monk) through the doors of body and speech which is bad conduct. The opposite is good conduct. The subco explains that for the monk a transgression through the body or through speech is an offence, aapatti. The monk has to observe many rules and he should see danger even in the slightest faults. His siila is to be more refined, more perfect than the siila of the layperson. As to akusala kamma-patha, killing etc. ( stealing, sexual misconduct) three cetanaas are bodily misconduct committed through the doorways of body or speech. ----- N: One may give orders to kill, then bodily misconduct is committed by means of speech. -------- Four cetanaas lying, etc. (slandering, rude speech and idle speech) are verbal misconduct. Three dhammas accompanied by cetanaa are mental misconduct: covetousness, illwill and wrong view. These three are akusala cetasikas, and they accompany cetanaa. The abstention from the foregoing akusala kamma-pathas are good conduct. ---------- The subco mentions as to kusala siila that there is siila of avoidance, varita siila and siila of behaviour, caarita siila. The latter includes helping others, politeness and respect. When we are helping or paying respect, kusala cittas and akusala cittas are alternating and when akusala cittas arise there is no kusala siila. We may believe that we are doing good deeds, but what we take for wholesome may be motivated by akusala, such as conceit or being intent on some advantage for ourselves. This shows how deeply rooted defilements are. ------- Nina. #90913 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 2:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for these collections. I gave them to the pali yahoogroup, mentioning your name, and the sources, since they are interested too. Nina. Op 2-okt-2008, om 9:20 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I've collected some extracts from past discussions here which I > think you'll find relevant. #90914 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 3:37 am Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma hantun1 Dear Sarah (Thomas, Nina), Thank you very much for your message message #90911 on Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma. It is very useful for me. Respectfully, Han #90915 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 3:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) scottduncan2 Dear Nina (and Lodewijk), Regarding: N: "It is all so true that you write. I pass it on to Lodewijk who just said this morning that he finds: no Nina, no Lodewijk not a good formulation. I keep on explaining: 'there is no being' does not mean there is nothing, but what we call Nina and Lodewijk are citta, cetasika and ruupa." Scott: Thank you. I see: You are at peace with no Nina, no Lodewijk and you love Lodewijk very much. Not incompatible. Sincerely, Scott. #90916 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Han & Nina (& Thomas), Thank you for your kind feedback. There is also more in U.P. under 'Abhidhamma - its origins' and 'Abhidhamma vs Suttanta'. Metta, Sarah --- On Thu, 2/10/08, han tun wrote: >Thank you very much for your message message #90911 on Sutta-geyya- veyyakarana Dhamma. It is very useful for me. #90917 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma visitorfromt... Dear Han, - I hope you don't mind elaborating a little. Han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah (Thomas, Nina), > > Thank you very much for your message message #90911 on Sutta-geyya- veyyakarana Dhamma. > It is very useful for me. > > Respectfully, > Han > T: Why is it useful to you? Tep === #90918 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 5:56 am Subject: Re: Middle Way Ontology: From the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) visitorfromt... Dear Colette, - Thank you for your thought on other people's thoughts. > > Howard: With regard to ontology, "the middle" is the middle way between > > independent, intrinsic existence and nihilistic nonexistence - namely > > conditional (or relative or contingent) existence, which, except for > > nibbana, is the only mode of existence. It is not that nothing exists > > at all nor is it that there are self-existent entities. What is the > > case is that phenomena exist, but not separately, and not > > intrinsically. KenH: The middle way is the alternative to the various *conventional* > ways of seeing the world. It is the alternative > to beliefs in 'eternal' and 'annihilated' souls. It is the alternative > to beliefs in 'controlling' and 'controlled' selves. The Middle Way > is *not* a denial of sabhava: it is not a denial of the intrinsic, > inherent characteristics of paramattha dhammas. colette: BOTH Howard & Ken Howard give extremely valuable insight, VIPISSANA, here concerning the differences between Theravadans and many other lineages of the Buddhist family. Accept Ken H's aggitation in the begining of his depiction as being nothing more that bickering over triffles because if you look closely at what they say they are speaking of the Middle-Path yet they are speaking of different aspects characteristics of that Path. T: Different aspects, wrongly or rightly, like two blind men examining an elephant? Forget about what they think/philosophize. Give me your unbiased & precise description of the middle path, Colette. Tep === #90919 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma hantun1 Dear Tep, Do I have to explain why I find something which is useful for me? The information needs for different individuals differ. What I find it useful may not be useful for others. Anyway, since you have asked me I will say what I have to say. When I am studying sutta, or udaana or itivuttaka I do not know why the Buddha¢s teachings are classified in that way. Why not everything in suttas? Now I know. That is how I find it useful for me. I mention the words [for me] in my message. It may not be useful for others. Respectfully, Han #90920 From: "Egbert" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 6:54 am Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) egberdina Hello Scott, What is it that is making you do what you do next? Mindlessness I understand. But you present as someone who is mindful, but doesn't like it. What's next, Scott? More conditions? More beautiful deceit? How about taking a bit of responsibility for your hatred? Cheers Herman #90921 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? jonoabb Hi Herman Thanks for a very witty post ;-)) > Hi all, > > An email arrives in your inbox. The subject heading is "There are no emails". > > You wonder why your spam filter didn't pick it up, but you open it anyway. > > It reads "There are no written words". > > The email is signed "Jon, Sarah, Nina, KenH and Scott". > > There is a PS. It says "There are no Jon, Sarah, Nina, KenH and Scott. > But please join our group and discuss it with us" > > What do you do? > As I said in a recent post to Phil (who brought up a similar point), the emphasis of the teachings is on what is to be known and understood, that is to say, dhammas and their characteristics, conditioned nature, etc. According to the Buddha, the world of dhammas (the 5 khandhas, 12 ayatanas, etc) is truly "the world", "the all". The implication here I think is that the world of people and conventional objects is not truly part of "the world", "the all". There is no "email" or "Jon" to be seen as it truly is with wisdom (because it is dhammas that are the object of insight). This aspect of the way things are is conveniently (but, for some, confusingly) expressed by simply saying "no emails", "no Jon". (Yes, this is a good group in which to discuss this subject ;-)) Jon #90922 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "What is it that is making you do what you do next? Mindlessness I understand. But you present as someone who is mindful, but doesn't like it. What's next, Scott? More conditions? More beautiful deceit? How about taking a bit of responsibility for your hatred?" Scott: Thanks for the renewed invitation to discuss something. What would you like to discuss? Sincerely, Scott. #90923 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings jonoabb Hi Alex >> Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> >> Hi Alex >> ...explain your earlier statement that "DN29 (Pasadika sutta) says >> that 4 results are obtained from Jhana: Stream ...-> Arhatship." >> Would you mind quoting the particular passage you have in mind. >> Thanks. >> >> Jon >> > > What word don't you understand (or don't want, or don't believe) in: > > "those who are given to these four forms of pleasure-seeking - how > many fruits, how many benefits can they expect?" And, you should > reply: "They can expect four fruits, four benefits. What are they? > The first is when a monk by destruction of three fetters has become a > Stream-Winner, no more subject to rebirth in lower worlds, firmly > established, destined for full enlightenment; [Alex: 2nd and higher > are higher fruits]" > > DN29 Pasadika Sutta. In this part of the Pasadika Sutta (DN29) the Buddha explains to the novice Cunda how to respond to questions put by wanders of other sects. One of those questions is whether "the ascetics who follow the Sakyan are addicted to a life of devotion to pleasure". The Buddha explains that "life devoted to pleasure" can be understood in different ways. There are kinds of life devoted to pleasure that are worldly, not conducive to welfare. In terms of these, the answer to the question is "No". However, it could also be said that the 4 jhanas are kinds of life devoted to pleasure, and these are are conducive to disenchantment, to enlightenment. So in this case the answer would be "Yes". The passage you have quoted is part of the answer to be given to a follow-up question as to the fruits and benefits of following these 4 kinds of pleasure-seeking. These of course are the 4 stages of enlightenment. However, this is no more than a statement of the fact that many of the Buddha's followers attain jhana and then go on to attain enlightenment. The sutta says that jhana is conducive to enlightenment. It does not say that enlightenment is the result of jhana. Jon #90924 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > Ph: Sure, but some suttas are easier to understand than others. I > personally shy away from MN on the whole, there are many suttas > which are quite incomphrenisble to me. I can't get into SN 12, the > samyutta on D.O. Way over my head. Most suttas in AN are easier to > understand, I'm sure. Deeper meanings? Yes, I'll give you that. > Fair enough. We all have favourite and less favourite parts of the texts. However, the important thing to bear in mind is that it's all the same message regardless of the form in which it was delivered. So those "easier to understand" suttas may in fact be easier to misunderstand! ;-)) Jon #90925 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams, Anusaya, Insight, and Disappointment jonoabb Hi Howard > Years ago, there was a good deal of upset in me that expressed itself as > anger. Ever since I came to the Dhamma and all that it entails, that has > steadily lessened, even to the point that I've come to imagine that what is left > of it is a minor remnant. Now, though I think that it is true that there has > occurred a considerable subsiding of the inclination to anger, an increased > facility in dealing with it, and a significant reduction in its active > manifestation, I have gained the insight, a disappointing one, that the > inclination to anger, while weakened, is yet alive and well, having been lurking in the > subconscious shadows, just waiting for the opportunity to pounce. Many thanks for sharing this personal experience. When I read this I was reminded of a short exchange we had not so long ago about what the indicators of development of insight might be. I suspect that for many people a marked lessening of the more obvious defilements is regarded as one of those indicators. But an apparent lessening of akusala in one's life may in fact be nothing more than a kind of suppression, in which case the accumulated (and mostly latent) akusala tendencies will sooner or later manifest, regardless of the effort put into their suppression. Jon #90926 From: "Egbert" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:17 am Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) egberdina Hello Scott, I am not inviting you to discuss anything. If what I wrote has not prompted you to take an honest look at your self, I have written in vain. Cheers Herman #90927 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:29 am Subject: Survey Quotes. nilovg Dear friends, The citta which experiences flavour through the tongue can arise and clearly know different flavours. There are many flavours of food, such as flavour of meat, vegetable or fruit,there is the flavour of tea, coffee, salt, sugar, orange juice, lemon or tamarind. All these flavours are completely different, but the citta which tastes clearly knows each of the different flavours which appear. Citta is able to distinguish clearly the most subtle differences in flavour, it knows them in a detailed way. For example, when we sample food, the citta which tastes the flavour knows exactly whether there is still something lacking. It knows which ingredient should be added, how the food should be seasoned so that it is more tasty. The citta which experiences tangible object impinging on the bodysense, clearly knows the different characteristics of tangible object. It knows, for example, the characteristic of cold of the air, cold of the water, or cold of the weather. It knows the characteristic of silk or of wool which touches the bodysense. -------- Nina. #90928 From: "Egbert" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) egberdina Hello Nina, You keep sending emails, and that is how I know you are not yet dead :-) But until such time, know this, it is not you who supports Lodewijk, it is him who supports you. Perhaps one day he will get through to you. But I don't like his chances :-) Cheers Herman #90929 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 8:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma visitorfromt... Dear Han, - Let's agree on one thing. From now you do not have to say anything, i.e. just ignore my asking, whenever you don't feel comfortable. :-) >Han: Anyway, since you have asked me I will say what I have to say. When I am studying sutta, or udaana or itivuttaka I do not know why the Buddha's teachings are classified in that way. Why not everything in suttas? T: I do not find that sutta useful. I do not find everything in the Suttanta Pitaka useful either. However, I find most suttas (90%) very useful and that is good enough for me. Tep === #90930 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator Hello Jon and all, >---Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > However, this is no more than a statement of the fact that many of >the Buddha's followers attain jhana and then go on to attain >enlightenment. Jon, are you follower of the Buddha? > > The sutta says that jhana is conducive to enlightenment. It does not > say that enlightenment is the result of jhana. > > Jon What else? I've recently read that a person that has right view: a) can lose it. (somewhere in AN) b) Can go to hell. mn136 "Here some person abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sexual desires, from false speech, from malicious speech, from harsh speech, from gossip, he is not covetous, is not ill-willed, and has right view.5 On the dissolution of the body, after death, On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html At least some benefits of Jhana are that it is such a wholesome Kamma that not only it helps the path, but it makes sure one doesn't fall into hell and such. (as long as one doesn't abuse Jhana for bad deeds). After all, "Jhana is path to awakening" - MN36 Best wishes, #90931 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 9:37 am Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) truth_aerator Dear Scott (and all), >"Scott" wrote: >I know anatta just a little bit based on experience alone. My heart goes to you and your tragedy. That was really sad and I hope you have recovered from your loss. However. Just because some virus or something overpowered someone, it doesn't automatically mean that there is "no control". All it means is that X overpowered Y on occasion A. > Coming to the Dhamma has no doubt or aversion related to 'no >control' that I see in others. I've no control over that eith No offence, but I think that "no-control" can be a great coping mechanism - and actually very beneficial during meditation. I also had a very life changing event. It is actually quite funny that the group/tradition I've joined was VERY similiar to DSG... No-control... Don't meditate... Study highly technical book... The outside world doesn't really exist.... Good riddance that I quit. Best wishes, #90932 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) nilovg Dear Scott and Herman, Op 2-okt-2008, om 12:42 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > Scott: Thank you. I see: You are at peace with no Nina, no Lodewijk > and you love Lodewijk very much. Not incompatible. ------- N: Herman, the Buddha did not forbid thinking of people, and we think of them all the time, care for them. But he taught us to think of them with metta and compassion, not with selfishness which does not lead to anything. And how to think of them with kusala citta? Having more understanding of the different cittas that arise in a day. More understanding of ourselves will greatly contribute to understand others and to become more tolerant, more patient when others are disagreeable. Nina. #90933 From: "colette" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 10:05 am Subject: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? ksheri3 "History was made by people who wanted it bad enough" equinoxfitness.com Good Morning Tep, Yea, history is THE PAST DHARMA, isn't it? > T: Different aspects, wrongly or rightly, like two blind men examining > an elephant? colette: good example! <....> Stick with me here since I do have an ETHICAL DILEMA that I fully intended on bringing to the group for other learned members to give me their opinions. I hope that the amount of material I'm dealing with in my head does not cloud my vision and my expression of my thoughts here to you as it clearly showed in one of my latest posts here a few days or a week or two ago. ------------------------------------------------------------- > Forget about what they think/philosophize. colette: this is an impossibility since I would have no knowledge if it was not for the generosity of other people THINKING. Yet, I shall try to move forward applying a hallucinatory intent. ------------------------------------- Give me your unbiased & > precise description of the middle path, Colette. colette: Off the cuff, shooting from the hip, at this moment, the Middle Path, IMO, is a static condition of BLISS. <....> THE MIDDLE PATH, if you aren't ready for it, can be such an overwhelming experience that it turns into the most frieghtening experience imaginable, BECAUSE OF IT'S PURITY. You or anybody can take a shipment of herion, not knowing the quality of the drug, and distribute it only to find that all the customers are overdosing if not to death does them part from this existance but at least it takes them to the Emergency Room for immediate medical care. Here we can see the rationale for having, for instance, Theravadans acting as "gatekeepers" of the doctrines since all Buddhism is fundamentally based upon, FOUNDATIONALIZED UPON, a few core principles and concepts which first have to be grasped and mastered before the student is permitted access to the "higher" conceptions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or even Tantric. The EXTREMES do exist. The EXTEMES are the hazards to be wary of. The EXTEMES are what is to be avoided, since they have a peculiar characteristic of electrocuting the mind or microprocessor, FREEZING IT, CRYSTALIZING IT, IMPRISSONING IT, where the adept or student will have the most difficult time extricating themselves from the grasp that the EXTREMES have on the individual, aspirant, adept, etc. I'm sorry, I've wasted too much time and now cannot put forth the dilema that I'm encountering at this moment but it gives me a chance to further my knowledge of this foundation for falsehood, for lies, called the DOCTRINE OF MENTAL RESERVATION. Good Question, though, Tep. Thanx for the thoughts. toodles, colette #90934 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 8:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Alex, All In a message dated 10/1/2008 9:05:28 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Howard: And that conditionality, as it involves desire and will, is exactly control - or, better said, influence. ------------------------------------------- .......................................................... TG: "Influence" is MUCH better said. :-) TG OUT ............................................................. TG: A follow up. "Desire and will" are not propagated of their own accord of course. Desire and will arise due to conditions. Those conditions, for practical purposes, start with feeling. Feeling causes craving, then grasping, views, etc. Feeling is a prime cause for desire and will, but given no predominant pleasurable or painful feelings, there is the luxury for desire and will to seek gratification from higher mental functions incorporating complex views. These view were all generated through feelings, at some point or another, and forged into memories, attitudes, desires, etc. Unfortunately this mentality is highly tainted with self-view. So for the average everyday dude, it is (incorrectly) taken for granted that it is "me" doing these things. But for a "conditionality expert," (LOL) who is also probably tainted with self-view, the intellect can understand that it is actually "not me" that is doing these things; but that it is conditions. Mentality is enormously complex and we cannot unravel it all. But we can understand, in principle, that it is only conditions that desire and will. The desire and will are conditioned, they arise due to conditions, and conditions only. The desire and will ARE conditions, and those conditions further condition actions/reactions that further propagate this whole package of conditions. Conditions influence conditions. The "apparent control" is only a condition that "gives the appearance of control" but is actually just an outgrowth of a chain reaction of conditional unfoldings. Any attempt to "sneak in" the idea of 'control' amounts to nothing other than an unintentional attempt to "sneak in" "self-view." A new born baby CANNOT desire and will to follow the Buddha's Path because the conditions have not been established yet. A full grown adult CANNOT desire and will to follow the Buddha's Path unless the conditions to forge such actions are in place. TG #90935 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No control (its a coping mechanism) truth_aerator Hi TG and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Any attempt to "sneak in" the idea of 'control' amounts to nothing >other than an unintentional attempt to "sneak in" "self-view." Why can't impersonal process have at least *some* control, at least in the sense of restraint. Should impersonal process read "Tripitaka" or watch naughty sites? Is this all 100% determined from past conditions alone? This is a great way of taking any sort of responsibility off "one's non-existent shoulders". Best wishes, #90936 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 3:16 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma hantun1 Dear Tep, Tep: Let's agree on one thing. From now you do not have to say anything, i.e. just ignore my asking, whenever you don't feel comfortable. :-) Han: That is fine with me. Likewise, I want to request you to kindly ignore my response whenever my response makes you feel uncomfortable.:>) ------------------------------ Tep: I do not find that sutta useful. I do not find everything in the Suttanta Pitaka useful either. However, I find most suttas (90%) very useful and that is good enough for me. Han: I am not surprised. I have said in my last post [The information needs for different individuals differ. What I find it useful may not be useful for others. I mention the words [for me] in my message. It may not be useful for others.] One final note: My response may sound blunt and offensive, but I always respect the opinion of others. My respect for you will never wane! Respectfully, Han #90937 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 3:18 pm Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? visitorfromt... Dear Colette, - I asked you to show me how you understood the middle path (or "middle way"). Thank you very much for showing no annoyance in your polite reply. > >Tep: Give me your unbiased & precise description of the middle path, Colette. > colette: Off the cuff, shooting from the hip, at this moment, the Middle Path, IMO, is a static condition of BLISS. <....> >THE MIDDLE PATH, if you aren't ready for it, can be such an overwhelming experience that it turns into the most frieghtening experience imaginable, BECAUSE OF IT'S PURITY. You or anybody can take a shipment of herion, not knowing the quality of the drug, and distribute it only to find that all the customers are overdosing if not to death does them part from this existance but at least it takes them to the Emergency Room for immediate medical care. >Here we can see the rationale for having, for instance, Theravadans acting as "gatekeepers" of the doctrines since all Buddhism is fundamentally based upon, FOUNDATIONALIZED UPON, a few core principles and concepts which first have to be grasped and mastered before the student is permitted access to the "higher" conceptions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or even Tantric. >The EXTREMES do exist. The EXTEMES are the hazards to be wary of. The EXTEMES are what is to be avoided, since they have a peculiar characteristic of electrocuting the mind or microprocessor, FREEZING IT, CRYSTALIZING IT, IMPRISSONING IT, where the adept or student will have the most difficult time extricating themselves from the grasp that the EXTREMES have on the individual, aspirant, adept, etc. >I'm sorry, I've wasted too much time and now cannot put forth the dilema that I'm encountering at this moment but it gives me a chance to further my knowledge of this foundation for falsehood, for lies, called the DOCTRINE OF MENTAL RESERVATION. ................................. T: I appreciate your honesty, Colette. Let me give you the right reply to my question above. It is right because it was said by the Buddha. "Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good. "The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. And what is that middle way? It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say, right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. [endquote] [Dhamma-cakkappavattana-sutta] The term "direct acquaintance" is equivalent to direct knowledge. Sincerely, Tep === #90938 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... Hi Alex, and All In a message dated 10/2/2008 1:29:30 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Why can't impersonal process have at least *some* control, at least in the sense of restraint. Should impersonal process read "Tripitaka" or watch naughty sites? Is this all 100% determined from past conditions alone? This is a great way of taking any sort of responsibility off "one's non-existent shoulders". Best wishes, .................................................................... TG: Well, we want to "condition" people to be good...so we still need to fry the bastards. (How's that for compassion?) LOL Hey, punishment is a condition whereby "restraint" is generated. Despite the modern day attempt to deny that punishment is a deterrent...the Buddha clearly taught that IT IS. So as a society, we punish bad actions. The punishment is a condition that will tend to form better actions... both in the punished individual and those observing the punishment. If bad actions are generated, the conditions are corrupt. Those conditions may be uncorrupted by inflicting suffering...which is a good "teacher." It doesn't matter whether its my "personal fault" or not. I will reap what I sew in either case. So whatever my view, I HAVE to take full responsibility...whether I want to or not. But its just the conditions...and they are relentlessly unforgiving. So no matter how we look at it, there is no getting out of responsibility...which is the same as saying...there's no getting out from 'conditional (natural) laws.' We interpret that someone is a good person when they have restraint. But its not that, its just that the conditions are educated enough (have enough information) to know that restraint from unwholesome acts leads away from pain and toward greater happiness. Or it may be, that we have not learned this lesson, but have had strong influences from family, friends, etc. that have molded our actions in accordance with those influences. And more likely a combination of both. The issue isn't one of "non-existence." The issue is that of whether there is "control" in conditionality. The teaching of "no-self" is not for the everyday Joe who is trying to scam out of guilty plea. That type of person would merely be using something they don't understand as a ploy. The teaching of no-self is for those trying to perfect their virtues, concentration, and insight. The Buddha did NOT teach his most advanced stuff to lay-folks. TG #90939 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 4:33 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Jon > However, the important thing to bear in mind is that it's all > the same message regardless of the form in which it was delivered. So > those "easier to understand" suttas may in fact be easier to > misunderstand! ;-)) You are stubbornly (in a good sense) consistent on this point, which makes you valuable as a Dhamma friend. If you wavered this way and that it wouldn't give me a solid parameter (?) to develop my own (so to speak) understanding from. You are not going to budge on this, so you are solid. Solid friends are to be appreciated. Especially if what they are saying is basically in line with the Buddha's deepest teaching - even when you know that for yourself that teaching is something that is to be approached on a strictly theoretical, studied-from-a-distance-and- not-to-be-confirmed-in-daily-life level. A. Sujin, Nina and others put much more emphasis on confirming the deep teachings in daily life - for example, I am setting out again on studying the paccayas, and in Nina's introduction there is something along the line of "we must confirm these conditions ourselves" to know that they are true even if they are not taught in the suttanta. I tend to feel we cannot confirm them ourselves because they are deep teachings that can only be understood in theory, but they are worth understanding because they....are...um...beautiful...hmm. I'll have to keep working on that. Anyways, my point is that I appreciate the way you insist on a deep approach to all the teachings. As I was saying to Sarah in another post, I think in some cases failing to approaching people's problems in a less-deep way can lead to a failure to be able to help them, though. Something to discuss on another occasion. I rambled off point again... metta, phil #90940 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi again Jon and Sarah and all > As I was saying to Sarah in another > post, I think in some cases failing to approaching people's problems in > a less-deep way can lead to a failure to be able to help them, though. > Something to discuss on another occasion. For example, the gentle surfer in jail. If Sarah meets him and the discussion leads to Buddhism what would be a good teaching to help him. He will be very open to the teaching, feeling a kind of samvege, a kind of repentance and desire to improve his modes of behaviour, probably. As Sarah said, talking about seeing and visible object will not be the way to go. I would favour the sutta I often mention, in which the Buddha urges his son Rahula to consider whethere what he is intending to do, is presently doing, and has done will be, is or was harmful to hismelf and others and will lead to pleasant or painful results. Or the sutta in AN in which the Buddha urges us all to examine our selves in a mirror of the mind and ask ourselves whether we are *often* greedy, hatefuly, lazy and so on. And another sutta in AN in which the Buddha urges us to ask ourselves whether if we were to die in any one of many ways there are to die this day we would not be stuck with defilements that would be to our harm when facing the rebirth process. Now we've discussed all these suttas, and you have unfailingly (and as I said, I appreciate that) insisted on the deepest possible interpretating/understanding of these suttas. For example, mindfulness of death. In "Perfections" chapter on Wisdom, A.Sujin talks about wisdom towards death but it is *all* about the deepest form of mindfulness of death, the momentary rising and falliing away of nama and rupa. In Vism there are 8 different approaches to mindfulness of death and only the last of these is the fleeting, momentary aspect. Would this be the aspect that would help a newcomer to Dhamma. No, I say. Anyways, as I said, something to keep discussing.... metta, phil #90941 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 5:32 pm Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I am not inviting you to discuss anything..." Scott: Okay, maybe next time. H: "If what I wrote has not prompted you to take an honest look at your self, I have written in vain." Scott: Perhaps we could discuss why you would have thought so? (I'm curious, that's all). Sincerely, Scott. #90942 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) philofillet Hi Nina > N: Herman, the Buddha did not forbid thinking of people, and we think > of them all the time, care for them. But he taught us to think of > them with metta and compassion, not with selfishness which does not > lead to anything. And how to think of them with kusala citta? Having > more understanding of the different cittas that arise in a day. More > understanding of ourselves will greatly contribute to understand > others and to become more tolerant, more patient when others are > disagreeable. Very nicely said, Nina. I've written it down in my notebook. (A sign of great honour! haha...) metta, phil p.s personally, since my understanding is too blunt to have understanding of the different cittas that arise, I now think of the different proliferations that arise, or moods that arise, or....all kind of things that are the product of cittas doing their thing..But you will help bringing me back to considering that their *can* be understanding of cittas that arise... #90943 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) philofillet Hi Alex and all Just some thoughts on this deep topic. > Why can't impersonal process have at least *some* control, at least in > the sense of restraint. Should impersonal process read "Tripitaka" or > watch naughty sites? Is this all 100% determined from past conditions > alone? This is a great way of taking any sort of responsibility > off "one's non-existent shoulders". I would say, personally, yes, determined by past conditions, no control, technically speaking, but a very important illusion of control that the Buddha encourages us to tap into. For example, although I have had hours and hours and hours of pleasure out of various forms of pornography in the past, it is relatively easy for me to abstain from it now. There are many ways the Buddha's teaching helps me here. One way is too reflect on shameful, disgusting behaviour, a way for "inferior people", "it is not for you." That teaching is very crude in a self-image way, but it works when there is a need for strong moral guidance. There are many subtler ways, such as the Rahula sutta I mentioned in another post. So I abstain more often than not. Abstention happens. Is there real "control" there in this abstention conditioned by reflecting on the Buddha's teaching. I would say no. Conditions at work, impersonal processes. I value the control illusion because it is tied to some very powerful conditioning factors found in the Buddha's teaching, but I think I can be aware that it is ultimately illusionary. I mean, if we say there is really and actually control isn't that saying there is really and actually a self? Sorry if that's a pedestrian question. So conditions found in the Buddha's teaching condition an easy abstention from porn these days. On some days I expect they will fail to do so. But there is momentum and all the abstention builds up, accumulates, and that is more conditioning at work. (natural decisive support condition?) And then there are my occasional comical vows to leave DSG or stop using the internet. The Buddha praises Dhamma discussion, so that condition is more powerful than self's need for progress in my writing career etc. And that condition keeps me keep on coming back although I must appear ridiculous to people! :) Anyways, yes, I'd say conditions rule all and there is no real control. But staying open to the Dhamma leads us to gradually deepening degrees of protection and safety and ultimately liberation, something like that. metta, phil #90944 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 3:32 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma visitorfromt... Dear Han (and others), - > han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > ... >One final note: My response may sound blunt and offensive, but I always respect the opinion of others. My respect for you will never wane! Respectfully, Han ............... Thank you very much for the nice promise. Likewise, I always respect you and your knowledge of Buddhism. Tep === #90945 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... Hi Phil Your post below is awesome. You nailed it and this point especially nice -- " no control, technically speaking, but a very important illusion of control that the Buddha encourages us to tap into. " I wanted to say something like that but figured it would be too much work to explain it but you did it in one sentence. LOL Nice inspirational closing sentence too. Thanks. TG In a message dated 10/2/2008 7:58:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Alex and all Just some thoughts on this deep topic. > Why can't impersonal process have at least *some* control, at least in > the sense of restraint. Should impersonal process read "Tripitaka" or > watch naughty sites? Is this all 100% determined from past conditions > alone? This is a great way of taking any sort of responsibility > off "one's non-existent shoulders". I would say, personally, yes, determined by past conditions, no control, technically speaking, but a very important illusion of control that the Buddha encourages us to tap into. For example, although I have had hours and hours and hours of pleasure out of various forms of pornography in the past, it is relatively easy for me to abstain from it now. There are many ways the Buddha's teaching helps me here. One way is too reflect on shameful, disgusting behaviour, a way for "inferior people", "it is not for you." That teaching is very crude in a self-image way, but it works when there is a need for strong moral guidance. There are many subtler ways, such as the Rahula sutta I mentioned in another post. So I abstain more often than not. Abstention happens. Is there real "control" there in this abstention conditioned by reflecting on the Buddha's teaching. I would say no. Conditions at work, impersonal processes. I value the control illusion because it is tied to some very powerful conditioning factors found in the Buddha's teaching, but I think I can be aware that it is ultimately illusionary. I mean, if we say there is really and actually control isn't that saying there is really and actually a self? Sorry if that's a pedestrian question. So conditions found in the Buddha's teaching condition an easy abstention from porn these days. On some days I expect they will fail to do so. But there is momentum and all the abstention builds up, accumulates, and that is more conditioning at work. (natural decisive support condition?) And then there are my occasional comical vows to leave DSG or stop using the internet. The Buddha praises Dhamma discussion, so that condition is more powerful than self's need for progress in my writing career etc. And that condition keeps me keep on coming back although I must appear ridiculous to people! :) Anyways, yes, I'd say conditions rule all and there is no real control. But staying open to the Dhamma leads us to gradually deepening degrees of protection and safety and ultimately liberation, something like that. metta, phil #90946 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 8:33 pm Subject: Re: Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma thomaslaw03 Dear Dhamma friends, Thank you very much for your reply and discussion on the topic I posted here. I now know that the translation from Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi is regarded by Jim as being more accurate than Horner's. According to Jim, the sentence from the CSCD version is translated literally as: "Indeed, Ananda, the disciple is not fit to follow the teacher on account of this, that is to say, prose, prose and verse, and exposition." (Na kho, AAnanda, arahati saavako satthaara.m anubandhitu.m yadida.m sutta.m geyya.m veyyaakara.na.m tassa hetu) Just to inform you that a person emailed me the corresponding Chinese version, MA 191 (T 1, 739c4), also records the three terms (Sutra, Geya, and Vyakarana). This is very interesting. But I am unable to confirm this textual information for sure. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas Law #90947 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 9:44 pm Subject: To BE! bhikkhu0 Hey Friends: Be understanding to your perceived enemies. Be loyal to all your good friends. Be strong enough to face the changing world each day. Be weak enough to know you cannot do everything alone. Be generous to those who need your help. Be frugal with that you need yourself. Be wise enough to know, that you do not know everything. Be foolish enough to believe in the unknown miracle. Be willing to share your joys, resources & riches. Be willing to share & bear the sorrows of others. Be a leader, when you see a path others have missed. Be a follower, when you are shrouded by the mists of uncertainty. Be the first to congratulate an opponent, who succeeds. Be the last to criticize a colleague, who fails. Be sure where your next step will fall, so that you will not tumble. Be sure of your final destination, in case you are going the wrong way. Be loving to those who love you, and also those who don't... Be friendly to those who do not love you, since then they may change. Above all: BE AWARE! Thanks & Best Regards Forwarded by Friend Nilanthi #90948 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 9:44 pm Subject: Word of the Buddha = Supreme Triumph! bhikkhu0 Daily Words of the Buddha for 3 October 2008 The Blessed Buddha once said: SabbadÄ?nam dhammadÄ?nam jinÄ?ti; sabbarasam dhammaraso jinÄ?ti; sabbaratim dhammarati jinÄ?ti; tanhakkhayo sabbadukkham jinÄ?ti. THE SUPREME GIFT The gift of Dhamma surpasses all other gifts. The taste of Truth excels every other taste. The joy of Understanding exceeds any other joy. The elimination of Craving overcome, quenches & triumphs all ill, all pain, all sorrow, & all suffering ... Dhammapada 354 Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90949 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 9:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) philofillet Thanks TG Your encouraging words make it worth my risking getting yelled at for being too long on the computer again. > Your post below is awesome. You nailed it and this point especially nice -- > > > " no control, technically speaking, but a very important illusion of control > that the Buddha encourages us to tap into. " Maybe we had better say "the Buddha doesn't discourage us from tapping into at the conventional level of his teaching" or something like that. I think a sutta that is quite underappreciated (in that I never see it quoted anywhere here) can help us. It is AN X,2 "Lawfulness of Progress" "Fr one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is no need for an acto or will: 'May non-remorse arise in me!' I is a natural law , monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is virtuous." And so on through gladness>joy>body be serene>happiness>mind be concentrated>knows and see things as they are. THese are jhana factors I guess, laying out in different ways the usual sila>smadhi>panna dynamic. Interesting to note, as I posted once before, that this chain starts at virtuous. I think it implies that there are many more acts of will inolved in achieving virture as we swim hard against various conflicting and obstructing currents, but once we get into the current, deeper attainments kind of take over without as much participation from that scheming/striving/sweating illusionary sense of control. I think when I posted this before Howard pointed out that there are still "acts of will" involved in the deeper stages, but I think this sutta lays out an interesting dynamic of just how it is necessary for more self-considering effort to be involved earlier on. Maybe. Then again this is a more complex sutta than most in AN and I could very well be misreading it completely. metta, phil #90950 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta-geyya-veyyakarana Dhamma nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 2-okt-2008, om 9:20 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > ...Atthasaalinii, Introductory Discourse (PTS transl.) > > "Which are the 'nine parts'? The entire Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na, > Gaathaa, Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhuta, Vedalla. -------- N: I read the sutta Approach (Ang. Book of the Fours, XIX, 186) and found a footnote: sutta, geyya etc. is inserted by compilers later on. But the Buddha spoke this sutta, so why should we doubt this. Now, on Paliyahoo is a discussion about this point, but as to history, I do not know any answer. Someone asked whether from the beginning of the teaching, there could be the nine angas. There is a similar case with Ang. Nikaya and other books where we find: the Ones, the Twos, etc. At the rehearsal it could be that this order was taken for the sake of recitation. It is not said that the Buddha spoke them all in this order. But such questions distract from the essence of the teachings, as you showed with the sutta Approach. NIna. #90951 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Sri Lamka Revisited, Ch 2, no 7 nilovg Dear Friends, The sutta speaks of many different degrees of wrath. Do we know the different degrees of our aversion when we are being reproved? We may “round on the reprover”, telling him that he makes the same mistakes. Don’t we always try to find good reasons why we are behaving the way we do? Don’t we often use the word “but” with this intention? We may keep silent when we are reproved, but with aversion; we may speak words bordering on wrath or we may blurt out words full of wrath. There are many intensities of dosa. We read that the monk who is reproved is stubborn and proud. Do we recognize such qualities in ourselves? Do we really want to be corrected by someone else? This sutta reminds us to find out whether the citta is kusala citta or akusala citta in such a situation. It may be worth while to listen to the person who gives us advice. When someone else tells us something that is true it is hard to admit that it is true. We read at the end of the sutta that the monk should get rid of all these evil states when he finds that he has not yet eradicated them. Through the development of right understanding we come to know the different kinds of defilements that arise. It is impossible to eradicate them so long as they are still taken for “my akusala”. Thus, first the wrong view of self has to be eradicated through awareness of all kinds of nåma and rúpa which appear now through the six doorways. There is the síla of the eightfold Path and this is: right speech (sammå våcå), right action (sammå kammanta) and right livelihood (sammå åjíva). These three factors are sobhana cetasikas (beautiful mental factors) and they are factors of the eightfold Path if they are accompanied by the right understanding (sammå diììhi) of the eightfold Path. When we abstain from wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood (which is wrong speech and wrong action committed for the sake of our livelihood), without right understanding of the eightfold Path, there is síla, but not síla of the eightfold Path. When right understanding of nåma and rúpa has been developed it can arise when there is refraining from wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood, and then there is síla of the eightfold Path. When we abstain from akusala we may still cling to a concept of self who abstains. When right understanding has been developed it realizes that it is nåma that abstains, only a conditioned reality, not self. It depends on conditions whether there can be síla of the eightfold Path, but we should see the value of all levels of síla. We should apply ourselves to síla, right conduct in body and speech, be it refraining from ill deeds, sincere politeness, the paying of respect or helping others. Síla is a form of giving, because when we give up defilements it is also for the benefit and happiness of other beings; we let them live in peace and we do not harm them. When we have more loving kindness and compassion for other beings, even for insects, there are conditions to refrain from harming them. When we refrain from killing we give the gift of life. We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Eights, Ch IV, § 9, Yields) about five gifts, given by a noble disciple [1] : “Herein, monks, a noble disciple gives up the taking of life and abstains from it. By abstaining from taking life, the noble disciple gives to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, gives them freedom from hostility, and freedom from oppression. By giving to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression, he himself will enjoy immeasurable freedom from fear, hostility and oppression....” The same is said about the other four precepts. By abstaining from stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and the taking of intoxicants one gives to immeasurable beings freedom from fear, hostility and oppression. When we see síla as a gift of kindness to others it can inspire us to develop síla together with satipatthåna so that we shall have less selfishness. ---------- 1: I am using the translation of Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel Publication 238-240, B.P.S. Kandy, Sri Lanka. ********* Nina. #90952 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 12:44 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Threes (1-6) , part 2. nilovg Dear friends, DN 33 Threes (1-6) , part 2. Walshe DN 33.1.10(5) 'Three kinds of unwholesome thought: of sensuality, of enmity, of cruelty. Tayo akusalavitakkaa - kaamavitakko, byaapaadavitakko, vihi.msaavitakko. -------- The Co states that thought connected with sensuality, is kaamavitakko. The Subco. explains that kaama refers to vatthukaama, the object of sensuousness, and kilesa kaama, the defilement of sensuality. Both meanings are to be applied here. The Co explains that the thought of sensuality and of illwill refers to living beings and to phenomena (sa”nkhaara), but that thought of cruelty only refers to living beings, because things cannot feel pain. -------- Walshe DN 33.1.10(6) 'Three kinds of wholesome thought: of renunciation, of non-enmity, of non-cruelty. Tayo kusalavitakkaa - nekkhammavitakko, abyaapaadavitakko, avihi.msaavitakko. ------ N: Renunciation is the opposite of sensuality or attachment. The Co states that someone first contemplates with citta of the sense-sphere (kaamaavacara citta) the subject of foulness, asubha, and then attains ruupajhaana with this subject. Making jhaana the basis lokuttara magga-citta and phalacitta arise. As to thought of non-illwill, he has mettaa as object of calm, and then attains jhaana with mettaa, and making jhaana the basis attains enlightenment. As to the thought of non-cruelty, the same is said about karu.na as meditation subject of jhaana. The subco adds that someone who makes jhaana the basis for lokuttaracitta does so after having thoroughly grasped (samsitvaa) jhaana. N: He must have attained great skill in jhaana and must know precisely when citta with clinging arises and when citta is removed from clinging. The subco explains the word nekkhamma, renunciation as connected with nikkhanta. Nikkhanta means being removed. This meaning is applied to nekkhamma as alobha, being removed from lobha, and, at the first jhaana, as being removed from the hindrances. All kusala dhammas are removed from all akusala. Nibbaana is removed from all conditioned dhammas. All kusala dhammas are nekkhamma, because when doing deeds of generosity or observing siila, one is not intent on gain for oneself. One is removed from selfishness. When one is aware of naama and ruupa there is a degree of detachment, there is some elimination of clinging to the idea of self. It is naama that appears to sati and pa~n~naa, not self, it is ruupa that appears, not self. -------- Co: Nekkhammapa.tisa.myutto vitakko nekkhammavitakko. So asubhapubbabhaage kaamaavacaro hoti. Asubhajjhaane ruupaavacaro. Ta.m jhaana.m paadaka.m katvaa uppannamaggaphalakaale lokuttaro.... ******* Nina. #90953 From: "rinzeee" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 2:14 am Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma rinzeee Dear Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > Hello Rinze, - > T: I can follow your explanation about the function of "water" as binding the bone material, otherwise the mummy will be nothing just dust. What about the fire element -- how do you know it is still present in the mummy? On a second thought, let's not worry about the issues that are not important. Rinze: Water element and fire element, `oppose' each other, so to speak. That is why water is able to douse the fire, and where fire is dominant, water just sizzles away! Even then, for water to be as water, there has to be the fire element in it, and for fire as fire, there has to be the water element in it. All the 4 Mahabutas stay together, if any one is absent, the thing exists no more, as I said before. Difficult to comprehend but that is the Dhamma - A thing arises, bringing with it it's mode of distruction (cessation)! That is the true meaning of Anicca. In the `old bone' water is the least present, which implies that fire is most prominent, that is why it crumbles to the slightest pressure when touched (remember I asked you to recall the sand dunes of the desert). That is how one comprehends the fire element in the mummy. What is important in all this and the example of the long forgotten Archelogical site (Rupa ruppatti), is the Sutta quoted by Ven. Sariputta which you posted, re-produced below: Sutta Quotes: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate." [SN 22.48] Rinze: In understanding, "Internal or external", form within the body is `internal', what is outside this body is `external'. By `form' here is meant the 4 Mahabutas. So if you could understand what was discussed above on the `mummy' or the gradual disintegration (Rupa ruppatti) of an undiscovered `Archeological site', then you could comprehend what Ven. Sariputta is trying to say, that the same disintegration, happens to the 4 elements in the body as well! Read Ven. Sariputta, quoted below: Sutta quotes: "And why do you call it 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form. – SN 22.79. Rinze: But we don't see our body disintegrating the same way as the mummy. Why, what is the cause? Consciousness, the intervention of Consciousness and Action. That is how an archeological site, discovered by Man, is given a new lease of `Life', by the intervention of consciousness and planned action towards a goal, to preserve it for posterity, unlike an undiscovered archeological site. The same with this body, we feed it, clean it, protect it, house it, dress it, entertain it, thinking it is to the body, when it is not, but just the 4 elements! Hence Ven. Sariputta says, "…is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation (consciousness (in brief)): that is called form as clinging- aggregate." [SN 22.48] The behaviour of the 4 elements can be seen through this body. When we walk, (element of motion dominates), sleep, (earth dominates – we cannot even keep the eyelids open, let alone carry the whole body!), are Angry, (Heat dominates – we say boiling with rage). When we are sick, we see different types of symptoms, a clear manifestation of one or the other or a combination of these elements. In fact the system of Ayruvedic medicine is supposed to be based on these elements. What is important in these contemplations is that they point to the 1st NT of Suffering. And unless we realize Suffering, we would not seek its cause. This is the function of the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness, Kaya-anupassana, Vedana-anupassana, Citta-anupassana and Dhamma-anupassana. Though anupassana in a looser sense is Contemplating, in a stricter sense it is Observing. Observing Body-in-body, Feeling-in-feeling, Mind-in-mind, Mental content-in-mental content. It is as if, the mind 'sinks' into the subject of meditation, loosing perception of the subject in a conventional sense, and `seeing' or `sensing' it from an entirely new dimension. This is the sense of `directly knowing'. As otherwise contemplation involves thinking, where `thinking' itself is a sankahara, one of the 5 aggregates, therefore holding on to the aggregate, contradicts `direct knowing'! Imagine you are a passenger in a plane, on the descent, seeing a whole city of lights, through the window, at that height. But once the plane lands on the runaway, you loose perspective view of the `city of lights' and begin to be aware of the individual lights of the runaway. Metta Rinze. #90954 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 2, 2008 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/2/2008 11:12:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Phil Your post below is awesome. You nailed it and this point especially nice -- " no control, technically speaking, but a very important illusion of control that the Buddha encourages us to tap into. " I wanted to say something like that but figured it would be too much work to explain it but you did it in one sentence. LOL Nice inspirational closing sentence too. Thanks. TG ================================= Choices are made in the sense that a river of conditions called "a person" includes clusters of conditions, clusters consisting of cetana, viriya, and other cetasikas, the joint activity of which we call "controlling." But there is no controller - no single phenomenon that is "a person who controls" or is "a person in charge." If 'control' is taken in that cluster sense, there IS control (or, better said, influence). But if 'control' is understood to be the action of a controlling agent, and that is what you seem to mean, then there is no control, and I think it is quite false that the Buddha encourages us to tap into an illusion of control or any other illusion. The Buddha didn't promote adopting illusions but dis-enchantment, the dropping of illusions. With metta, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90955 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree sarahprocter... Hi James,Phil & all, --- On Wed, 1/10/08, buddhatrue wrote: >James: Sorry Phil, but this is an unfair stereotype. I'm sure that there are surfers who don't have a fondness for drugs and alcohol- Ken, Sarah, and Jon being three I could name off-hand. ... S: Just to correct any further wrong impressions, let me say that Ken is a 'proper' surfer while Jon and I just like swimming and body-surfing in the waves and occasionally take out a board for a bit of fun when they aren't too big:-) .... J:> I read Sarah's post about the surfers involved in the killing and I got a different sort of impression. Maybe Sarah and Jon were so surprised because they are rather naive and a poor judge of character? ... S: Maybe. We only ever go to the beach in the early morning so we don't have much idea of what goes on at night-time. Conditions too, perhaps, to experience the better sides of people? Having said that, everyone we know (even the late-nighters) were very shocked by the episode. It's a very, very unusual thing to happen in Hong Kong (unless triad gangs are involved). .... J:> .... When you live all of your life inside of your head thinking about namas and rupas, and denying the existence of people, you are naturally going to become a poor judge of character. (Again, I mean no offense and Sarah and Jon are very sweet people). .... S: Lol, You're quite a sweetie yourself, James:-) having said that, I think that when there is less idea of 'people' and 'fixed character' and more understanding of different, changing accumulations and latent tendencies, we become wiser about ourselves and others. We realise that we know so very little about our own cittas now, so how can we possibly know others' cittas? Usually, it's just our projection or idea based on various assumptions and circumstances, usually done with 'atta-sa~n~naa', a perception or idea of a person as existing. ... P:>> THe Dhamma can be offered to different people in light of thier history of behaviour, I think. >James: How long of a history can you base your judgement?? Two minutes, two days, two weeks, two years, two decades, two centuries, two lifetimes, two million lifetimes? The only way to evaluate people, I think, is in the here and now. ... S: I think you are making the point here that the 'history of behaviour' is all gone, and while we dwell on someone's past hatred or bad deeds, for example, they may be showing lots of metta and kindness now. The reality is just 'our' thinking about this or that person, building up a story now. ... P:>> Anyways, the point of this post is to clarify that in case anyone has been harboring that image of Jon. (Get it out of you brains! > Now!) >James: Okay, if you insist. :-) ... S: Lol, I expect everyone had forgotten about it until Phil brought it to light again:-). Now is there any 'control' or 'free-will' with regard to 'getting it out of our brains'? Metta, Sarah ========== #90956 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 4:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Uploaded recordings, KK Jan 2007 sarahprocter... Dear Ann,(& Glen), Thank you so much for your kind feedback! --- On Tue, 30/9/08, glenjohnann wrote: >Wonderful to hear the recording - like being there! ... S: Yes, well you (and your husband, Glen) were very much there and all your questions and comments on the recording are much appreciated. When you get to the part with Glen's question, it might be interesting (for him and us) to transcribe a part of that for any further discussion. "Why is there something and not nothing" as I recall. ... A:> In the first segment on January 9,I particularly appreciate being able to hear Loedvijk's questions re nimitta and "what is sati" and Khun Sujin's very detailed and thorough responses. Seems to hit home more the way it is explained here. ... S: Yes, it all comes over very well, I think. I particularly like this entire set. ... A:> I was caught by her explanation of the very gradual development of sati - how very gradually one will be able to notice when there are moments of sati and when there are not, and how panna will slowly be able to distinguish just a bit the difference between nama and rupa (visible object and seeing being the example used). ... S: Yes, like now....just different namas and rupas being experienced. Slowly sati and panna become more and more familiar with them, so there's less and less idea of 'things' and 'people'. ... A:> As for listening with pencil and paper at hand - I listened before I read Sarah's suggestion re taking some notes. I will definately be listening again, as this segment is so useful, and will try to remember to do so properly equipped (paper and pencil, that is)!. ... S: Well, your summaries and reflections are just as good! ... A:> Thank you so much for your "labour of love" in producing the recordings - these seem especially valuable. ... S: Thanks Ann. Metta, Sarah ======= #90957 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:06 am Subject: Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) philofillet Hi Howard > there is no control, and I think it is quite false that the Buddha encourages > us to tap into an illusion of control or any other illusion. The Buddha > didn't promote adopting illusions but dis-enchantment, the dropping of illusions. Good correction. I changed it to "didn't discourage...in his conventional teaching" which is closer to the truth, I think. Ceartainly he would have recognized that it is inevitable for people to hold on to a sense of control, and I'm pretty sure that that awareness of his played into a lot of the teaching. For example, the sutta I referred to that goes something like "it is a way for inferior people...it is not for you." Obviously that teaching plays into people's inherent desire to polish a self image. He knew we would (do) and used it. Something like that. Countles examples of that sort of thing. So yes, he certainly didn't "promote adopting" illusions, as you say, but was realistic about how deeply rooted the illusions we have are. I would suggest that an approach that gets straight at "people don't exist" or one which warns against "people doing" things is not realistic about how deeply rooted our illusions are. (The "deluded framework" as TG called it once, I liked that.) The wrong view is there, will be there for a long time, we have to work with it rather than just decide to shed it by thinking in paramattha terms, I think... metta, phil #90958 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds Sutta and Phenomenalism (Brief) nilovg Dear Tep and Alex, BTW, I am going away from Saturday until Teusday and will close off my mail. Op 28-sep-2008, om 17:25 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > How should we interpret the nama-rupa in the D.O. context differently > from nama-rupa in the paramattha dhamma context and for what > reason(s)? It is easy to see, though, that consciousness is a separate > link from nama-rupa. But is there anything else that you can read from > the D.O. context? ---------- Vis. XVII has given many details. I can quote parts: Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. --------- N: Here naama refers to the cetasikas that can accompany vi~n~naa.na. The Tiika explains that vi~n~naa.na also is naama, but in not mixing the conditioning dhammas and conditioned dhammas he speaks here of naama as the three khandhas which are facing an object. We read in the ‘Dispeller of Delusion’, Classification of the Structure of Conditions, 777 (p. 207) that a question is asked whether consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) is not mentality (naama). The answer is that it is also naama.The text states: In the context of the Dependent Origination: with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality', mentality or naama is here the khandhas of feeling, of sa~n~naa and of formations. These khandhas include all cetasikas. As Sarah also explained before in a post to Alex, in the D.O. vi~n~naa.na is vipaakacitta, result of kamma-formations. It conditions by way of conascence and other conascent conditions the naama that are cetasikas. Here is it a conditioning factor and naama is the conditioned reality. This is what the Dispeller explained above. There are many kinds of rebirth and kamma conditions many kinds of rupa, in accordance with the rebirth in different planes. At the first moment of life kamma produces rupas. Citta is too weak to produce rupas at that moment but after the rebirth-consciopusness has fallen away the bhavangacitta produces rupa. In Vis. 197: In this section more details are explained about the dhammas that are conditioned by kamma and vi~n~naa.na and the conditioned dhammas which are grouped as threefold: as just naama, as just ruupa and as the combination naama-ruupa. -------- In the planes where there are naama and ruupa, citta conditions ruupa in the course of life. The Tiika mentions that vi~n~naa.na, vipaakacitta, can condition ruupa by way of post-nascence-condition. The citta supports the ruupa that has arisen previously and that has not yet fallen away. When taking into account vi~n~naa.na which conditions the combination naama-ruupa, this is to be applied in the planes where there are naama and ruupa, ‘in both cases’, that is, at the moment of rebirth and also in the course of life. The Tiika mentions that vi~n~naa.na conditions naama-ruupa by way of conascent-condition (sahajaata-paccaya.) Moreover, kamma and vi~n~naa.na are conditions for the combination of naama-ruupa and this can be applied as the case demands. ------- Text Vis. 201: Rebirth-linking or some other kind of resultant consciousness is a condition in nine ways, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, kamma-result, nutriment, faculty, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, either at rebirth-linking or in the course of an existence, for that mentality called resultant, whether mixed with materiality or not. As to the expression, whether mixed with materiality, as we read in the Tiika to Vis. 148: < The Tiika states with regard to mixed or not (missita and amissita) that when it is mixed with materiality, the ruupa is nissaya-paccaya, foundation-condition for the citta. The heartbase is the physical base for citta and cetasikas, and at the moment of rebirth, the heartbase arises at the same time as the pa.tisandhi-citta, it is conascent foundation-condition. > At the first moment of life kamma produces the rebirth-consciousness and also groups of ruupa that arise at the same time. These ruupas are also conditioned by the rebirth-consciousness that arises at the same time. ------- As you see there are many, many details, too long to quote more. I would not mind if Larry would repost the whole Ch from the beginning, since it is long and there are many details I tend to forget. Perhaps the above gives you some idea. Nina. #90959 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/3/2008 8:06:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: So yes, he certainly didn't "promote adopting" illusions, as you say, but was realistic about how deeply rooted the illusions we have are. I would suggest that an approach that gets straight at "people don't exist" or one which warns against "people doing" things is not realistic about how deeply rooted our illusions are. ======================= What you say here sits well with me. :-) With metta, Howard /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #90960 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... Hi Phil, Howard In a message dated 10/3/2008 3:08:09 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: "Fr one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is no need for an acto or will: 'May non-remorse arise in me!' I is a natural law , monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is virtuous." ....................................................................... TG: For my two cents worth, in the above Sutta my sense is that the virtue being address is probably a very advanced virtue of a noble mind. ..................................................................... And so on through gladness>joy>body be s>happiness>min concentrated>knows and see things as they are. THese are j factors I guess, laying out in different ways the usual sila>smadhi>panna dyn Interesting to note, as I posted once before, that this chain starts at virtuous. I think it implies that there are many more acts of will inolved in achieving virture as we swim hard against various conflicting and obstructing currents, but once we get into the current, deeper attainments kind of take over without as much participation from that scheming/striving/participation from that schemin of control. ................................................................ TG: If we have a crooked arrow, and shoot it into the air, the results will be erratic and unwanted. If we straighten that arrow and shoot it into the air, the resulting action will be straight and flawless. This is supposed to support what you said above. TG OUT #90961 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Phil In a message dated 10/3/2008 3:45:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Choices are made in the sense that a river of conditions called "a person" includes clusters of conditions, clusters consisting of cetana, viriya, and other cetasikas, the joint activity of which we call "controlling.an ....................................................... TG: I call it "reacting," not controlling. Conditionality is mere reaction...even the seeming 'intentions' are just reactions. There is no way it can be correctly considered 'controlling' in any way, shape, or form IMO. I would recommend dumping that word because it only enforces self view. We can say volitions have influence. But should keep it close in mind that volitions are the result of influence as well. Influence from previous and currently forging sense objects, sense bases, and corresponding consciousness. Its a chain reaction of reactions. (I know, its redundant.) ........................................................................... But there is no controller - no single phenomenon that is "a person who controls" or is "a person in charge." If 'control' is taken in that cluster sense, there IS control (or, better said, influence). ............................................................................. TG: Here I disagree. There just isn't any control and any sense of it is just propagating a subtle type of self view IMO. Its the same type of argument I have about "Dhammas with their own characteristics." Any notion of these premises is a notion tainted with self view. I know Howard and I don't disagree on the 'view' of this...so much as just the language of it. ......................................................................... But if 'control' is understood to be the action of a controlling agent, and that is what you seem to mean, then there is no control, and I think it is quite false that the Buddha encourages us to tap into an illusion of control or any other illusion. The Buddha didn't promote adopting illusions but dis-enchantment, the dropping of illusions. .............................................................................. . TG: I'll take 'some' exception to the last part of this too. The Buddha taught at many different levels. I do think some of his teaching does inspire from the level of "self idea" in the mind receiving the teaching. Obviously the Buddha didn't promote adopting illusions. However, he was well aware that many (the majority) of his audience was encumbered with illusions/delusions; and he would have to teach and reach "at that level" in order to lead them out of it. For example, the Sutta where he more or less shames a monk who is behaving badly, that he or other monks are aware of it and knows this monks as one who behaves so...and uses that to try to steer him straight. The shame could only effect that monk on the level of his "self idea." Its just a tool. He DID NOT say to that monk -- there is no shame because these are just conditions, etc. In other words, this monk needed different medicine than some other monk...because his "delusional illness" was different. The Buddha taught a lot about shame and fear of blame and that could only effect folks with self view. And though these teachings are aim toward the recipients 'self view,' it is done so to curtail even more egregious propagation of self view. Did the Buddha encourage us to 'tap' into illusions, no...we are already there. Did he teach in a manner to reach those illusions and use them to motivate our minds to advance away from them? Damn right! And I think that was Phil's point. TG OUT #90962 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 10:08 am Subject: Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) truth_aerator Thank you very much for your reply, it actually made sense, and it made more senses than quoting abtruse scholastic & monastic works. Best wishes, #90963 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/3/2008 12:54:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: Here I disagree. There just isn't any control and any sense of it is just propagating a subtle type of self view IMO. Its the same type of argument I have about "Dhammas with their own characteristics." Any notion of these premises is a notion tainted with self view. I know Howard and I don't disagree on the 'view' of this...so much as just the language of it. ============================ I think that is so. I view genuine influence and conditionality to be one and the same. With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #90964 From: "colette" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 9:06 am Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? ksheri3 Good Morning Tep, Yes, that's a perfect example of THE DOCTRINE OF MENTAL RESERVATION. <....> Lets focus on your display Tep. > I asked you to show me how you understood the middle path (or "middle > way"). Thank you very much for showing no annoyance in your polite > reply. > > > >Tep: Give me your unbiased & precise description of the middle > path, Colette. > colette: good thing it's October and time for All Saints Day, or All Hallows Eve, or Samhain (Irish/Celtic thing for the mythos of Brigit I believe), since that description and quote above, IS GOING TO HAUNT YOU AT THE END OF THIS POST! GUARRANTEED! ---------------------------------------------- > >THE MIDDLE PATH, if you aren't ready for it, can be such an > overwhelming experience that it turns into the most frieghtening > experience imaginable, BECAUSE OF IT'S PURITY. You or anybody can > take a shipment of herion, not knowing the quality of the drug, and > distribute it only to find that all the customers are overdosing if > not to death does them part from this existance but at least it takes > them to the Emergency Room for immediate medical care. > > >Here we can see the rationale for having, for instance, Theravadans > acting as "gatekeepers" of the doctrines since all Buddhism is > fundamentally based upon, FOUNDATIONALIZED UPON, a few core > principles and concepts which first have to be grasped and mastered > before the student is permitted access to the "higher" conceptions > such as Mahayana or Tibetan or even Tantric. > > >The EXTREMES do exist. The EXTEMES are the hazards to be wary of. The > EXTEMES are what is to be avoided, since they have a peculiar > characteristic of electrocuting the mind or microprocessor, FREEZING > IT, CRYSTALIZING IT, IMPRISSONING IT, where the adept or student will > have the most difficult time extricating themselves from the grasp > that the EXTREMES have on the individual, aspirant, adept, etc. > > >I'm sorry, I've wasted too much time and now cannot put forth the > dilema that I'm encountering at this moment but it gives me a chance > to further my knowledge of this foundation for falsehood, for lies, > called the DOCTRINE OF MENTAL RESERVATION. > ................................. > > T: I appreciate your honesty, Colette. Let me give you the right reply > to my question above. colette: while we may be able to say that your weapon that enforces your hallucination is the following sentence > It is right because it was said by the Buddha. colette: it is an EMPTY weapon. Were you there when the Buddha supposedly said these things? Who is willing to stand up and verify your testimony that these are the words the Buddha actually said? Where is the copyright on the Buddha's words? You fall victim to your own vanity and the tricks that your mind plays on you. <....>Not very Buddhist since the objectivity of Buddhism is to achieve ENLIGHTENMENT and this is done through the releiving of SUFFERING. <...> So, you had the answer that you wanted to hear. Then why did you bother asking me the question for a descriptive reply? Did you think that I was actually going to show you that I am a robot and that I only play previously recorded material? <...> --------------------------- > > "Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone > forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to > indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is > inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is > devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no > good. > > "The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these > extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peac, > to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. And what is that > middle way? It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say, > right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right > livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That > is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision, > which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct > acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. [endquote] > > [Dhamma-cakkappavattana-sutta] > > The term "direct acquaintance" is equivalent to direct knowledge. colette: Is that so? toodles, colette #90965 From: "colette" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 10:15 am Subject: "People say I'm crazy, doin' what I'm doin'" John Lennon ksheri3 Hi Tep, After I replied to you concerning your entrapment of words, of dogma, the Buddha supposedly had dictated I printed out 10 pages of Marxism to begin getting an idea of what I'm dealing with. In the Overview of Marxism I found they list several fundamental principles that all forms of Marxism adhere to: <...> "* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable..." WHAT? History is malleable? History can be changed? Isn't the Past Dharma History? How can the Past Dharma be changed? Do you know how many billions of people are clinging, at this very second, to the Past Dharma as a means of making sense out of the Present Dharma? And That, if we go changing the Past Dharma then what does that do to the Present Dharma? <.....> ****************************************** Didn't Tom Petty or was it a Petty Tom that said: "you believe what you wanna believe" toodles, colette #90966 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 3:38 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. visitorfromt... Dear Nina (Alex, Sarah, Han, Connie, Rinze, Herman, TG, Swee), - I am aware that you will be away until Wednesday of next week. But, perhaps, meanwhile Sarah or Alex or Han or Connie or Rinze might be interested in discussing the main issue (whether or not consciousness is a 'nama') with me. > > Tep: How should we interpret the nama-rupa in the D.O. context differently from nama-rupa in the paramattha dhamma context and for what reason(s)? It is easy to see, though, that consciousness is a separate link from nama-rupa. But is there anything else that you can read from the D.O. context? >N: Vis. XVII has given many details. I can quote parts: Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. T: Doesn't consciousness bend on (to cognize) an object too? The above quote Vis.187:1 is confusing to me since Ven. Buddhaghosa defines 'mind' as feeling + perception + formations, but in paragraph 82 of chapter XIV (PTS Publication) he states that 'mind' or 'consciousness' or 'citta' are all equivalent. 'And what has the characteristic of cognizing(vijaanana)? Consciousness(vi~n~naana); according as it is said, 'It cognizes, friend, that is why "consciousness" is said' (M.i.292). After the sutta quote Ven. Buddhaghosa added, "The word vi~n~naana(consciousness), citta(mind, consciousness), and mano(mind) are one in meaning". T: Essentially, the venerable deviated from his own definition in Vis. 187:1. Now, in SN 12.2 'nama' is defined by the five cetasikas 'feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention', while 'rupa' consists of 'four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements'. As explained in SN 12.61 (Assutava Sutta) 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness are the same. Based on these two suttas, I understand that mind (mano or vi~n~naana) is not a 'nama' that is defined by the five cetasikas. Importantly, I understand that 'mind' is separate from nama-rupa and this fact agrees with the D.O. since nama-rupa is one link of D.O. and consciousness is another link. ................................ >N: Here naama refers to the cetasikas that can accompany vi~n~naa.na. The Tiika explains that vi~n~naa.na also is naama, but in not mixing the conditioning dhammas and conditioned dhammas he speaks here of naama as the three khandhas which are facing an object. T: The Tiika extends beyond Ven. Buddhaghosa's Vism and contradicts to the sutta above in which 'nama' is defined by the five cetasikas, i.e. feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. Should I take the Tiika as more authoritative than the Vism of the Ven. Buddhaghosa? Should I overule the suttas above by the Vism or the Tiika? Or should I stick to the suttas and forget the Vism and Tiika? Or should I straddle over everthing, compromising and accepting other sources as equally important to the Suttas? etc. ............................... >N: We read in the `Dispeller of Delusion', Classification of the Structure of Conditions, 777 (p. 207) that a question is asked whether consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) is not mentality (naama). The answer is that it is also naama.The text states: In the context of the Dependent Origination: with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality', mentality or naama is here the khandhas of feeling, of sa~n~naa and of formations. These khandhas include all cetasikas. T: This author tried very hard to support his/her viewpoint that is wrong from the very beginning. The more explanation is given, the more muddled it becomes. Now, on top of the 89 kinds of consciousness, we have here "consciousness as mentality and consciousness as condition" -- more concepts that lead to more confusion. I have seen a lot like this in commentaries, and that is why I do not read much of them. Why isn't the sutta definition in SN 12.2 easy to understand? .......................... >N: As you see there are many, many details, too long to quote more. I would not mind if Larry would repost the whole Ch from the beginning, since it is long and there are many details I tend to forget. Perhaps the above gives you some idea. T: I truly am grateful that you decided not to drown me with more commentary quotes. ;-)) I've already got the "idea" from the sutta, Nina. Tep === #90967 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. truth_aerator Dear Tep, and all, >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > Dear Nina (Alex, Sarah, Han, Connie, Rinze, Herman, TG, Swee), - > > I am aware that you will be away until Wednesday of next week. But, > perhaps, meanwhile Sarah or Alex or Han or Connie or Rinze might be > interested in discussing the main issue (whether or not consciousness > is a 'nama') with me. In the suttas the vinnana (6 of them to be precise) form different link than nama/rupa. However there is a sutta where the Buddha says that ultimately vinnana is inseparable from nama/rupa. I wonder: is fire separable from combustion or not? Or is combustion seperable from the fuel and its burning? The more I think about DO, the more questions arise, the more there are strange looping and recursive structures there/ Best wishes, #90968 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 4:43 pm Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? visitorfromt... Hello Colette, - Too bad you broke your "fuse" too soon. This is a Dhamma discussion, isn't it? >colette: while we may be able to say that your weapon that enforces your hallucination is the following sentence > It is right because it was said by the Buddha. it is an EMPTY weapon. Were you there when the Buddha supposedly said these things? Who is willing to stand up and verify your testimony that these are the words the Buddha actually said? Where is the copyright on the Buddha's words? T: Tough-but-hollowed questions! The "weapon" is solid and effective, Colette. Eventhough I never heard the Buddha's words and am unable to "prove" them in a testimony, I have an incredible faith in the suttas. Why? It's because I have practiced according to the Dhamma to some extent and have experienced the fourth noble Truths enough to become more and more convinced that the four Noble Truths are 'to be seen here & now, timeless, ... pertinent, to be seen by the wise for themselves'. ....................... >colette: You fall victim to your own vanity and the tricks that your mind plays on you. <....>Not very Buddhist since the objectivity of Buddhism is to achieve ENLIGHTENMENT and this is done through the releiving of SUFFERING. <...> T: Again, tough questions. You're talking as if you have enlightened. I am not convinced, though. So, to prove that you know what "the objectivity of Buddhism is to achieve ENLIGHTENMENT" means, it will be necessary to show how you understand 'dukkha' (the 1st Nobel Truth). --------------------------- >colette: So, you had the answer that you wanted to hear. Then why did you bother asking me the question for a descriptive reply? Did you think that I was actually going to show you that I am a robot and that I only play previously recorded material? <...> T: We are better than a robot because we can experience the Dhamma. Have you tried it yet, e.g. what is the Dhamma for reducing anger? The nice thing about my "anwer" (that you called "weapon") is that it is pertinent & timeless such that you can prove it, eventhough the Buddha said it very long time ago. Tep === #90969 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:11 pm Subject: Looping & repeating things in DO truth_aerator Hello all. In Dependent Origination, Whats the difference between: 1 a) vedana as in nama b) vedana as vedana c) vedana in sorrow,lamentation, pain, grief and dispaire 2 a) Phassa in nama b) phassa in phassa 3 a) Taint of sensuality b) Craving or Clinging 4 a) Taint of Becoming b) Becoming (bhava) link 5 a) Ignorance b) taint of ignorance this it taken from MN9 See what happens: <-> means feed and condition each other (if they aren't the same to start with) avijja <-> avijjaasava avijja <-> (tanha, upadana, kamaasava) avijja <-> bhavaasava sankhara <-> (tanha/upadana/kamaasava/) vinnana <-> namarupa namarupa <-> phassa namarupa <-> vedana <-> jati-marana-dukkha namarupa <-> salayatana -> vinnana vedana is inseparable (?) from sanna&vedana in namarupa Birth, aging, death, suffering and all these depend on nama/rupa .... Best wishes, #90970 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Sorry for the delay, and thanks for: A: "My heart goes to you and your tragedy. That was really sad and I hope you have recovered from your loss." Scott: Regarding: A: "...Just because some virus or something overpowered someone, it doesn't automatically mean that there is 'no control'. All it means is that X overpowered Y on occasion A." Scott: Yes, of course. I am referring to conditions, really. It was only by conditions that the Dhamma came to my attention. And why the Dhamma and not a whiskey bottle or a prostitute? Conditions and inclinations. No control. A: "No offence, but I think that 'no-control' can be a great coping mechanism - and actually very beneficial during meditation..." Scott: None taken. And again we agree in that the Dhamma has been bastardized, homogenized, and dumbed-down to be used by countless people as a pop-psychology quick-fix solution. Anatta, when misunderstood, and used as some sort of strategy to feel better, is not immune to such uses. In fact, more so than the use of 'no-control' as a 'coping mechanism', meditational tools and gimmicks have made more money for more new-age entrepreneurs than one could shake a stick at. But, as for me, I've found peace in the Dhamma and that includes a lack of doubt in the concept of 'no-control' - properly understood, mind you. You can see that this has to be by conditions because neither of us are able to persuade the other as to the usefulness of our divergent positions. No matter how much 'effort'. No control. Sincerely, Scott. #90971 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:31 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. visitorfromt... Daer Alex, - Thank you for being the first to discuss the "main issue". >Alex: In the suttas the vinnana (6 of them to be precise) form different link than nama/rupa. T: Yes, these 6 vi~n~naana are associated with seeing a form, ..., cognizing a mind-object. Yes, nama-rupa is separate since it is the basis for vi~n~nana to originate. "If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-&-form take shape in the womb?" "No, lord." If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-&-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-&-form." DN 15. ...................... >Alex: However there is a sutta where the Buddha says that ultimately vinnana is inseparable from nama/rupa. T: What does that mean, Alex? "Just as fire is classified simply by the condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire burning in dependence on logs is classified simply as a log fire... a fire burning in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish fire; in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the condition in dependence on which it arises." [MN 38] ...................... >Alex: I wonder: is fire separable from combustion or not? Or is combustion seperable from the fuel and its burning? T: Without a fuel there is no sustainance of fire. While the fuel is burning, there is combustion. When the fuel is used up, there is neither combustion nor burning. So, I think they are all inter-dependent. ......................... >Alex: The more I think about DO, the more questions arise, the more there are strange looping and recursive structures there/ T: Tell me more about the "recursive structures there". Tep === #90972 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:50 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. truth_aerator Dear Tep, >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" > T: Tell me more about the "recursive structures there". > > > Tep > === > msg#90969 specifically: avijja <-> avijjaasava avijja <-> (tanha, upadana, kamaasava) avijja <-> bhavaasava sankhara <-> (tanha/upadana/kamaasava/) vinnana <-> namarupa namarupa <-> phassa namarupa <-> vedana <-> jati-marana-dukkha namarupa <-> salayatana -> vinnana phassa -> vedana/sana phassa -> sankhara (aggregate) vedana is inseparable (?) from sanna&vedana in namarupa tanha <-> kamaasava bhava <-> bhavaasava Birth, aging, death, suffering and all these are certain sort of nama/rupic event. Best wishes, #90973 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 6:02 pm Subject: Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear friend Rinze, - I appreciate your thoughts about the characteristics and the effort in writing up. > The same with this body, we feed it, clean it, protect it, house it, > dress it, entertain it, thinking it is to the body, when it is not, > but just the 4 elements! Hence Ven. Sariputta says, "…is clingable, > offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation > (consciousness (in brief)): that is called form as clinging- > aggregate." [SN 22.48] > > The behaviour of the 4 elements can be seen through this body. When > we walk, (element of motion dominates), sleep, (earth dominates – we > cannot even keep the eyelids open, let alone carry the whole body!), > are Angry, (Heat dominates – we say boiling with rage). When we are > sick, we see different types of symptoms, a clear manifestation of > one or the other or a combination of these elements. In fact the > system of Ayruvedic medicine is supposed to be based on these > elements. > > What is important in these contemplations is that they point to the > 1st NT of Suffering. And unless we realize Suffering, we would not > seek its cause. This is the function of the 4 Foundations of > Mindfulness, Kaya-anupassana, Vedana-anupassana, Citta-anupassana > and Dhamma-anupassana. > > Though anupassana in a looser sense is Contemplating, in a stricter > sense it is Observing. Observing Body-in-body, Feeling-in-feeling, > Mind-in-mind, Mental content-in-mental content. It is as if, the > mind 'sinks' into the subject of meditation, loosing perception of > the subject in a conventional sense, and `seeing' or `sensing' it > from an entirely new dimension. This is the sense of `directly > knowing'. As otherwise contemplation involves thinking, > where `thinking' itself is a sankahara, one of the 5 aggregates, > therefore holding on to the aggregate, contradicts `direct knowing'! > Thanks, Rinze. Tep === #90974 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 6:55 pm Subject: Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sukinderpal Hi TG, All, I realize that more have been discussed since, but I just read this post of yours. I found myself smiling much of the way while reading it until I came to the last sentence which conditioned an altogether different reaction. So I feel that I should just give a short comment. =========== > The teaching of "no-self" is not for the everyday Joe who is trying to scam > out of guilty plea. That type of person would merely be using something they > don't understand as a ploy. The teaching of no-self is for those trying to > perfect their virtues, concentration, and insight. The Buddha did NOT teach > his most advanced stuff to lay-folks. I don't understand how you could conceive of the Buddha to have taught a different Dhamma to `lay-folks'. And I don't see how the Abhidhamma could be considered an advanced teaching / formulation as compared to that which is found in the Suttas. I think that you are perhaps mistaken regarding what might be involved in the process of coming to understand in experience, what is read or heard of the Dhamma. And therefore I think that you are simply projecting such misunderstanding on to the situation of the "lay-persons vs. more advances students of Dhamma". As far as I can see, the Dhamma is the same in the beginning, middle and end and this can be formulated as pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. These three agree exactly! For example the Dana taught by the Buddha is that of the Middle Way. So is the Sila, is Sila of the Middle Way, likewise every other teaching uttered by the Buddha. You wouldn't suggest a Dhamma teaching which is slightly tilted would you? It is this Middle Way what counts and makes the Dhamma hard to see. In this regard, a recluse during the Buddha's time who wished to join the Order, he would have to face the same challenge of "seeing" as does the lay person. Does the Jhana expert who has yet to hear the Teachings for example, know Dana and Sila by way of the Middle Path? I don't think so. On the other hand, a layperson who has been given talk on Dana, he may come to not take Dana for `self' having in fact understood the Buddha's intended message, don't you think? Don't wish to make this any longer. ;-) Metta, Sukin #90975 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 7:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings jonoabb Hi Alex > > The sutta says that jhana is conducive to enlightenment. It does not > > say that enlightenment is the result of jhana. > > What else? Well, simply put, jhana being conducive to enlightenment does not amount to enlightenment being the result of jhana. Or do you see it differently? There are lots of things that are conducive to enlightenment: hearing the teachings, association with those who have good understanding, reflection on what has been heard, observance of sila, development of samatha, and so on. Some of these are given in the texts as essentials, others are not. In terms of the development of samatha and vipassana, jhana is the result of the former, and enlightenment of the latter. > I've recently read that a person that has right view: > a) can lose it. (somewhere in AN) > > b) Can go to hell. mn136 Agreed. Only the sotapanna is beyond wrong view and rebirth in a lower realm. > At least some benefits of Jhana are that it is such a wholesome Kamma > that not only it helps the path, but it makes sure one doesn't fall > into hell and such. (as long as one doesn't abuse Jhana for bad deeds). There are many, many benefits of samatha/jhana (and I have never suggested otherwise). But as I understand the teachings, its attainment is not a prerequisite for the development of insight or of enlightenment. > After all, "Jhana is path to awakening" - MN36 I'm not familiar with this quote. Would you care to cite the passage from which it is taken? Jon #90976 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... Hi Sukin In a message dated 10/3/2008 7:56:13 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: I don't understand how you could conceive of the Buddha to have taught a different Dhamma to `lay-folks'. .......................................... TG: I don't conceive in anyway whatsoever the Buddha taught a "different dhamma" to lay folks. I DO conceive that he taught at a different level and did not teach the most advanced aspects of his teaching to lay people, except with rare exceptions. This is NOT ONLY my conception, it is spelled out as such in the Suttas. ............................................................. And I don't see how the Abhidhamma could be considered an advanced teaching / formulation as compared to that which is found in the Suttas. I think that you are perhaps mistaken regarding what might be involved in the process of coming to understand in experience, what is read or heard of the Dhamma. And therefore I think that you are simply projecting such misunderstanding on to the situation of the "lay-persons vs. more advances students of Dhamma". ....................................................... TG: The "Abhidhamma reference" is a mystery to me as to where it is coming from. Are you under the impression that I consider Abhidhamma to be a more advanced teaching than the Suttas? Am I to receive the "Abhidhammika charge" once again? (Papers flying off my desk) LOL I am a "Sutta Guy" if ever there was one. LOL Let's move on... My deficiencies in understanding Dhamma aside, I wholeheartedly back up any statement I've ever made that indicates the Buddha taught differently to lay people than monks...or...to the less advanced than to the more advanced. This is not my view. Its is clearly denoted in the Suttas. ........................................................................ As far as I can see, the Dhamma is the same in the beginning, middle and end and this can be formulated as pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. These three agree exactly! For example the Dana taught by the Buddha is that of the Middle Way. So is the Sila, is Sila of the Middle Way, likewise every other teaching uttered by the Buddha. You wouldn't suggest a Dhamma teaching which is slightly tilted would you? ................................................... TG: Yes. Tilted toward the understanding level of the recipient. You can EASILY dissect the Suttas and have them saying opposite things at various times depending on the circumstances. At some times he teaches there IS A SELF. The heart of his teaching is that there is NO SELF. Why the disparity??? Because the recipients of the two different teachings were only able to understand certain things and the teaching the Buddha taught, that most benefited them AT THAT TIME, was something they could relate to. In reading the Suttas, one needs to use an appropriate sensibility to realize why these differences arise. I have met many a person online who will swear that the Buddha taught that there IS a self...merely based on one Sutta or conventional language; while ignore the vast majority of the Canon in deference to their view. So if the right sensibilities are not applied, the Suttas can eat someone up. IMO, to keep it straight one needs to keep focused on Dependent Arising...or as you state it below, the 'Middle Way.' ............................................................................. It is this Middle Way what counts and makes the Dhamma hard to see. In this regard, a recluse during the Buddha's time who wished to join the Order, he would have to face the same challenge of "seeing" as does the lay person. Does the Jhana expert who has yet to hear the Teachings for example, know Dana and Sila by way of the Middle Path? I don't think so. On the other hand, a layperson who has been given talk on Dana, he may come to not take Dana for `self' having in fact understood the Buddha's intended message, don't you think? ............................................................. TG: I don't really know what you want to say here. Seems to me the discussion by the participants on "control" was a far more advanced exploration of the Middle Way. Maybe we just have a legitimate disagreement and you think the Buddha taught the same things and the same way to lay folks that he did to monks. Are there exceptions where the Buddha taught in more advanced ways to some individual lay people? Yep. These folks were already advanced, had spent significant portions of their lives in spiritual pursuits, and ready to receive higher teachings. But generally lay folks would be much more like to receive talks on morality...than on the principles of Dependent Arising. Way way way more likely. :-) TG OUT #90977 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 10:07 pm Subject: Illusory I-dentification! bhikkhu0 Friends: The 20 Kinds of False 'Self'-Projection: What are the 20 invalid Theories of an only apparently existing 'self'? 1: My 'self' is identical with my Body; this physical matter is my 'Ego'. 2: My 'self' has a Body, this physical matter is owned by my 'Ego'. 3: My 'self' is hidden somewhere inside & included within this Body frame. 4: This Body form is hidden inside & included within an extensive 'Ego'. 5: My 'self' is identical with my Feelings; pain, pleasure & neutral feeling are my 'Ego'. 6: My 'self' has Feelings, these sensations are owned by my very own 'Ego'. 7: My 'self' is hidden inside among these Feelings, included within these emotions. 8: These Feelings are hidden inside & included within my all-pervading 'Ego-self'. 9: My 'self' is identical with my Perceptions, these experiences are my 'Ego'. 10: My 'self' has Perceptions, these experiences are owned by my very own 'Ego'. 11: My 'self' is hidden inside these Perceptions, included among all these experiences. 12: These Experiences are hidden inside & included inherently within my 'Ego-self'. 13: My 'self' is identical with my mental Constructions, ideas & thoughts are my 'Ego'. 14: My 'self' possess mental Constructions, these activities are owned by my 'Ego'. 15: My 'self' is hidden inside among these mental Constructions, included as a core. 16: These Cogitations are hidden inside & included inherently within my 'ego-self'. 17: My 'self' is identical with my Consciousness, this bare Awareness is my 'Ego'. 18: My 'self' has a Consciousness, this naked Awareness is owned by my 'Ego'. 19: My 'self' is hidden inside this Consciousness, included in all aware moments. 20: This Consciousness is hidden inside & included inherently within my 'self'. Why are these 20 common assumptions invalid, erroneous, wrong and false ? Because the concept of a Self inherently implies that: 1: It is something constant over time: an identical 'same self'... 2: That it is 'self'-controllable i.e. fully independent & autonomic... 3: That it is pleasant, since if self was not pleasant and the 'Self' really was in power, it would make whatever is self, become pleasant! However, neither body, feeling, perception, mental construction, nor consciousness is constant and the same, even for a moment... Therefore they cannot possibly ever qualify as a same 'self' nor be identical with any stable & definable identity...!!! Neither is body, feeling, perception, mental construction, nor consciousness fully controllable... Neither can they therefore ever meet the requirements of a 'self'...!!! Neither is body, feeling, perception, mental construction, nor consciousness always pleasant... Neither can they therefore ever contain or coincide with any 'self'...!!! Could the assumed ‘'self'’ be a combination of any of 1-20? No so! Why not? If 'self' is not found within any of 1-20, it cannot ever be a collection of them! 1+5+9+13+17 are examples of illusory identification with mere passing states... 2+6+10+14+18 are examples of fictitious immanence & invented ownership... 3+7+11+15+19 are examples of imagined inclusion in something becoming otherwise... 4+8+12+16+20 are examples of phony possessing as an invisible acquisition... This doctrine of selflessness, anatta, No self, Not Anyone, Anything, Anywhere is particular to the Buddhas. No other is able to discover, comprehend nor teach this! More on this subtle Selflessness: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/ Anatta_No_Self.htm The Blessed Buddha radically pointed out: All phenomena is void of a 'self' or of what belongs to any 'self'! Within this frame is therefore nothing belonging to anyone, anywhere, nor is there anything owned by this frame in anyone, anywhere or elsewhere... Like a Scarecrow empty of self, soul, me, I, mine & Ego... Source: The Moderate Speeches of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya 106 [ii 106] The Way to the Imperturbable. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #90978 From: "colette" Date: Fri Oct 3, 2008 10:21 pm Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? ksheri3 Hi Tep, A two dimensional world for a two dimensional existance, no? This is a Dhamma discussion, > isn't it? > toodles, colette #90979 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. visitorfromt... Dear Alex: Thank you but ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" > > T: Tell me more about the "recursive structures there". > > > > > > Tep > > === > > > > msg#90969 > specifically: > > avijja <-> avijjaasava > avijja <-> (tanha, upadana, kamaasava) > avijja <-> bhavaasava > sankhara <-> (tanha/upadana/kamaasava/) > vinnana <-> namarupa > namarupa <-> phassa > namarupa <-> vedana <-> jati-marana-dukkha > namarupa <-> salayatana -> vinnana > phassa -> vedana/sana > phassa -> sankhara (aggregate) > vedana is inseparable (?) from sanna&vedana in namarupa > tanha <-> kamaasava > bhava <-> bhavaasava > Birth, aging, death, suffering and all these are certain sort of > nama/rupic event. > > > Best wishes, > sorry, it is not helpful. Tep === #90980 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 5:15 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. sarahprocter... Dear Tep (Alex & all), --- On Sat, 4/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: >...perhaps, meanwhile Sarah or Alex or Han or Connie or Rinze might be interested in discussing the main issue (whether or not consciousness is a 'nama') with me. ... S: Yes, all cittas and cetasikas are namas. However, as we've been indicating repeatedly, in the context of D.O., nama refers to cetasikas only (arising with vipaka cittas). ... >>N: Vis. XVII has given many details. I can quote parts: Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. >T: Doesn't consciousness bend on (to cognize) an object too? ... S: Yes, it does, but as it has already its place as vinnana in D.O., it's not included in nama here. ... T: >The above quote Vis.187:1 is confusing to me since Ven. Buddhaghosa defines 'mind' as feeling + perception + formations, but in paragraph 82 of chapter XIV (PTS Publication) he states that 'mind' or 'consciousness' or 'citta' are all equivalent. ... S: I think you'll find the 'mind' in the first example, referring to the 3 khandhas, is the nama in D.O. The 'mind' in the second example is a translation of mano which refers to the same as vinnana or citta. So they are not the same. ... T: >'And what has the characteristic of cognizing(vijaanana )? Consciousness( vi~n~naana) ; according as it is said, 'It cognizes, friend, that is why "consciousness" is said' (M.i.292). After the sutta quote Ven. Buddhaghosa added, "The word vi~n~naana(consciou sness), citta(mind, consciousness) , and mano(mind) are one in meaning". ... S: Exactly! ... >T: Essentially, the venerable deviated from his own definition in Vis. 187:1. ... S: No, I don't think so. The confusion is just in the translation use of 'mind' in both cases. We can't blame Buddhaghosa for that! ... T:> Now, in SN 12.2 'nama' is defined by the five cetasikas 'feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention', while 'rupa' consists of 'four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements'. ... S: Here, the nama is the nama of D.O. referring to the 3 khandhas of cetasikas - vedana khandha, sanna khandha and sankhara khandha. The last 3 cetasikas mentioned are often used as 'representative' of sankhara khandha as they are universal mental factors arising with all cittas, including the vipaka cittas of seeing, hearing and so on. ... T:> As explained in SN 12.61 (Assutava Sutta) 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness are the same. Based on these two suttas, I understand that mind (mano or vi~n~naana) is not a 'nama' that is defined by the five cetasikas. ... S: It is nama, but not included in the nama in D.O. conditioned by vinnana, because it is vinnana as you point out above. ... T:> Importantly, I understand that 'mind' is separate from nama-rupa and this fact agrees with the D.O. since nama-rupa is one link of D.O. and consciousness is another link. ... S: Exactly! ............ ......... ......... .. T:> Why isn't the sutta definition in SN 12.2 easy to understand? ... S: I hope it's clear now. Thank you for pursuing this important point and helping us to consider it further, Tep. Metta, Sarah p.s I've just spoken briefly to Jon who has just arrived in Fiji for work after an exhausting 24 hr trip on 3 flights! (I think his reply to Alex must have been from an airport en route). Anyway, I just mention it in case anyone is waiting for a coherent reply from him on anything:-). ======== #90981 From: "colette" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 5:03 am Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? ksheri3 Hi Tep, Faith? You? MmmmmmY, aren't we brash? > The "weapon" is solid and effective, Colette. Eventhough I never heard > the Buddha's words and am unable to "prove" them in a testimony, I > have an incredible faith in the suttas. Why? It's because I have > practiced according to the Dhamma to some extent and have experienced > the fourth noble Truths enough to become more and more convinced that > the four Noble Truths are 'to be seen here & now, timeless, ... > pertinent, to be seen by the wise for themselves'. > ....................... colette: it's so easy to dismiss phrases like "I never heard the Buddha" or "unable to prove" but then turn around and raise the standard of "incredible faith". Come now, why is a piece of paper from the same tree worth more or less money depending on the nationality printing it i.e. the dollar, the pound, the Franc, the duetchmark, the yen, etc? Aren't those "faith based" realities? <...> toodles, colette #90982 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Illusory I-dentification! upasaka_howard Dear Bhante (Bhikkhu Samahita) - In a message dated 10/4/2008 2:52:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bhikkhu0@... writes: Friends: The 20 Kinds of False 'Self'-Projection: ============================ Thank you for this comprehensive presentation and analysis. It is very clear, Sir, and it has the great advantage over most such analyses of explaining what was traditionally meant by the personal self and then showing why none of the views on self hold up. With metta and appreciation, Howard /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #90983 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 2:17 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Tep & Alex) - In a message dated 10/4/2008 8:15:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Tep (Alex & all), --- On Sat, 4/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: >...perhaps, meanwhile Sarah or Alex or Han or Connie or Rinze might be interested in discussing the main issue (whether or not consciousness is a 'nama') with me. ... S: Yes, all cittas and cetasikas are namas. However, as we've been indicating repeatedly, in the context of D.O., nama refers to cetasikas only (arising with vipaka cittas). ... >>N: Vis. XVII has given many details. I can quote parts: Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. >T: Doesn't consciousness bend on (to cognize) an object too? ... S: Yes, it does, but as it has already its place as vinnana in D.O., it's not included in nama here. ============================== If I may interject a thought on this: In a couple suttas pertaining to dependent origination, the Buddha zeroes in on the mutual dependency between vi~n~nana and namarupa, with namarupa in that context, as I understand the matter, constituting the field of objects for vi~n~nana. Now, vi~n~nana never takes vi~n~nana directlly as object. A citta never takes itself as object, and for it to take as object previous states of knowing it only does so by recollection, in which case what it is directly knowing is not actually citta, but cetasika, specifically a memory construction (or, better said, *constructing*) that is often quite faithful. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #90984 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 2:27 am Subject: TYPO Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Tep & Alex) - Please replace on the second line of the following "what it is directly knowing" by "what it is directly known": With metta, Howard #90985 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 7:54 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. visitorfromt... Dear Sarah (Alex, Howard, Han, and others), - I appeciate your dutiful reply; a good moderator should never ignore any posted message. S: Yes, all cittas and cetasikas are namas. However, as we've been indicating repeatedly, in the context of D.O., nama refers to cetasikas only (arising with vipaka cittas). T: Possibly what you have repeatedly commented/explained/theorized has not been convincing (yet). May never be. Repetitions of right view always turn out right ; many repetitions of a wrong view do not make it right. ....................... >>N: Vis. XVII has given many details. I can quote parts: Text Vis.187: 1. 'By analysis of mind and matter': here 'mind' (naama--mentality) is the three aggregates, that is, feeling, perception, and formations, because of their bending (namana) on to the object. >T: Doesn't consciousness bend on (to cognize) an object too? ... S: Yes, it does, but as it has already its place as vinnana in D.O., it's not included in nama here. ... T: The more important point to consider is: Does it make sense that "vinnana in D.O." is different from SN 12.2 ? Did the Buddha teach ambiguous Dhamma? My careful study of the suttas shows that the Buddha was very consistent and clear. There are no double meanings (ambiguity) in the Buddha's words in the major suttas. [If you think there is, it is your misunderstanding of the Buddha and of the Dhamma.] Any attempt to "explain away" the Greatest Sage's Teachings in order to accommodate a different viewpoint is disrespectful. Alex has also made this point clear. ...................... T: >The above quote Vis. XVII,187:1 is confusing to me since Ven. Buddhaghosa defines 'mind' as feeling + perception + formations, but in paragraph 82 of chapter XIV (PTS Publication) he states that 'mind' or 'consciousness' or 'citta' are all equivalent. ... S: I think you'll find the 'mind' in the first example, referring to the 3 khandhas, is the nama in D.O. The 'mind' in the second example is a translation of mano which refers to the same as vinnana or citta. So they are not the same. ... T: I was polite when I said earlier that Vism XVII, 187 was "confusing". To say it bluntly, this Vism quote is wrong because it gives two conflicting meanings to the term 'mind' that was defined by the Buddha as consciousness (mano or citta or vinnana). 'Mind' cannot be both cetasikas (feeling + perception + formations) AND consciousness. Because that is ambiguity. ....................... T: >'And what has the characteristic of cognizing(vijaanana)? Consciousness( vi~n~naana) ; according as it is said, 'It cognizes, friend, that is why "consciousness" is said' (M.i.292). After the sutta quote Ven. Buddhaghosa added, "The word vi~n~naana(consciou sness), citta(mind, consciousness) , and mano(mind) are one in meaning". ... S: Exactly! ... >T: Essentially, the venerable deviated from his own definition in Vis.XVII,187:1. ... S: No, I don't think so. The confusion is just in the translation use of 'mind' in both cases. We can't blame Buddhaghosa for that! ... T: What do you suggest as a better translation ? ...................... T:> Now, in SN 12.2 'nama' is defined by the five cetasikas 'feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention', while 'rupa' consists of 'four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements'. ... S: Here, the nama is the nama of D.O. referring to the 3 khandhas of cetasikas - vedana khandha, sanna khandha and sankhara khandha. The last 3 cetasikas mentioned are often used as 'representative' of sankhara khandha as they are universal mental factors arising with all cittas, including the vipaka cittas of seeing, hearing and so on. ... T: What you've said is essentially that SN 12.2 is wrong or inadequate or not clear so that you have to use your wisdom to explain what the Buddha said inadequately. SN 12.2 does NOT define nama as the three aggregates that consist of 72 cetasikas, Sarah. Only five cetasikas, not three nama-khandhas of 72 cetasikas, define 'nama' in SN 12.2. Again, you are trying to explain away a clear and well-spoken Buddha's definition. Soon Buddhists of a new generation will not know the original words of the Blessed One. "From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering... "And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling. "And what is contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect- contact. This is called contact. "And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye- medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body- medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media. "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. "And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue- consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness. "And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications. "And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance." — SN 12.2 ...................... T:> As explained in SN 12.61 (Assutava Sutta) 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness are the same. Based on these two suttas, I understand that mind (mano or vi~n~naana) is not a 'nama' that is defined by the five cetasikas. ... S: It is nama, but not included in the nama in D.O. conditioned by vinnana, because it is vinnana as you point out above. ... T: What you've said is essentially that SN 12.61 is wrong or inadequate or not clear. Again, you are trying to explain away a clear and well-spoken Buddha's definition. Soon Buddhists of a new generation will not know the original words of the Blessed One. ........................ T:> Importantly, I understand that 'mind' is separate from nama-rupa and this fact agrees with the D.O. since nama-rupa is one link of D.O. and consciousness is another link. ... S: Exactly! T: Bingo ! Now go back to re-read the above dialogue and find out where the not-exactly is. ............ ......... ......... .. T:> Why isn't the sutta definition in SN 12.2 easy to understand? ... S: I hope it's clear now. T: SN 12.2 has been clear to me from the beginning. I do not know about you. Thank you for being such a good moderator who takes time to respond to everyone. Tep === #90987 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 9:16 am Subject: TYPO Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. visitorfromt... Dear Howard, - There are two issues in your message. ............................. >>T: Doesn't consciousness bend on (to cognize) an object too? ... >S: Yes, it does, but as it has already its place as vinnana in D.O., it's not included in nama here. ============================== Howard: If I may interject a thought on this: In a couple suttas pertaining to dependent origination, the Buddha zeroes in on the mutual dependency between vi~n~nana and namarupa, with namarupa in that context, as I understand the matter, constituting the field of objects for vi~n~nana. T: The precise mutual dependency between vi~n~nana and namarupa is seen in their forward and backward recursion: "Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness." [MN 109] "From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form." [SN 12.2] "From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-&- form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-&-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-&-form. DN 15. ........................ Howard: Now, vi~n~nana never takes vi~n~nana directlly as object. A citta never takes itself as object, and for it to take as object previous states of knowing it only does so by recollection, in which case what it is what it is directly known is not actually citta, but cetasika, specifically a memory construction (or, better said, *constructing*) that is often quite faithful. T: What is directly known is actually citta (consciousness), nama- rupa and citta-sankhara; otherwise, origination and dissolution of citta, nama-rupa and citta-sankhara cannot be contemplated. See Ptsm, I, 296 below for the case of citta taking citta as an object. "Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?" [SN 22.95] Patisambhidamagga, I, 296 : Cognizance(citta) with materiality as its object arises and dissolves. Having reflected on that, he contemplates the dissolution of that cognizance. 'He contemplates': how does he contemplate? He contemplates as impermanent, not as permanent; he contemplates as painful, not as pleasant; he contemplates as not self, not as self; he becomes dispassionate, he does not delight; he causes greed to fade away, he does not inflame it; he causes cessation, not arising; he relinquishes, he does not grasp. When he contemplates as impermanent he abandons perception of permanence; When he contemplates as painful he abandons perception of pleasure; When he contemplates as not self he abandons perception of self; when he becomes dispassionate he abandons delight; when his greed fades away he abandons greed; when he causes cessation he abandons arising; when he relinquishes he abandons grasping. ... ... [repeat for feeling, perception and formations as citta's object] Cognizance with consciousness as its object arises and dissolves. [complete as above] ... when he relinquishes he abandons grasping. .............................. Please note that I am not an expert who invents new terms and new concepts for the New Buddhism of the 21st Century; I only quote the Buddha's Dhamma. Tep === #90988 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 5:33 am Subject: Lay People teaching vs Monk Teaching TGrand458@... Hi Sukin, All There has been some question as to whether the Buddha taught differently to lay people than to monks. I don't have the Sutta in front of me, but can remember the one where one of the chief lay supporters/followers of the Buddha -- Anathapindika -- was on his death bed and Sariputta was giving him a Dhamma talk. This talk went into higher levels of Dhamma talk than Anathapindika had EVER heard before. He cried and told Sariputta that THIS type of teaching should be given to lay people. So here we have a life-long supporter of the Buddha, one of the closest lay persons to the Buddha as recounted in the Suttas, and yet totally unfamiliar with the higher teaching!!!! If any "regular" lay person were to have had opportunity to be exposed to the higher teaching, it would have been Anathapindika...and yet he wasn't. This in no way means the Buddha taught a "different dhamma" to lay people. He just taught it at a different level. A level that would allow them to improve spiritually, at a more modest level than a monk would be expected to, while still allowing them to pursue their busy family oriented material lives. Its just common sense. I rest my case. TG #90989 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: TYPO Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - <...> Please note that I am not an expert who invents new terms and new concepts for the New Buddhism of the 21st Century; I only quote the Buddha's Dhamma. ============================ But there is also the matter of how to understand that Dhamma. We each need to attempt that - it isn't given gratis. Now, to directly know (not by recollection) what no longer exists is impossible. The Sarvastivadins didn't like that fact, so they proposed dhammas continuing from past, through present, into the future, making them substantialists and (modified) eternalists. But there was no need for that perversion of the Dhamnma. They simply needed to be willing to accept that what is gone is gone. With metta, Howard The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. the rubaiyat - omar khayyam - 11th century #90990 From: "Raymond Hendrickson" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 11:52 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Lay People teaching vs Monk Teaching bitakarma TG Says: > > There has been some question as to whether the Buddha taught differently to > lay people than to monks. > > > I don't have the Sutta in front of me, but can remember the one where one of > the chief lay supporters/followers of the Buddha -- Anathapindika -- was on > his death bed and Sariputta was giving him a Dhamma talk. This talk went > into higher levels of Dhamma talk than Anathapindika had EVER heard before. He > cried and told Sariputta that THIS type of teaching should be given to lay > people. > Ray: I think there are three major areas of different emphasis between teachings for the laity and the ordained. First as TG says above, there is much more emphasis placed on "higher levels" of Dhamma teachings, like DO. Second, the goal of practice for the ordained is often stated as full release, for the laity practice for full release is not emphasized, instead things like Stream Entry and fortunate rebirth are mentioned. Lastly sila for the ordained relate to the Vinaya, for the laity it is the precepts. Here are two Suttas that shows these distinctions..... In the Sakka Sutta (AN 10:46) the Buddha talks about practice as revolving around "eight-factored uposatha." The results of this practice is said to result in..... "And he would be a once-returner, a non-returner, or at the very least a stream-winner." Notice that full release is not mentioned. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.046.than.html Compare that to the Dasadhamma Sutta (AN 10.48), where the Buddha says that a monks should reflect on.... ""'Have I gained superhuman faculties? Have I gained that higher wisdom so that when I am questioned (on this point) by fellow-monks at the last moment (when death is approaching) I will have no occasion to be depressed and downcast?' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth." Ray #90991 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 11:45 am Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? visitorfromt... Hi Colette, - Always burning with energy, eh? > "colette" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > A two dimensional world for a two dimensional existance, no? > > This is a Dhamma discussion, > > isn't it? > > > toodles, > colette > > What a strange question! It successfully caught my eye. If there is a two-dimensional world, then there also must be one- dimensional and zero-dimensional ones. I think ultimate realities are found in a zero-dimensional world. Which world are you living in, Colette? ;-) Tep === #90992 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: Lay People teaching vs Monk Teaching visitorfromt... Hi TG, (Sukin,Ken H) - You told Sukin : >TG: This in no way means the Buddha taught a "different dhamma" to >lay people. >He just taught it at a different level. A level that would allow >them to improve spiritually, at a more modest level than a monk >would be expected to, while still allowing them to pursue their >busy family oriented material lives. Its just common sense. > > I rest my case. > > > TG > > T: You presented a solid case. An obvious implication from hearing your case is that the 'anatta' & associated ultimate realities obviously are not at a "modest level" for lay people to understand here & now. Tep === #90993 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 12:46 pm Subject: Positive loop in DO truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, >---"visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Dear Alex: > > Thank you but ... > > sorry, it is not helpful. > > > Tep > === There is positive loops in DO. Ignorance conditions taints, which condition ignorance. So it is a self reinforcing (positive) loop. It is almost a closed circle with almost no way out (without guidance). Ignorance is the cause of more ignorance (and craving). No wonder it is so tough, almost impossible to figure out the way out of all suffering without the help of Buddha's teachings (found in vinaya & sutta pitaka). This is what I've meant in avijja <->avijjaasava (or just asava) Best wishes, #90994 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 12:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator Dear Jon and all, > "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > Well, simply put, jhana being conducive to enlightenment does not > amount to enlightenment being the result of jhana. Of course. But it is good to have all the help that you need. > There are lots of things that are conducive to enlightenment: > hearing the teachings, association with those who have good > understanding, reflection on what has been heard, observance of > sila, development of samatha, and so on. Some of these are given >in the texts as essentials, others are not. I agree about all of the things conducive to enlightment. I do disagree with your implications of redundancy of samadhi. It IS one of the factors of awakening. Are you so sure of yourself that you believe that you need less faculties for Arhatship? > But as I understand the teachings, its attainment is not a >prerequisite for the development of insight or of > enlightenment. For the highest sort of beings, and those who have perhaps developed Jhana in their previous lifetimes - a path moment of Jhana may be all that is needed. We live in a highly sensual age and place. We are exposed to much more sensuality than even the royalty in Buddha's time. We have much more hindrances to work with, and the Jhana helps to "burn" the hindrances off. > > After all, "Jhana is path to awakening" - MN36 > > I'm not familiar with this quote. Would you care to cite the >passage from which it is taken? > > Jon After austerities, Gotama realized that there is another way to get rid of sensuality. Rather than bodily austerity, why not try mental austerity instead? ""I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html so he ate his porridge, regained some strength and did Jhana. He got abhinnas and reached awakening from the 4th Jhana. Please no excuse of "That applies only to Buddha and his chief disciples". I don't believe in "exclusive path". There is just one N8P and the above sequence (get to the 4th Jhana, get abhinnas and become an Arahant) IS one of the most (if not the most) frequently mentioned path. Best wishes, #90995 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 1:05 pm Subject: Re: Lay People teaching vs Monk Teaching truth_aerator Dear TG, Sukin and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Sukin, All > > >There has been some question as to whether the Buddha taught >differently to lay people than to monks. > > > I don't have the Sutta in front of me, but can remember the one >where one of the chief lay supporters/followers of the Buddha -- >Anathapindika -- was on his death bed and Sariputta was giving him >a Dhamma talk. This talk went into higher levels of Dhamma talk >than Anathapindika had EVER heard before. He cried and told >Sariputta that THIS type of teaching should be >given to lay >people. > MN143: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html Find out the "monastic only" teaching. For us, educated folks, that teaching is "basic" (compared to what is taught here) - and yet people of those times were becoming ariyas without know that! Accumulations I guess... Best wishes, #90996 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 2:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator Part 2 > Dear Jon and all, > > > "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex > > Well, simply put, jhana being conducive to enlightenment does not > > amount to enlightenment being the result of jhana. > > Of course. But it is good to have all the help that you need. > > > > There are lots of things that are conducive to enlightenment: > > hearing the teachings, association with those who have good > > understanding, reflection on what has been heard, observance of > > sila, development of samatha, and so on. Some of these are given > >in the texts as essentials, others are not. > > I agree about all of the things conducive to enlightment. I do > disagree with your implications of redundancy of samadhi. It IS one > of the factors of awakening. Are you so sure of yourself that you > believe that you need less faculties for Arhatship? > Assisted by five factors, right view has awareness-release as its fruit & reward, and discernment-release as its fruit & reward. There is the case where right view is assisted by virtue, assisted by learning, assisted by discussion, assisted by tranquility, assisted by insight." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html Note: tranquility (includes jhana) is one of the factors. I ain't gonna argue with The One who claims to be so good, that some of these factors un-needed. Best wishes, #90997 From: "colette" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 10:33 am Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? ksheri3 Hi Tep, What does it take for you to NOT BELIEVE? I mean, c'mon, you place the Buddha's words that people you could not possibly have known nor know, in such a high position of DIS-BELIEF, the negative beliefs in your fellow sentient beings, that which you INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY NEGATE as a means of satiating your path, your course, etc. <...> toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Hello Colette, - > > Too bad you broke your "fuse" too soon. This is a Dhamma discussion, > isn't it? <...> #90998 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 6:37 pm Subject: Re: "The Doctrine of mental reservation"? visitorfromt... Dear Colette, - Thank you for presenting some thoughts ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > What does it take for you to NOT BELIEVE? > > I mean, c'mon, you place the Buddha's words that people you could not > possibly have known nor know, in such a high position of DIS-BELIEF, > the negative beliefs in your fellow sentient beings, that which you > INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY NEGATE as a means of satiating your > path, your course, etc. > > <...> ======================== but this time the message behind is too difficult for me to follow. Please simplify it for me. Thanks. Tep === #90999 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 9:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sukinderpal Hi TG, I owe a response to Tep’s post which I thought to do first, and to take my time in reading and then replying to this post of yours, but I just saw your other post in my mailbox which then made this one suddenly more urgent. ;-) =========== > I don't understand how you could conceive of the Buddha to have > taught a different Dhamma to `lay-folks'. > .......................................... > TG: I don't conceive in anyway whatsoever the Buddha taught a "different > dhamma" to lay folks. I DO conceive that he taught at a different level and > did not teach the most advanced aspects of his teaching to lay people, except > with rare exceptions. This is NOT ONLY my conception, it is spelled out as > such in the Suttas. Sukin: The difference between a lay-person’s life and that of the Bhikkhu was in my mind when I wrote the above. But I was hoping that you wouldn’t bring this up, because this wasn’t the issue. Of course there is a difference in objective in these two cases, one has the goal of attaining complete eradication of kilesas and in the meantime living as an Arahat does. For which purpose there are the Vinaya and Patimokkha rules for the one while only the five precepts for the other. Besides, I used “different ‘Dhamma’” to express my point here, and when it came to the difference between Abhidhamma and Suttas, I used “formulation” to make another point. What I had in mind was related to the contents of what you were discussing with Alex. In which case, I could have asked what I did this way: What is it TG, that you “know” as a layperson and which you are trying to convey to Alex and other layperson’s, that the Buddha would have judged as inappropriate to teach the layperson’s of his time? =========== > And I don't see how the > Abhidhamma could be considered an advanced teaching / formulation as > compared to that which is found in the Suttas. I think that you are > perhaps mistaken regarding what might be involved in the process of > coming to understand in experience, what is read or heard of the > Dhamma. And therefore I think that you are simply projecting such > misunderstanding on to the situation of the "lay-persons vs. more > advances students of Dhamma". > ....................................................... > TG: The "Abhidhamma reference" is a mystery to me as to where it is coming > from. Are you under the impression that I consider Abhidhamma to be a more > advanced teaching than the Suttas? Am I to receive the "Abhidhammika charge" > once again? (Papers flying off my desk) LOL I am a "Sutta Guy" if ever > there was one. LOL Let's move on... Sukin: OK, I should have remembered that. But still, what you were expressing since that was to some extent in agreement with the understanding I got from the Abhidhamma, in effect what is said is that this particular understanding is too advanced for some of the Buddha’s direct audience. =========== > My deficiencies in understanding Dhamma aside, I wholeheartedly back up any > statement I've ever made that indicates the Buddha taught differently to lay > people than monks...or...to the less advanced than to the more advanced. > This is not my view. Its is clearly denoted in the Suttas. Sukin: And you brought up the Sutta in which Anathapindika commented to Sariputta about the ‘deeper teachings’. I don’t recall the contents of the Sutta, but think that Anathapindika’s comment may have been more to do with the particular presentation rather than the message. Being already a Sotapanna, he would have understood DO to a good extent, though not much when compared to Sariputta. Perhaps what Sariputta said made things a little clearer, and this Anathapindika would have seen as being due to being given more details. And those details “worked” exactly because Anathapindika *understood* the dhammas as they are with Right View, including them being anicca, dukkha and anatta. For you and me on the other hand, if not Wrong View, the level of understanding would at best be only at the level of ‘thinking about’. In the end, it comes down to understanding the Four Noble Truths which Anathapindika knew without any room for doubt. His reaction to what Sariputta said should therefore not be interpreted as indicating that there was still some doubt with regard to the Path in his mind. ============ > As far as I can see, the Dhamma is the same in the beginning, middle > and end and this can be formulated as pariyatti, patipatti and > pativedha. These three agree exactly! For example the Dana taught by > the Buddha is that of the Middle Way. So is the Sila, is Sila of the > Middle Way, likewise every other teaching uttered by the Buddha. You > wouldn't suggest a Dhamma teaching which is slightly tilted would > you? > ................................................... > TG: Yes. Tilted toward the understanding level of the recipient. You can > EASILY dissect the Suttas and have them saying opposite things at various > times depending on the circumstances. At some times he teaches there IS A SELF. Sukin: That’s going too far, given that there are in fact only dhammas and any reference to ‘selves’ can easily be interpreted as being for the sake of communicating other ideas and *not* a statement about ‘self’ itself. And more importantly that ‘self view’ actually *hinders* any progress and should never be encouraged even for an instant. ============ TG: > The heart of his teaching is that there is NO SELF. Why the disparity??? > Because the recipients of the two different teachings were only able to > understand certain things and the teaching the Buddha taught, that most benefited > them AT THAT TIME, was something they could relate to. Sukin: I would think that if what the Buddha said was likely to condition seeing the value of other forms of kusala and danger of akusala but at the expense of then increasing ‘self view’, the Buddha would have deemed that person not fit to being given instructions at that particular time. ============ TG: > In reading the Suttas, one needs to use an appropriate sensibility to > realize why these differences arise. I have met many a person online who will > swear that the Buddha taught that there IS a self...merely based on one Sutta or > conventional language; while ignore the vast majority of the Canon in > deference to their view. So if the right sensibilities are not applied, the Suttas > can eat someone up. IMO, to keep it straight one needs to keep focused on > Dependent Arising...or as you state it below, the 'Middle Way.' Sukin: This is the issue. You see the apparent difference as indicating some ‘tilting’ even enough to suggest the encouragement of ‘self view’, while I see the realizing the danger of self view as being of prime importance. In which case, I interpret the messages as being encouragement of all levels of kusala, be this Dana, Sila and Samatha Bhavana but all of this in light of the teaching about Vipassana Bhavana, i.e. the Noble Eightfold Path. ============ > It is this Middle Way what counts and makes the Dhamma hard to see. > In this regard, a recluse during the Buddha's time who wished to join > the Order, he would have to face the same challenge of "seeing" as > does the lay person. Does the Jhana expert who has yet to hear the > Teachings for example, know Dana and Sila by way of the Middle Path? > I don't think so. On the other hand, a layperson who has been given > talk on Dana, he may come to not take Dana for `self' having in fact > understood the Buddha's intended message, don't you think? > ............................................................. > > TG: I don't really know what you want to say here. Seems to me the > discussion by the participants on "control" was a far more advanced exploration of > the Middle Way. Sukin: Not advanced at all in my books. ;-) Just a pariyatti understanding of the Middle Way. What I am trying to get across is that the Path starts with Right View. This is regardless of any tendency to and expressed kusala / akusala of the person involved. One may be very advanced in Jhana or one may be an alcoholic, both however must begin with Right Understanding of whatever the Buddha says. An alcoholic who hears the Dhamma about the danger of consuming alcohol and understands this with Right View, is at that instance on the Path and moving towards the goal when compared to a Jhana expert who continues to take kusala and akusala for ‘self’. The latter will be on track only after he has heard the Dhamma and understood it. ========== TG: > Maybe we just have a legitimate disagreement and you think the Buddha taught > the same things and the same way to lay folks that he did to monks. Are > there exceptions where the Buddha taught in more advanced ways to some > individual lay people? Yep. These folks were already advanced, had spent significant > portions of their lives in spiritual pursuits, and ready to receive higher > teachings. But generally lay folks would be much more like to receive talks > on morality...than on the principles of Dependent Arising. Way way way more > likely. :-) Sukin: Taking your own understandings into consideration, do you still think it more “advanced” to have an intellectual understanding about the details of DO? Would not “advanced” in fact imply the ability to insight the present moment and not have a wrong understanding about it? Metta, Sukin